The road less travelled

cheepskate_2

i have always advocated that people should work for their giro/benefits. . If the minimum wage is x then whatever they get is divided by this and that is how many hours they work/train.

This would solve this debate as they would be working for their wages/money like everybody else. Children would go into childcare .

It would give them a head start on gaining rightful employment as they would have up to date references.

I'm sure it could be worked out as there is so many parts of scoiety that needs help that dont have it at moment

Person_one

cheepskate wrote: »

i have always advocated that people should work for their giro/benefits. . If the minimum wage is x then whatever they get is divided by this and that is how many hours they work/train.

This would solve this debate as they would be working for their wages/money like everybody else. Children would go into childcare .

It would give them a head start on gaining rightful employment as they would have up to date references.

I'm sure it could be worked out as there is so many parts of scoiety that needs help that dont have it at moment

So, your solution to unemployment is...to give people jobs!

:rotfl::T

daviecol

clearingout wrote: »

We are all happy to nip into MacDonalds for a quick meal, but we are all equally happy to be scathing about the people serving us....

Speak for yourself, I would have no problem working for MacDonalds if I needed a job. I will do any honest work for anybody to pay my way.

My first real job was a drivers mate on a lorry for a builders merchant, I had to carry bags of plaster and cement across muddy building sites up to eyes in sh*t all day and there was no minimum wage then, you got what they gave you.

Some people just think they deserve an easy life, well in most cases an easy life takes a lot of hard work!

daviecol

cheepskate wrote: »

i have always advocated that people should work for their giro/benefits. . If the minimum wage is x then whatever they get is divided by this and that is how many hours they work/train.

This would solve this debate as they would be working for their wages/money like everybody else. Children would go into childcare .

It would give them a head start on gaining rightful employment as they would have up to date references.

I'm sure it could be worked out as there is so many parts of scoiety that needs help that dont have it at moment

I totally agree, litter picking and general community work should be carried out by groups of people claiming job seekers allowance.

It would give them a reason to get out of bed in the morning and it would cut down the government job seekers allowance hand outs because as we all know a certain % simply would stop claiming because it would be too much like having a job!

daviecol

kafkathecat wrote: »

Fbaby you still ignore the fact that there are not enough jobs. For what it is worth neither myself nor my immediate family have ever been on benefits but I have seen how that can change for anyone which is why I consider myself lucky.

Your right to be thankful you have not had to use the benefit system. When I got made redundant 3 years ago I was amazed to find that although I had paid over £100,000 in tax since leaving school I was only entitled to about £57 a week (I dont remember the exact figure but that's close enough). When I got made redundant again shortly after I didn't even bother going to claim it.

Lotus-eater

Person_one wrote: »

So, your solution to unemployment is...to give people jobs!

:rotfl::T

Well we already pay them, why not have them doing something for the community, instead of sitting at home and doing nothing?

I agree, if they had even a couple of days a week work doing something useful, it would weed out alot of the lifetime claimers.
Especially if you didn't get paid if you didn't turn up.

balletshoes

daviecol wrote: »

Your right to be thankful you have not had to use the benefit system. When I got made redundant 3 years ago I was amazed to find that although I had paid over £100,000 in tax since leaving school I was only entitled to about £57 a week (I dont remember the exact figure but that's close enough). When I got made redundant again shortly after I didn't even bother going to claim it.

but you know thats not what you pay your taxes for, right?
You pay national insurance contributions to get non-means tested benefits. If its means-tested, then its all your household income and savings which are looked at.

FBaby

kafkathecat wrote: »

Fbaby you still ignore the fact that there are not enough jobs. For what it is worth neither myself nor my immediate family have ever been on benefits but I have seen how that can change for anyone which is why I consider myself lucky.

There might not be enough jobs for everyone, but there are enough for anyone to apply for. Believing that your chances of getting a job is low shouldn't be a good enough reason not to bother to look or apply.

I too know people on benefits who genuinely wished they were working, one can trully not work through ill health, and the other has had a hard time in the past few years, but still has managed to find work, unfortunately, she has been made redundant twice now. It is tough, but again, that means people should try even harder, not give up.

clearingout

cheepskate wrote: »

clearingout wrote: »

because when you sit in a classroom, and the teachers tell you that you're never going to amount to anything, and no one mentions university to you but does mention MacDonalds, and your parents are in low paid jobs or have been in and out of work, and people generally are rude to you about your parents not having done anything with their lives, and you listen to what is said around you about low paid work and you realise just how little any contribution you might make to society will be valued...when you look in an estate agent's window and it costs £1000 a month to rent a small house and you realise on a MacDondald's wage, you'll never afford that...when you take a part-time job and suddenly realise that the trainers on your feet cost around 3 days of work to buy....you either take the easy option and become a mum or you stick two fingers up and work your backside off to get somewhere. Unfortunately, at 16, where your peers are more important to you than anything else, pregnancy is very much a viable option and gains you some respectability. As a mum you are someone, rather than no one. (QUOTE)



So we really empowrer these 16 year olds to become single parent by giving them such benefits.

This is the problem, when anybody dares critizises non working single parents all hell breaks out. Society (parts of) really see no wrong in people having child after child without being able to support them.

Really don't see why non working parent/s need to have more children while they are not supporting them.

I also don't see why when a single parent only needs to work 16 hours, considering their child will be at school all day.

at no point did I suggest that girls are getting pregnant for benefits. I suggested that it's about social status, about 'being someone' as opposed to no one. I don't think it's OK to have a number of children you can't support through work, but I accept it happens and that being negative and derogatory about young, single mums or just single mums or people in lower paid work is not incentive to them to make a more positive contribution to society.

As for only needing to work for 16 hours, it's a contentious issue. I now work full-time but it is not something that I am comfortable with for my children. They no longer have a representative at school events etc. which isn't very fair. However, I accept that's part and parcel of single parenting and I have to live with it, as do they. As I said earlier, that wasn't my choice and it is very difficult to live with the impact it has had on them.

Fbaby and I have had this discussion before, I think! For a good number of single parents to work full-time, there needs to be available all hours, affordable childcare, an understanding employer prepared to deal with emergencies as and when they arise without giving leave to disciplinary action or other threats, and more often than not, family support. Without this, full-time work for lone parents can be very, very difficult (although I admit, not impossible). That's not to say some don't overcome the odds, I agree, but it's often about being lucky or in the right place at the right time. If you have three or more children and are on minimum wage, full-time work barely pays. I can personally understand why some would bow out and focus on their children. And you can scream at me that I shouldn't have children if I can't afford them till the cows come home - would you prefer I now put them up for adoption because their father left me?

FBaby

I agree with you clearout that if you are going to have three children + and have limited education/work experience, you are going to struggle to make ends meet working if you suddenly find yourself single. What I don't understand is how people don't seem to prepare themselves for possible hardship. People buy a house, but don't take mortgage protection, they built up debts, thinking that as they work, they are ok, but take on critical illness cover, they have many children, knowing that they wouldn't be able to support them if they became a single parent, but do nothing to put money aside whilst married, go back to get an education, or do some part-time work to at least build their CV for the just in case. I think people forget to take preventive steps because they expect the States to look after them if things go wrong. They prefer to have the easiest life they can get in the present than to protect their future.

Of course you can't prevent or predict everything, but surely it is also each individual responsibility to do what they can to protect themseves. All decent size businesses are now expected to have business continuity plans in place, yet as individuals, we are much less concerned.

I know what you mean clearingout about not being there for your children's plays etc... When I took on my current job, I did it mainly on the basis that it was local. I had to travel 1 1/4 hour every mornings and evenings with my 1 year old to go to my job (and a local nursery as none opened early enough in my town) for 3 years and all this time I checked the newspapers and website every week and waited for a local job. When it did, I gave everything to get it and I did. I was over the moon, but times are hard, and 2 years ago, we relocated 1/2 hour away. Still, that wasn't too bad, but sure enough, last March, we relocated once again, and this time, it is an hour's travel at best. It means that I drop my boy at breakfast club at 7:15 every morning. He doesn't moan, he's accepted that this is the price to pay for other things he gets to enjoy. He's started a new school this year, new friends etc... and whereas I was able to attend his sister's plays etc... at the same age, I can't go to his. Again, he accepts it and I make it up in other ways. I'm not allowed to work from home any longer, can't take my holidays when I want, things have changed massively since we've had a new director who doesn't have children herself and has made it very clear that she has no sympathy for those who do. It is added stress, that I could certainly do without, but it is just how it is.