The jobless are no shirking scroungers – you try living on £65.45 a week

catmiaow

silvercar wrote: »

I'm sure that it is as difficult to live on benefit levels with kids than it is without. Anyone that claims that the extra benefit they would get for having kids would outweigh the costs of keeping the kids probably hasn't had kids.

Anyone that didn't feed their children in order to pay for fags and booze would end up investigated by social services and risk losing those kids.

The people that I have known that have kids and do not work, seem to be better off than those that work. My ex friend said her kids would eat what she ate and she got hand me downs so never had to buy clothes. Sure it is not like that for everyone but there are some people who are like that.

moggylover

lostinrates wrote: »

or ...............serious thanks/post count.

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

PasturesNew

There isn't any free/cheap travel where I am for the unemployed and even the free library Internet is limited. I know it was left to individual councils what to do about access when libraries first started having the Internet and my local one didn't give any free time. Now, I think, you get half an hour free, on one of five PCs (it used to be just two) .... so have to time it well, or wait. Also, libraries aren't open all the time/every day, mine is open 4.5 days/week and no evenings. The next nearest is 20 miles away. As it's a tourist/backpacker town too, the service can get over-run with non-locals checking their emails while they're on holiday.

The next thing after applying for jobs is having to keep checking your email to see if there's any response as sometimes people contact you by email and ask you to call them etc.

Library Internet is therefore unreliable in many areas.

lostinrates

PasturesNew wrote: »

There isn't any free/cheap travel where I am for the unemployed and even the free library Internet is limited. I know it was left to individual councils what to do about access when libraries first started having the Internet and my local one didn't give any free time. Now, I think, you get half an hour free, on one of five PCs (it used to be just two) .... so have to time it well, or wait. Also, libraries aren't open all the time/every day, mine is open 4.5 days/week and no evenings. The next nearest is 20 miles away. As it's a tourist/backpacker town too, the service can get over-run with non-locals checking their emails while they're on holiday.

The next thing after applying for jobs is having to keep checking your email to see if there's any response as sometimes people contact you by email and ask you to call them etc.

Library Internet is therefore unreliable in many areas.

I think something worth raising is that what is economical to provide in an urban environment with available jobs might not be as sensible to provide in areas like yours/mine PN. Perhaps this is part of the problem with being ''fair''. It seems sensible tome, for example, that in areas like Bitter and Twisted is in (it says N. London) there is somewhere going to be a commutable job...and enabling someone in that area to get some employment is going to be more feasible...facilities for internet access and transport already existing. While it might be unfair for people living in areas like ours it seems fairer for the country/tax payer.

Good luck BitterandTwisted: it must be very hard to fight despondency when you reach the point of selling stuff off. I really hope your luck changes very, very soon.

JasonLVC

silvercar wrote: »

Anyone that didn't feed their children in order to pay for fags and booze would end up investigated by social services and risk losing those kids.

Is there a correlation between the increasing number of obese children and the parents of those children being on benefits? - Genuine question, I've no idea to the answer but I think it may illuminate the subject somewhat.

(ie, is it mostly rich kids or poor kids who are obese and if it is mainly poorer kids, how many of those poorer kids have parents who work? - so could we conclude poorer kids get fed cheap Iceland tat and if so why?)

As an aside, I doubt Social Services would remove kids simply becuase you don't spend the child allowance on them, the recent scandals in the newspapers suggests you have to actually kill the kids before social services "get involved". (slight exageration for effect!)

pingu2209

robin_banks wrote: »

Tbf most jobs go to people already in employment, but she's an oxford graduate and I'm struggling to understand how she can have out of work for so long.

Because she has been brainwashed that she is the elite of our society and has the 'right' to a top job earning at least £25k starter salary with the career path in 5 years to be earning tripple that.

This is the problem all round. There are loads of jobs out there that are minimum wage with very little chance to earn any more. Working in a factory, cleaning, shop work etc. They are all minimum wage and if you work hard you can earn 50p and hour more than minimum wage.

You don't need to be a graduate to work out that a job like that will never enable you to pay commercial rent, let alone own your own home. If you are 21 and want to go on holiday, own a car and have your own home, you wait and wait till a job with prospects comes along.

The problem is, there are far more graduates than there are jobs with prospects!

lostinrates

pingu2209 wrote: »

Because she has been brainwashed that she is the elite of our society and has the 'right' to a top job earning at least £25k starter salary with the career path in 5 years to be earning tripple that.

when dh was toying with career change he went back to the oxford careers service, something he hadn't used before and had some frank talks with them about post Oxford employment. Back at ''boom'' it wasn't what one would have hoped: of course ''employed'' figured don't always show where people ended up. There are a surprising number of our ''elite'' waiting tables. The other common alternative of academia is always not so well paid.

Of course...its easier to go along with an Oxbridge=Bullingdon=toff=arrogant stereotype.

Pennywise

pingu2209 wrote: »

Because she has been brainwashed that she is the elite of our society and has the 'right' to a top job earning at least £25k starter salary with the career path in 5 years to be earning tripple that.

This is the problem all round. There are loads of jobs out there that are minimum wage with very little chance to earn any more. Working in a factory, cleaning, shop work etc. They are all minimum wage and if you work hard you can earn 50p and hour more than minimum wage.

You don't need to be a graduate to work out that a job like that will never enable you to pay commercial rent, let alone own your own home. If you are 21 and want to go on holiday, own a car and have your own home, you wait and wait till a job with prospects comes along.

The problem is, there are far more graduates than there are jobs with prospects!

But there's nothing to stop them accepting a low paid menial job in the mean time whilst continuing to look for something better is there? Their CV would be a lot more impressive if they proved themselves capable of performing in a working environment. I know that when I've been looking at CVs, I've certainly tended to favour those who have some form of employment history, however irrelevant to the job opportunity, over those who appear to have done nothing in the way of a decent day's work.

But, perhaps that's because of the way I scaled the greasy pole - I started at the bottom, filing and brewing up, and worked my way up through hard work and determination and am now a chartered accountant running my own practice. If I'd waited for a "decent" job, I don't think I'd be where I am today as so few jobs every came up to match my qualifications etc at that time.

I remember vividly one of the best staff I ever took on many years ago. She was working in the local pie shop, no qualifications to her name at all, but I went in most lunchtimes for my sandwich and I was impressed that she worked so hard, she was so friendly with everyone, seemed to make a real effort even though she'd have been paid a pittance. I had a job available and was, to be blunt, pee-d off looking at dozens of cvs from people with qualifications but no obvious work ethic - I half-joked that I had a job for her to "take her away from it all". She showed interest, so we had a formal interview and I took her on as an office "dogsbody" - within a couple of years she was running my office, still no qualifications, but she was so quick on the uptake, she could do the job standing on her head. It was a very sad day when she left as she had to leave the area, but I know she got another similar job.

Too many people don't realise that you have to speculate to accumulate and are far too short-sighted. Taking on a poorly paid job isn't a job for life - it's an opportunity to show your potential and work ethic to current and future employers. How many business millionaires are graduates compared to how many started at the bottom earning poor wages - you'd be surprised how few graduates make it to the top in the business world.

ILW

pingu2209 wrote: »

Because she has been brainwashed that she is the elite of our society and has the 'right' to a top job earning at least £25k starter salary with the career path in 5 years to be earning tripple that.

This is the problem all round. There are loads of jobs out there that are minimum wage with very little chance to earn any more. Working in a factory, cleaning, shop work etc. They are all minimum wage and if you work hard you can earn 50p and hour more than minimum wage.

You don't need to be a graduate to work out that a job like that will never enable you to pay commercial rent, let alone own your own home. If you are 21 and want to go on holiday, own a car and have your own home, you wait and wait till a job with prospects comes along.

The problem is, there are far more graduates than there are jobs with prospects!

So these people who think it is OK to turn down menial jobs whilst waiting for the better job to come along, think it is fine to live off the taxes being paid by those doing the jobs that are not good enough for them. How very wrong.

Blacklight

People receiving benefits should be put to good use for their handout. Cleaning graffiti or something.

I can't see any reason that someone should sit around doing nothing at working people's expense.