7 million people face money woes(7 working million)

kabayiri

abaxas wrote: »

At that age, all generations have been the same.

Many a Western economy thrives on the characteristics of the modern consumer.

It's a bit churlish to court the consumer for decades with promises of easy credit and cheap goods from the East, only then to deride the consumer for giving in to temptation so easily!

StevieJ

paulmapp8306 wrote: »

Indeed. You only have to Go back to the 60s (which isnt that far back really). Outside toilets, tin baths, black/white TV if you were lucky. No fast food, no take aways - appart form a chippy/cafe once in every few months maybe, hand-me-down clothes, Maybe a night at the pub once a week if the money was left after housekeeping.

I bet the pubs had more throughput than now ( I am talking every night), in the 60's and before, becoming a landlord was like a license to print money, no fast food? what about The Wimpy bar and Lyons Tea Houses before that.

paulmapp8306

The Wimpy was after the 60s wasnt it? And the Tea houses were for the upper classes (they have always had access). im talking about the masses.

Ive no doubt the pubs did see more custom - but it wasnt (in general) every night - and if it was it was ONE pint - maybe TWO at a puch - not the 20 that seems to be consumed every Fri/Say night in this day and age. It was also uncommon for women to go to the pub as well - it was a male "after work wind-down" if anything.

suburbanwifey

FTBFun wrote: »

There are plenty of leisure activites that can be done for minimal or no cost. Libraries are free, for instance (and most are still open btw despite cost-cutting).

And I and probably many on here use all those facilities. Most of what I enjoy doing outdoors costs nothing, but I do appreciate the luxuries I can afford and would be loathe to live without them. This is advancement, technology and all down to advertising. If the Govt. think all these modern things are not essential to sustain our lives, why don't they ban advertising. Poor kids struggle enough with seeing on TV every day how the other half live, I think unfairness in division of wealth is the main problem. How about the footballers on 40K a week taking a pay cut rather than those working hard all week (real work) having to scrape by just to pay it all out in taxes and stealth taxes?

Yes, we could all manage on virtually nothing but rice, water and fresh air, but why would anyone want to work hard all week just for that? there has to be some benefit to working or those on benefits must be right to get it all for free no?

I may be what is wrong with modern society, but there are more me's out here than people like you. Its called capitalism, we work to gain, to get treats, luxuries, the iPhone's. That is what drives us. I see nothing wrong with wanting it all, TV advertising encourages that all the way in our modern world.

Ban television, then maybe we would all be happy to go back 50 years and all have nothing.

suburbanwifey

paulmapp8306 wrote: »

Nope - its about survival. That means food and shelter. That it. Everything else is expectation. We work primarily to meet those basic needs. Anything left over - do with what you want, but if there isnt anything left over - then their isnt. Just because you dont have those little luxuries, doesnt mean you will not survive.

paulmapp8306 wrote: »

Your completely missing the poing.

Life is susstaining your needs - that it. Thats all there is. The reason you'd get riots is because people have com eot EXPECT thes things - which are luxuries.

Get real - life is dreery. you work to susstain life NOT to life it to the full. Before the welfare state - if you didnt work to feed yoursself you died. Simple. Thats basic life.

I agree its not nice, and not what people WANT, but that doesnt mean its not what they NEED. Your attitude basically sums up whatw wrong with this country and its attitudes in general.

FW, Im currently not working and get no benefits bar Child Tax credits. im on less than min wage and I manage. Me and the wife havent been out of the house except when we worked, shop and take kids to school. We took the kids TVs/Games consoles away when I left work. My hobbies and the wifes (guitars for me - fish for her) are in storage as we cant afford thepower to run them.

Despite this I dont have a sense of Entitlement - and if/when I get a job Ill be glad. If I still dont get LUXURIES (yes they are - they are NOT essensials of modern living) then fine. Me the wife and the kids will survive.

There is a difference between surviving and having a life. All those out there who are just surviving, I don't believe for a second they are truly happy with their lot, they want more, its not called the human race for nothing. We are inherently competitive and programmed to strive for more.

paulmapp8306

I didnt say they dont want more. Of course they do. Im not saying their happy with their lives - there probably not, BUT that doesnt mean their entitled to anything different.

As for why would anyone work for the basics? because thats WHY you work - to susstain yourself. Again - thinking differently is part of the problem. Before the welfare stat if you didnt work where did your basics come from?

As for the footballer analogy - thats silly. i agree they are on obscene wages (and 3-4 times your example as well) BUT if they didnt earn that money, it wouldnt go to the state - it would stay in the hands of the owners. Actually the more they earn the better for the state due to income tax.

suburbanwifey

And don't forget the Govt. as it was back then encouraged debt to get better lives, more treats, stuff. People buying stuff meant shop tills were busy, the Govt. raked in taxes. As house prices rose and those that couldn't afford to buy bought, they got more taxes on each sale or purchase. As more cars were bought, more taxes, as more petrol consumed, more taxes. The Govt. like us spending, they encourage it, its how they make their living. This country would collapse if we all just survived on the basics and went on holiday once a year in a cheap tent. Hotels would close, pubs would close, shops would close (its happening already!) so does the Govt. really want us all going back to basics? It may be better for our health and our purses if we did so but our country would collapse. My iPhone contributes to the economy.

suburbanwifey

paulmapp8306 wrote: »

I didnt say they dont want more. Of course they do. Im not saying their happy with their lives - there probably not, BUT that doesnt mean their entitled to anything different.

As for why would anyone work for the basics? because thats WHY you work - to susstain yourself. Again - thinking differently is part of the problem. Before the welfare stat if you didnt work where did your basics come from?

As for the footballer analogy - thats silly. i agree they are on obscene wages (and 3-4 times your example as well) BUT if they didnt earn that money, it wouldnt go to the state - it would stay in the hands of the owners. Actually the more they earn the better for the state due to income tax.

No, I don't agree, I don't work to sustain myself, the welfare state would do that for me if I didn't (and I'd get back some of the horrendous amounts of money I have paid into it too! I'll never see most of that again, and it wasn't given through choice, tax is not a choice) I work to better my life, to have the good things, like most do.

I fully see your point though and your way of looking at things is admirable. I wish I was so holy as to think like you, I truly do, but I suppose I am a product of a consumer society, like a lot.

paulmapp8306

Not denying any of that - but that doesnt mean your ENTITLED. Thats the problem.

Im sure your iPhone contributes to the economy, but it shouldnt to the detriment of survival - which is the level were talking about here.

If your on min wage and can afford an iPhone - then there isnt a problem is there. If you cant afford to pay UT or food bills BECAUSE of the iPhone contract - then there IS a problem, and the iPhone has to go rather than expecting that min wage to rise to meet your expectations of that phone.

suburbanwifey

paulmapp8306 wrote: »

Not denying any of that - but that doesnt mean your ENTITLED. Thats the problem.

Im sure your iPhone contributes to the economy, but it shouldnt to the detriment of survival - which is the level were talking about here.

If your on min wage and can afford an iPhone - then there isnt a problem is there. If you cant afford to pay UT or food bills BECAUSE of the iPhone contract - then there IS a problem, and the iPhone has to go rather than expecting that min wage to rise to meet your expectations of that phone.

Fair point and to be honest, if I was in that position, I would lose the iPhone. Survival to me would be paramount, as you are stating, so I suppose I am agreeing with you