The side-effect of public cuts...

The_White_Horse

marklv wrote: »

No, because a job is a job. It keeps a person off the streets, off the dole queue and doing something. You might question the value of such jobs, but they are still jobs.

if i am paying the salary i will question it.

i would rather pay someone 60 a week on the dole than 600 a week to do a non-job.

StevieJ

lvader wrote: »

I'm not sure how you could lose 2.3m jobs and 80bn of spending by making little over 6bn in cuts. The Government are looking to make cuts which equate to less than 0.5% of GDP. Lets not get carried away! They saved 10bn this month by not even trying.

Phew I didn't realise they were only going to make £6 million in cuts I thought they were looking to remove the structural deficit and as can be seen above £1 in public sector savings doesn't equal £1 in deficit reduction.

Turnbull2000

Spartacus_Mills wrote: »

That is very sad for all involved but for a company to be so dependant on one sector for its work is a reflection of poor management.

To be honest, the whole industry (architecture) has seemingly been dependant on state spending for at least several years now. I personally haven't seen a private project through since 2005. It's like they've been edged out by public projects. With BSF schools now on hold, I expect another round of redundancies at my own place this year or next.

Even if there is an eventual pick up in private projects, I can see our staffing requirements permanently dropping by a third, as more automated design software (Autodesk Revit) removes the need for CAD technicians.

Turnbull2000

ILW wrote: »

Another option may have been that all the staff agreed to take a 25% pay cut whilst looking for other contracts.

Before the axe fell, the current deal was a 5% pay cut then two year freeze. I believe a few have been offered part-time work as a compromise, so the final number may reduce.

Out of all my friends, I seem to have got off the lightest, with my pay frozen since 2008.

lvader

Turnbull2000 wrote: »

To be honest, the whole industry (architecture) has seemingly been dependant on state spending for at least several years now. I personally haven't seen a private project through since 2005. It's like they've been edged out by public projects. With BSF schools now on hold, I expect another round of redundancies at my own place this year or next.

Even if there is an eventual pick up in private projects, I can see our staffing requirements permanently dropping by a third, as more automated design software (Autodesk Revit) removes the need for CAD technicians.

So the huge increase in comercial real estate and buy to let flats we had between 2005 and 2008 didn't use architects?

ILW

lvader wrote: »

So the huge increase in comercial real estate and buy to let flats we had between 2005 and 2008 didn't use architects?

Not from the look of most of it.

ILW

The thing that confuses me about architecture ( especially in housing) is that it seems that most of the most desireable places are either Victorian and Edwardian town houses, or large 400 year old country cottages. The former which generally are very similar and the latter which were ususally just thown up as the mood and finances dictated. Do we need so many architects anyway?

dopester

michaels wrote: »

Yes - £65 per week for 26 weeks - don't spend it all at once.

However it would be an awful lot more if rather than living frugally and saving I had spent every penny on plasma tvs, cars and holidays. I am not claiming either lifestyle is better just noting that one results in eligibility for considerable state handouts and the other does not.

I thought the argument had been won about this. It is set at a low-amount to encourage people to get out and find work, or even to set up themselves. Also the UK can't afford to pay loads more, especially not to people with £100Ks+ of savings.

What were you expecting from the state? For decades it's been clear to all, who've cast an eye over it, the safety net of unemployment benefits won't pay your £600pw or anything like that - no matter how much in taxes you've paid on your income over the years. And yet from many articles it seems people are astonished at the minimum they are entitled to, and have barely disguised annoyance that they can't claim continuously if they have their own savings over a certain amount.

Do you get any redundancy? Did you have any private insurance against redundancy - in a way your savings are this, but you could have paid premiums for a specific policy.

If you long for these benefits so much, there is nothing to stop you lavishly spending your savings away, until you're not able to maintain your home and any repairs on it, have to sell house.. repeat, until eventually you can eventually qualify for housing benefit and all the other things some people think makes for such a cushy happy life.

The other effect on a minimal safety net is is to better allow market forces to do their thing. If JSA and other benefits were set at a level where the claimant didn't have to alter their lifestyle by much... they could keep their house and maintain a standard of living they think they are entitled to - instead of a healthy market requiring and resources be put for sale from those who can no longer afford to keep them. Enough people do this then prices will fall so that people like myself can buy at better value with their savings.

Minimal JSA level also allows resources to be returned to market from people who've been living the high life for years, and over-extended themselves. There are so many examples, of people in £500k+ houses, with 3 offplan apartments bought in Cape Verde. They've already spent up. Why should JSA come to the rescue to keep them in their over-extended positions?

Max_Headroom wrote: »

Meanwhile, Working Max, 25 years in employment and now out of work is hunting desperately for a job and receives £63 plus a bit toward council tax.

Not enough to even eat.

Fair? Forget fair, remotely reasonable even..?

Max, remember, has just bought a nippy car for the weekends to run about in, which he has to insure and tax and maintain, despite having a perfectly adequate company car. No doubt he'd be angry again at JSA levels and signing on, if he lost his current job.

I'd like a top of the range new car like my pal's just bought at near £50K, but by doing so I'd use up a load of my savings and put myself in a position where I'd risk going on benefits if my circumstances changed + big time depreciation and expensive running costs. Also I want to buy a house of course.

Decades of HPI, hundreds of thousands of pounds in savings, and still unhappy about not being able to claim a whacking amount of benefits because of job loss? Cmon.

Gwhiz

tomterm8 wrote: »

You can't have it both ways. You can't say you are going to match public spending, but you would have spent less. One or the other of the statements is a lie.

Conservative policy was to spend the same as Labour, right up until 2008.

Spending money is a completely arbitrary measure. It's about HOW and WHERE you spend that money and what the return is - i.e. INVESTMENT.

Labour have simply wasted £££££££ on nothing.

michaels

I've been a home owner since 2001 so no decades of HPI

Not been made redundant yet so no idea about redundancy

Agree with you re savings but I wouldn't say it was fair if the govt paid your council tax if you had bought said car but won't if you had saved the money instead. I made a mistake on unemployment insurance - had it for years until 3 years ago when unemployment seemed very unlikely and took my eye of the ball when not reinstating it earlier this year when the downturn became foreseeable - getting a pay rise in February rather lulled me in to a false sense of security.


Savings are because I live a very MSE lifestyle as I feel more comfortable with a savings cushion and also because I hope to have no mortgage when my children reach 18 so I can afford to send them to university. Problem with an mse lifestyle is that there is little left to cut back if your circumstances change.

Good news is that house was carefully chosen to be affordable with potential to extend if finances permitted. With 3 kids it would be nice to have 4 bedrooms (or even a spare room as well) but for the moment they can share.

Fortunately

dopester wrote: »

Do you get any redundancy? Did you have any private insurance against redundancy - in a way your savings are this, but you could have paid premiums for a specific policy.

If you long for these benefits so much, there is nothing to stop you lavishly spending your savings away, until you're not able to maintain your home and any repairs on it, have to sell house.. repeat, until eventually you can eventually qualify for housing benefit and all the other things some people think makes for such a cushy happy life.

Decades of HPI, hundreds of thousands of pounds in savings, and still unhappy about not being able to claim a whacking amount of benefits because of job loss? Cmon.

Not unhappy just still don't see why it is fair that I get no benefits if I save my spare income but lots if I had spent it all.