We all pay your benefits

grizzly1911

CLAPTON wrote: »

'ever lower wages'?

if we have them, then it's because we are in a recession caused by a banking crisis and not because we are becoming more efficient or producing new inventions.


employment is increasing


and yes, you could easily be richer than a 18th century farm labourer without working at all.


aren't you ever grateful for the wonderful world in which you are a rich man?

You suggested removing the NMW or reducing it.

Employment may be increasing, as is the population. It is a pity so many of those jobs are part time, temporary, zero hours with little or no prospects. It is also a pity that the young have to put themselves into extreme debt to stand any chance of achieving the chance of career with decent prospects. Many of course will not make it but their debt has primed the economy for a little longer.


I am very grateful but I don't where rose tinted spectacles.

CLAPTON

grizzly1911 wrote: »

Profits themselves are not EVIL it is what they are used for that is where the problems arise.

you mean things like investing in future products or improving efficiency or paying dividend to pension funds and paying taxes ............

grizzly1911

CLAPTON wrote: »

you mean things like investing in future products or improving efficiency or paying dividend to pension funds and paying taxes ............

All very laudable if they do.

N1AK

princeofpounds wrote: »

I don't think they did a terrible job actually.

One family, two single parents (male and female), one young single man.

Looking at other comments on the topic I've seen the program denounced as bleeding heart BBC welfare propaganda or harsh right-wing demonisation of benefits claimants. Which probably means there was some balance.


The marginal tax rate for coming off benefits is about 90%, meaning every pound you earn, you only get to keep 10% of it, the rest disappears in lost benefits.

Would you work the hours for 10% of the stated salary in incremental benefit?

This is where we disagree. They may have done a good job of showing lots of different circumstances but that, in itself, is a bias unless each of those situations is equally common.

If 50% of benefit claimants were single mums (which I am not suggesting is the case) then an unbiased sample would include two single mums. Putting less in would imply to viewers that single mums made up less of the benefit claimant pool than they really do. As you mention, the fact it has been attacked by both benefit defenders and detractors is a generally good sign

You made a really good case for the problems with benefits, and escaping them, especially for families with sizeable benefit incomes :T one of the biggest issues with all the hidden benefits (free lunches, prescriptions etc) is that it hides the true value and what is being lost by earning more. I'm also very much of the opinion that requiring more from long term benefit claimants we shouldn't taper off benefits so aggressively for people earning some of the money themselves.

[Deleted User]

I found this program quite distasteful. I work full time myself but the people they had on were just being judgemental and seemed to think everyone should be dragged down to their level.

Instead of complaining that someone gets more than them and still lives a crappy life why not ask why their own wages are so pathetic? Why don't their employers pay a living wage? Why do their kids have to suffer from not having their parents around more just so both of them can work full time for a pittance? That woman complaining about the single mother buying a chicken is an idiot - why on earth would you feed your kids reformed head-meat scraped off a dead bird if you cared at all about their health?

This is the problem with the whole debate on benefits. It's not a question of why do some people get a certain amount of benefit money to maintain what look like fairly frugal and miserable lifestyles, it's why do people in work end up that way too? Benefits are supposed to provide a minimal but reasonable standard of living, and if your job doesn't then you should blame your employer and the government that has been working hard to drive down wages and conditions.

LydiaJ

quantic wrote: »

People who have never worked should get less so that people who have always worked, but have been made unemployed, can get more.

As of today (or in a month or two depending on the area) this will be partially true. The benefits cap doesn't apply to those who are within 9 months of losing a job that they held for at least a year.

[Deleted User]

I was interested in the case of the media studies graduate on last night's programme who was waiting for his ideal job while doing voluntary work while on benefits. I think that voluntary work while on benefits is an admirable thing. However, the main question I had was how long he would wait for that ideal job before reassessing his position.

When I graduated (when everything cost a penny and was made of wood:D), I applied for local jobs that interested me - when that hadn't worked out within six weeks I applied for jobs much further afield and within a couple of months I had a job over a hundred miles away from the home I had lived in from birth (as the crow flies - over 150 by road). That was in days when there was no internet and no mobile phones. A conversation with my folks was from a call box, as the accommodation I lived in had no phone - to use that old expression - the young today don't know they're born!

As the bloke last night is single, seemingly with no "responsibilities", and was very, very selective about the kind of job he was prepared to take, it seemed to me that he was being completely unreasonable.

(He reminded me of a cartoon book I saw many years ago - it might have been Andy Capp - who was described as unemployed as there ware no openings for left handed treacle benders, or some such role.)

WR

N1AK

rabbit_burrow wrote: »

You're right there, however, things like tractors etc would have been a necessity for a growing population. Nowadays, streamlining is done as a profit-boosting exercise. I've seen, over the last several years, the company I work for streamline quite a few processes & thus not replace the workers once they decide to leave.

If you think farmers, or landed gentry, invested in technological advances because of the need to feed more people rather than because it made sense financially then you're naive at best

Tractors don't allow you to farm more from the same amount of land they allow you to decrease labour required. We wouldn't be starving if we still had a ridge and furrow based agrarian system, we'd just be much poorer because we'd be spending half our lives working the land instead of a couple of people per thousand being able to provide food while the others learn things like medicine, teach in schools, build cars etc.

N1AK

DELETED USER wrote:

why on earth would you feed your kids reformed head-meat scraped off a dead bird if you cared at all about their health?

Because there are no health risks to it and the money saved could be spent on things that would actually improve their health and/or life. But feel free to think anyone not feeding their kids pure breast meat from an organic, corn-fed, chicken purchased from the family farm down the road is neglecting their child if it makes you feel better

I agree with the rest of your points, especially that too many on benefits have an enlarged sense of entitlement. It's also true that too many non-benefit claimants have an enlarged sense of superiority and a lack of empathy though so maybe it equals out.

rabbit_burrow

N1AK wrote: »

If you think farmers, or landed gentry, invested in technological advances because of the need to feed more people rather than because it made sense financially then you're naive at best

Tractors don't allow you to farm more from the same amount of land they allow you to decrease labour required. We wouldn't be starving if we still had a ridge and furrow based agrarian system, we'd just be much poorer because we'd be spending half our lives working the land instead of a couple of people per thousand being able to provide food while the others learn things like medicine, teach in schools, build cars etc.

And what would I be at worst? Funny how some people need to resort to demeaning others just to make a point.

Maybe I didn't write it in a comprehensive way to explain the ins and outs. As a person who's ex was from a farming family, I can only explain it from my POV. Unless they hiked up the prices of produce, having more farmhands wouldn't have worked financially, plenty of land but not enough time to take full advantage to supply more people.

Earning a reasonable living, and using streamlining/technology to do so is very different to streamlining people out of jobs to make millions/billions £'s profit.