Taking the micky

Daedalus

sniggings wrote: »

take me for an example, I get £71 JSA and £85 a week rent paid, with all the other bits and bobs, prescriptions etc (just picks one up so that was saving of £7.65) so a part time job would see me no better off and a full time job on min wage would see me about £70 better off, thats before work expenses, travel etc, so for the joy of working 40 hours for min wage and jumping through employers hoops I maybe £40 better off, £1 an hour, thats if I could get a min wage job at full time hours, very few out there, most are part time or even 0 hour contracts, someone with a few kids doen't stand a chance.

The people who think like that will ever get to a 'decent' paying job. Everyone has had to start at the bottom, working on or near NMW and through demonstrating a strong work ethic they progress.

If working paid the same as benefits and you therefore opted to stay on benefits than you are an immoral person. You are taking from those who work because you are lazy.

sniggings

Ash1982 wrote: »

But we are OK morally to complain about being in this country with our plentiful food and water whilst people starve?

You can ignore me but I am entitled to my opinion.

please quote me where I was ignoring that, I can support a living wage here and in other parts of the world, why does one exclude the other?

sniggings

Daedalus wrote: »

The people who think like that will ever get to a 'decent' paying job. Everyone has had to start at the bottom, working on or near NMW and through demonstrating a strong work ethic they progress.

If working paid the same as benefits and you therefore opted to stay on benefits than you are an immoral person. You are taking from those who work because you are lazy.

it was facts not opinion! there is a difference and anyone who thinks working for £20-£40 a week and having to ask some manager to go to the bog is some how going to make me feel good about myself is still living in begone years, we can now think for ourselves and the FACTS are , people will mostly do what is in their best intests not what we are told will make us feel good about ourselves.

Daedalus

sniggings wrote: »

it was facts not opinion! there is a difference and anyone who thinks working for £20-£40 a week and having to ask some manager to go to the bog is some how going to make me feel good about myself is still living in begone years, we can now think for ourselves and the FACTS are , people will mostly do what is in their best intests not what we are told will make us feel good about ourselves.

Yes, what is in the best interests is to work hard for a few years on NMW, gain experience and skills, and move up to better pay. Sitting waiting for the difference between working and benefits to reach £X is not in your best interests. This is a fact, it is short sighted opinion that living on benefits is more in your interests than working.

It is a fact that long term unemployed have higher rates of depression and associated issues than those who work.

sniggings

Daedalus wrote: »

Yes, what is in the best interests is to work hard for a few years on NMW, gain experience and skills, and move up to better pay. Sitting waiting for the difference between working and benefits to reach £X is not in your best interests. This is a fact, it is short sighted opinion that living on benefits is more in your interests than working.

It is a fact that long term unemployed have higher rates of depression and associated issues than those who work.

most min wage jobs are only suited for a wife wanting a bit of pocket money, not for working your way up the ladder, yes it can be done, but why in the meantime should someone have to try and live on a wage which would still mean the tax payer supporting them.

Go to your nearest Tescos and most there are not climbing this carrear ladder you talk about but working for a bit extra, chances are its a 2nd job as their partner will be working too.

facts are, until work pays, try to force feed these on the dole they will feel better about themselves will not change anything, this argument has been around for years, since the 2nd world war the same argument has been used, but yet we are still here, how about a new approach, pay a decent wage, it's not very hard to understand.

j.e.j.

Ash1982 wrote: »

morally, your arguing that it is not worth working for £6.19 per hour when half the worlds population exists on less than a $ a day.

Possibly half the world's population is not paying £600+ rent per month to a private landlord,.. or having to pay through the nose for food from the supermarket, or paying hundreds of ££s in bills and council tax, etc etc I reckon in this country it costs about £800 per month for one person just to exist.

There's no doubt that what you are saying is true, there are some people in the world in absolute dire poverty, with no healthcare or sanitation, but aren't we supposed to be a 'developed' country?

TrickyWicky

j.e.j. wrote: »

Possibly half the world's population is not paying £600+ rent per month to a private landlord,.. or having to pay through the nose for food from the supermarket, or paying hundreds of ££s in bills and council tax, etc etc I reckon in this country it costs about £800 per month for one person just to exist.

There's no doubt that what you are saying is true, there are some people in the world in absolute dire poverty, with no healthcare or sanitation, but aren't we supposed to be a 'developed' country?

I'm glad someone has finally seen sense and posted that. You're right, it does cost around £7-800 just to exist and have a home. It's shocking. Yes people do live on less than $1 a day but as stated, they don't have council tax, rent, food and fuel costs that are like ours. Heck I doubt if most 3rd world countries even have council tax.

This is one of the worlds mightiest nations economically speaking and yet we have so many people struggling just to keep their heads afloat and so many who are actually sinking because their outgoings exceed their income. It's truly awful how this country refuses to change its attitude towards paying people a decent wage. Instead it seems to think that screwing people for every penny will improve things and make the country a better place.

I'll give you an example. Who has done better and made more money for themselves?:
1) Richard Branson
2) Lord Alan Sugar

Who is the happier, easier going guy?:
1) Richard Branson
2) Lord Alan Sugar

Who got appointed business Tsar under the draconian Gordon Brown?
1) Richard Branson
2) Lord Alan Sugar

I think it's common knowledge Branson is the nicer guy and Sugar is just a miserable old grump who loves to shout at people just because luck wasn't shining on them yet this country for some pathetic reason treats Sugar like a god when in fact Branson is actually far more successful than him.

It's the plain and simple truth. You can't deny it. Branson is a billionaire and Sugar is worth something like £120million. That means he's made a fraction of Bransons fortune.

My point? Making life hard for people works to a limited extent. Making life pleasant for people and actually working with them rather than against them is far more successful. Thats something many employers in the UK and indeed the government can't get their heads around.

earthbound_misfit

Daedalus wrote: »

It is a fact that long term unemployed have higher rates of depression and associated issues than those who work.

Well, for a start a lot of those are going to be unemployed/struggle to keep work as a result of their problems, rather than unemployment causing the depression. Also the difference between an individual's mental health in or out of work depends on what their job is/was.
Research has shown that the quality of work matters more than having work or not. The mental health of unemployed peopled entering low-paid, low-interest work actually gets worse than when they were unemployed.
http://healthland.time.com/2011/03/15/study-having-a-bad-job-is-worse-than-no-job-for-mental-health/ (original report I read in BMJ but you need to pay to access it)

I'm not offering this as a reason to stay on the dole, but wanted to correct the (common) assumption you made.

[Random anecdote: I used to work in a cafe, it was a minimum wage, busy/hard work job. But I had a brilliant lass to work with and we were given a lot of freedom by the manager (a lot of responsibility for min. wage too, but it made it much more interesting). Also chatting to customers was pleasant, so even though it was technically a rubbish job, the psychosocial quality wasn't too bad. So it's not just about money]

Dangermac

sniggings wrote: »

most min wage jobs are only suited for a wife wanting a bit of pocket money, not for working your way up the ladder, yes it can be done, but why in the meantime should someone have to try and live on a wage which would still mean the tax payer supporting them.

Go to your nearest Tescos and most there are not climbing this carrear ladder you talk about but working for a bit extra, chances are its a 2nd job as their partner will be working too.

facts are, until work pays, try to force feed these on the dole they will feel better about themselves will not change anything, this argument has been around for years, since the 2nd world war the same argument has been used, but yet we are still here, how about a new approach, pay a decent wage, it's not very hard to understand.

There are some seriously 'interesting' people on this thread, that's for sure

To be honest, sniggings, I can see that you feel that world owes you a living. I reckon that you dont have the ability to get the job that you are posting about anyway, purely because of your attitude.

When I was 16, I was earning around £2 per hour (probably the equivalent of around £5 per hour now), but I worked hard and got myself noticed. 20 years later in am still in the same industry, but have my own company and a pretty decent standard of living.

The point is that you have to start somewhere. If you dont, you will never get anywhere, and be cursing that life has dealt you some s@@tty cards.

Grow up. Realise that the world does not owe you a living, and if you ever want to have a comfortable lifestyle, it generally involves hard work, and often means starting at the bottom.

DM

earthbound_misfit

Ash1982 wrote: »

But we are OK morally to complain about being in this country with our plentiful food and water whilst people starve?

But that sort of thinking just encourages a race to the bottom. No one, according to you, is allowed to argue for better conditions unless they are the poorest of the poor. So, do we wait for everyone's standard of living to slip down to starvation level before we start questioning wealth distribution?