Old Ninja Turtle Pajamas

meager salary!


Prendo spunto dalla puntata di ieri sera (12/02/08) di "Porta a Porta", trasmessa su RAIUNO , per mettere nero su bianco il sentimento di stupore con retrogusto di indignazione che già altre volte in passato mi ha colto assistendo scene che, a mio giudizio, non possono essere altro che "sceneggiate".

Il fatto è che, da ché esistono i sindacati e i contratti nazionali, ogni stagione è buona per piangere sulla "magrezza" delle buste paga e per invocare aumenti salariali... ovviamente su queste rivendicazioni e su questo tipo di malessere c'è tutta una fetta politica e politicante che ci campa e che ha interesse ad enfatizzare la percezione del disagio sociale collegato alla questione salariale.
Infatti, in questo ambito la competizione politica si è svolta come una specie di corsa al rialzo nell'essere più bravi degli "altri" a manifestare maggior sentimento di compassionevole tristezza verso chiunque fosse ascrivibile alla categoria dei "lavoratori employees "(obviously for self-employed, artisans, traders, since it does not belong to that class, no compassion" regardless "), accompanying this sentiment to the highest possible contempt for the level of pay that," regardless " could not be called anything but "poor".
Apart from that? irrespective fact that there are several categories of "employees" such as judges and senior civil servants, who earn more than self-employed, craftsmen and merchants oltrettutto that, perhaps as a result of the market, unlike these workers, over time, instead di vedere aumentare i loro guadagni, li hanno visti via via diminuire; basti pensare ai calzolai, alle officine di riparazione delle biciclette, ai piccoli fruttivendoli... privi di qualunque garanzia retributiva ( mica possono rivolgersi ad un "tribunale del lavoro" se un cliente non torna più ad acquistare da loro o gli contesta il corrispettivo ) e in balia dell'evoluzione del mercato delle merci e dei servizi, e DELLE LEGGI(!).
Giusto ieri sera alla trasmissione "Ballarò" su RAITRE , l'on. Franceschini del neocostituito PD, non ha avuto nessuna remora nel prendere i "lavoratori autonomi" come esempio di "evasore fiscale" e contemporaneamente ribadire la assoluta innocenza fiscale " a prescindere "Of" employee "(the combination was made in an attempt to" equity of conviction "where the former are to blame for escape, the latter, if anything, to do their duty).
Apart from that? by the fact which is very easy and it is common experience to all encounter in public and private sector employees (the latter more so as they often have schedules that allow you to have a half day off) carrying out trade or consultancy or assistance "in house" and absolutely "black" (electricians, masons, plumbers, beauticians, but also teachers, nurses, technicians of the municipality or local agencies, Brigade Fire, Local Police ... etc, etc ... ), So with tax evasion total.

Returning to competition to see who is better at "pulling his clothes," speaking of "poor" salaries of employees, it must be said that, in fact, even if the stipend of parliament, enough to live alone in ten textile workers, is considered by some politician more than "just enough" to cover expenses, let alone how it should look in their eyes a wage which is a tenth of that to which they are accustomed.

But in addition to the "question of wages", since then the Italian State, coming into Europe, has begun to tighten the strings of bag and at the same time to "draw" as much liquid as possible from the pockets of Italians to meet the European commitment to "economic stability" (and thank goodness!), has begun to pay more and more copious tears also on the "front" of pensions. Just
to the 90 PDP, the Pensioners' Party ... as expected, also around the question "pension" has developed an entire political debate in which competition modeled on exactly what "protection of wages," the only difference being that "employees" has been replaced with "senior" and " wage / salary "with" retirement "... all obviously always in the 's' regardless .

Here, as in all competitions, although this has been reflected in the "risk dopping.
In fact, for obvious political convenience but also journalists (you know, the newspapers / journalists are always Search the news "sensational" or, failing that, that creates a sensation, or that stirs the soul, feelings, and tell you if a nice or a nice little family on the young who do not earn enough to maintain itself and his children or pensioner who does not get to the "fourth week", well ... maybe it touches people's hearts?), more and more cases have occurred "artificially inflated".

And here I return to puntata di ieri sera di Porta a Porta... un caso esemplare di dopping informativo o, se vogliamo di caso "artificialmente gonfiato".
Ma prima di dire chiaramente a cosa mi riferisco, voglio ricordare la puntata di "Forum", trasmessa l'altro ieri pomeriggio su Rete4 perchè, come direbbe un noto ministro dell'ultimo governo Prodi, "qui c'azzecca" e come che c'azzecca.

Si trattava di una causa in cui da una parte c'era un uomo che lavorava come muratore e guadagnava circa 1700Euro/mese, dall'altra la sua ex moglie che assieme ai loro tre figli viveva nella ex casa coniugale di proprietà del marito il quale era tenuto a versare alla moglie 1000Euro/mese per il mantenimento dei figli e della moglie.
L'ex moglie turned to the court because, for some months, her husband, having accidentally discovered that the woman had a small source of income (about 400-600 € / month) no longer corresponded to the entire amount due but only 700Euro (ie only area designed for the maintenance of children).
Well, here it is interesting to note that the studio audience and even the voters via the Internet have literally "cut off" the reasons ex-wife, on charges he was facing was that most of being insensitive to the economic difficulties of the husband (to whom initially remained 700Euro per month to maintain), and, considering the total income of "well" 1100-1300Euro/mese on which one could count, was not in condizioni "morali" di chiedere al marito di continuare a sacrificarsi come all'inizio visto che ( e qui sta il punto a cui volevo arrivare ), visto che 1200-1300E/mese sono sufficienti al mantenimento suo e dei tre figli piccoli ( senza affitto, nè mutui ).
La conduttrice, Rita Dalla Chiesa, legge pure una e-mail, ricevuta durante la trasmissione, dove una signora sosteneva che nella sua famiglia con un stipendio di 1000E/mese vivono in quattro! ( per cui biasimava la donna in causa perchè, con "soli" tre figli e "ben" 1200-1300Euro di reddito, poteva permettersi senz'altro di farseli bastare ).
La stessa Rita Dalla Chiesa, di norma sempre attenta a non sbilanciarsi troppo nel opinion, has come to describe as "indefensible" the ex-wife who continued to strongly denounce his "need" to continue to receive the full child support (1000E) because otherwise, in spite of all those who supported the contrary, "could not take it" to cover all expenses.

Here ...
puntanta arrival at Porta a Porta ...
's Cav. Labour Silvio Berlusconi in the studio ...
the conductor, Bruno Vespa, wants to introduce a question to his guest by means of a quick service ... interview ... demand, as you can imagine, will focus on the high cost of living and wages.
Start the service ...
a man and a woman, married, of middle-aged have ...
used Lei .. employed him ..
With a sad expression, sad and subdued tone of voice of a dejected person respond to the various questions asked by the interviewer.
What income do you have? She: 1500E - He: 1700.
Total: 3200Euro, every month, SAFE (!)
Many people in those conditions would have a smile from an ear to the other but our protagonists no, quite the contrary expression sad and subdued tone (not to talk about the tone of voice used in the interviewer asking questions, that typical tone of someone who has almost restraint in asking questions that are "suffering" because it forces the interviewee to tell his "drama" and the listener to have a share).
The interview continues:
... and we do it to make ends meet?
- Eehh (sigh) ... fatigue knows ... the home loan (new?), the payment for the car (new?), bills, children (age who live on their own) to help, taxes ... etc ... etc ...
As the testimonials of couples degraded by the difficult economic situation prevailing in, including the cost that meets mensimente, on the television screen is made to display the running total, a figure reaches the end of the interview ... guess what! ... 3100 !
Siiiii! incredible! later this month these spouses are unable to save more 100 Euro!
The service is then closed in a "play" with the picture of the booklet with photos of travel / holiday spent in the future, the couple can no longer afford.

At this point the question arises ...
but whether the former wife of the said episode of the Forum was criticized for having put many complained that his inability to meet monthly expenses with "only" 1300E a month and would have done or said guests Forum to study if they were in front of the couple "testimonial" Porta a Porta, which, with an income more than double that of women and only two children (age and independent), they arrive later this month spending nearly everything?


Then an account is appearing sad and discouraged because you can not have everything you want or keep everything that has been used so far, another thing is live with the anxiety of being unable to afford even the "strictly necessary".
By "necessary," I mean, obviously, the cheapest version possible of these "goods" means food, clothing (including second hand), shelter, services and hygiene products, heating, education, half of transport independent (also used).

And here at last posso spiegare l'indignazione a cui facevo riferimento all'inizio di questo mio post.

E' o non è indecente che, con tutte le famiglie Italiane che versano VERAMENTE in condizioni di incipiente indigenza, coppie e singoli che rischiano non potersi permettere nemmeno lo "stretto necessario", un servizio giornalistico importante come quello RAI prenda come esempio di "famiglia in difficoltà" una coppia di coniugi che DI FATTO gode di un buon reddito e il cui problema principale è, semmai, decidere su quali delle cose che desidera acquistare dovrà risparmiare?

E' o non è indecente che delle persone che avrebbero tutte le ragioni per ritenersi benestanti e, comunque, tutt'altro that at risk poverty, going on television to show their face sad, pensive and dejected? Why
one of two things: either they are really convinced that they are in economic difficulty, and then you'd better begin to look around, or make "the scene" for and on behalf of the journalist, and then that "scripted" shows be a deliberate insult to those who really are experiencing severe economic difficulties.

Here, even if I do not exclude the first hypothesis, bet on the latter.
But the amazing thing is that after the "witness" no one present to broadcast "news", much less the politician in office, has raised doubts sulla reale condizione dei coniugi presi ad esempio nel servizio.
Questo ha purtroppo un senso:
Al giornalista interessa il "pathos"; non importa come... purchè si "pianga".
L'importante non sono i contenuti... sono le facce tristi, i toni sommessi, i volti avviliti... semmai si preoccuperà, giusto per un minimo di coerenza sul tema, che la differenza tra entrate e uscite del "testimonial" sia vicino allo zero.
Al personaggio politico non importa "chi piange" e se "ha reale motivo a piangere", l'importante è far vedere che pure Lui, il politico, partecipa della sofferenza e "piange", meglio se dimostra di saper piangere anche più degli "altri" (politici).
Del resto "anche i ricchi piangono", e se un politico non dimostra solidarietà verso le "ansie" ( giuste o sbagliate che siano ) di quello che potrebbe essere un esempio di "Italiano medio" rischia di attirarsi le antipatie di quelli che in quell'esempio si riconoscono... insomma... "anche i ricchi... votano!"

La cosa potrebbe passare inosservata o forse anche risibile se non fosse che ha due effetti collaterali decisamente disdicevoli:
- Il primo di ordine morale: spendere tempo e informazione pubblica a parlare di "finta sofferenza" quando di vera ce n'è a palate è un insulto a chi la vera sofferenza la vive tutti i giorni sulla propria pelle.
- Il secondo di ordine sociologico: se si fa passare il messaggio mediatico che non c'è un limite di reddito al di sopra del quale è giusto e doveroso ritenersi benestanti, automaticamente si legittima CHIUNQUE a lamentarsi per le proprie "difficoltà economiche", indipendentemente dal fatto che queste siano REALI ( incapacità di procurarsi il minimo necessario ) o dovute al differenziale tra ciò che ci si può permettere e ciò che si desidera avere. In pratica si "promuove" il malcontento in ogni fascia sociale .

Come accennavo all'inizio di questo mio post, purtroppo mi è capitato già altre volte in passato di assistere ad altri casi "indecenti".
Più o meno agli inizi degli anni novanta ricordo chiaramente di aver visto un servizio giornalistico RAI in cui veniva intervistata una insegnante in pensione che, quando nel contempo la maggior parte dei pensionati raggiungeva a malapena il milione di Lire, dichiarava di percepire due milioni di Lire al mese e (udite, udite!) si lamentava con l'intervistatore delle sue difficoltà di "arrivare a fine mese".
Altro caso: sempre negli anni novanta mi è capitato di leggere un articolo sul giornale locale che riportava l'iniziativa di un gruppo consigliare di sinistra ( mi pare si trattasse proprio di Rifondazione Comunista ), di portare nella sala del Consiglio Comunale un "lavoratore dipendente" a testimioniare la difficoltà economica della classe sociale a cui apparteneva; ebbene tra le migliaia di workers in the municipal perceived just over one million lire, in a period in which a salary of two million was considered "lavish", those politicians have failed to submit to the City Council no less than a driver of the local transport company public, a para-state, with soft schedules, hyper-guaranteed rights and continuity in the work, moreover, at that time felt about ... 1,700,000 Lire per month! And pray, what would he complain?
And those members of the local political ... with that face-tough, I wonder, have argued the "serious" financial difficulties besetting their "testimonial"?

Here ...
I think at this point to have clarified and documented the source of "wonder with an aftertaste of indignation" of which I said in the first sentences of this post.

I do not think it will be difficult to agree with my point of view and, anyway, any comment is welcome.

The contradiction now is this:
discuss in public carrying of poverty and economic hardship as objectively as people "wealthy". (An insult to those who truly lives the poverty).

Greetings e. ..
good nonsense at all.

Lifetime Fitness Membership Costs

Mutual sure ... costs more!


This morning, the television channel RAIUNO, durante la trasmissione "UNOMATTINA", si parlava di mutui.
Ovviamente si sottolineava, con l'aiuto di varie tabelle, che con l'aumento delle rate dei mutui a tasso variabile, ci sono sempre più famiglie in difficoltà.
Allora la domanda "giornalistica" sorge spontanea:
Come mai, a partire dai primi anni 2000, così tante persone/famiglie hanno sottoscritto un mutuo a tasso variabile e non uno a tasso fisso?
La domanda non sarebbe nemmeno da porre visto che la risposta ovvia è: perchè le rate variabili costavano di meno di quelle fisse!.
Ma la gran parte dei "nostri", "nostrani" giornalisti, ben formati e conformati alla cultura di incontrovertibile matrice Cattolico-Social-Comunista (che è la cultura storica Italiana e pure quella "Politicamente Corretta" per eccellenza), sono sempre alla ricerca del "ricco" che opprime il "povero"... e certo indagando il rapporto tra banche e famiglie Italiane non c'è bisogno di far fumare il cervello per individuare chi è il "ricco" e chi il "povero".... fin troppo facile!
A questo punto, quindi, alla domanda indecente dalla ovvia risposta, si affianca l'idea di una indecente risposta che rende ovvia la domanda:
- Non'è che "per caso", siano state le banche a suggerire il tasso variabile? -
E di seguito...
- E perchè le banche suggerivano quello variabile quando ben avrebbero dovuto sapere che rates, and therefore the rate would be increased? -
And then ...
- not that, "by chance", the banks have more "interest" in mortgages with variable than with fixed ones? -
So, final question ...
- E 'or not (but of course it is!) The fault of banks (the rich and unscrupulous) where now there are people / families (poor and uneducated, but in good faith) that are no longer able to cope with the rate always heavier?

Guess what they say about the various guests of the show?
say that, in fact, banks have advised that one should not suggest, that the variable rate is better than the fixed one because it protects the increases rates, whereas today the Italians (obviously more aware of the "scam") sign in the ground fixed-rate mortgages ... so ...
VIEW CONFIRMED!

The variable rate was a "scam", the banks knew, but they have "pushed" to make money on the "poor, ignorant, needy and in good faith.

What a shame!

But, I say, is that perhaps this argument implies that the Italians signed an adjustable rate mortgage, as well as being ignorant and in good faith, are also lobotomized?
people who can not understand and therefore not even want to? (And why would they still have the right to vote and then drive the car if that is their condition? )

lobotomized Why? because it is' credible that an adult, able to read and write, immersed up to their necks in the enclosed mass in the information in real time at your "click" when subscribing to a loan equivalent to hundreds of millions of Lira, who was in debt for the next 15, 20, and that has definitely signed reams of "information sheets" containing the "causes of risk, which banks are obliged by law to deliver to the customer but the customer regularly DO NOT READ ... NO 'CREDIBLE, I said, this person was not aware of any loans fixed rate and the difference between these and the floating rate.

NOT 'credibility ...
unless ...
unless you assume that that person is really "stupid", that is seriously deficient in cognitive skills and understanding.

Incidentally, the variable rate is calculated by the banks based on a reference rate (often the Euribor) to which the bank adds its real gain ... the spread (which could also be less than 1%);
The fixed rate, however, is calculated based on forecasts of trends in variable rate over the period covered by the mortgage, so, especially if the forecast is upward, The fixed rate is NECESSARILY higher than the variable ... and is also the gain that the bank is seeking, since it bears the risk of having granted a fixed rate for the lowest rate of any effects that were to occur tomorrow.

From the standpoint of the bank's floating rate that is fixed as, an Italian who wanted to bring in their savings, the Bills are the actions, the first guaranteed but give little in time, the latter can give a lot .. . if the forecasts are hit!.

To summarize, five years ago, who wanted to sign a twenty-year mortgage, certainly knew of the existence of fixed-rate mortgages (unless, as I said above, was not "deficient") and certainly is will be made to more than one proposal for more than a bank, and undoubtedly will have realized that the payment rate of fixed rate mortgage was substantially higher than the floating rate.
So, I say, departing from the assumption that, yes him incapable of understanding and will exist, but most of those who enter into contracts are not and can not be ... is not that, "by chance" the Italians, at that time, they preferred the adjustable rate mortgage because "it is better to spend a little today ... tomorrow we'll see?" (And "I hope that I manage).

And after the arrival of the euro and the slowdown in the economy (if not stagnation in the Italian case) the future could easily be at the mezzanine ... but very, very slow.

And then, with the floating rate, the bank will earn the same spread ... if that spread was considered fair and acceptable five years ago, why now should no longer be?
He also has a bank or the right and duty to make money on the loan (mortgage) who gives?

Even if the mortgage is the axiom "Security costs ..." and his assumption "that cost ... and surely someone will pay.
security given by fixed rate mortgage has a cost ...
then, if the Italians who chose adjustable rate mortgage, they consciously chose not to pay, we must perforza search for a culprit?

The contradiction now is this: Will
saving rate variable and then complain of not having the safety of the fixed one.

Greetings e. ..
good nonsense at all.