We all pay your benefits

rabbit_burrow

N1AK wrote: »

Farmers brought in technology to increase profits. A salesman didn't turn up with a new baler and tell the farmer how it benefited society and the farmer didn't buy it on that basis; it got bought because within a couple of harvests it would save more in labourer wages than it cost.

Here's a challenge, name a single mechanical farming device that increases the production capacity of land vs the manual labour alternative with as many labourers as required.

We could produce just as much food on the same amount of land if we still used hoes and horse drawn ploughs; it'd just take 100,000's (maybe millions) more of us to be farm workers and food would cost a fortune due to the wages paid producing it.

As I said before, if the farmer could not afford to hire help, and he couldn't work his land quickly enough for his liking, then he may have decided that a contraption to make his work more productive & save his back would be a good idea. I am pretty sure that he would take it.

As an example, I could physically handwrite all my labels, I can't afford to hire someone to help until I earn more, I can't earn more unless I can shift more stuff. The answer would be to get a labelling machine of some sort (which I have). This should (hopefully) allow my business to grow and then I can employ others too.

When I made the reference to farmers, I was talking about small farmers who may have felt that they needed some kind of technology to make their lives easier.

I did not say that farmers were doing it for society or the greater good. I actually said that in a growing population it would have been a necessity, as in, they would have needed something to help them work their land faster (if you can plough and sow in a day, instead of a week, then you can produce more quickly) to supply a growing demand, which in turn may help them to gain enough money to buy more land and grow their farm to a point where they could employ others.

Businesses are driven by potential growth, I have not denied that.

LydiaJ

So did anybody else watch the second episode last night?

red_devil

yes dont know why because its all made for tv?

There will be no follow up so we wont even know what happens?

Troutwrestler

Watched it. Still think it was lot of one sided benefit bashing nonsense

[Deleted User]

I posted this on a another thread today about the jobs available for the unemployed.

In a discussion between Nick, Margaret and Dave Simmonds, the CEO of Inclusion, an organisation that "works to improve employment opportunities" he stated that the situation for what he described as "low end" or "entry level" job that requires low level qualifications is even worse - the figure is 45 to one.

I have little time for those have become described as the benefit lifestyle junkies who expect the state to provide them with a comfortable lifestyle in return for no effort on their part - but I do worry about their kids. However, faced with these statistics, it seems to me that that the situation is not as clear as the government appears to suggest.

WR

stinktankcynic

People getting benefits should do something for 40 hours a week, whether training, work experience or sitting in an office doing CV's. It must be soul destroying for struggling working families being worse off and having to pay tax on earnings that non workers get in benefits free of tax. It's not right. Certain lifestyles, drinking, smoking, gambling and premium TV should not be paid for out of free money for people who could work.

rabbit_burrow

stinktankcynic wrote: »

People getting benefits should do something for 40 hours a week, whether training, work experience or sitting in an office doing CV's. It must be soul destroying for struggling working families being worse off and having to pay tax on earnings that non workers get in benefits free of tax. It's not right. Certain lifestyles, drinking, smoking, gambling and premium TV should not be paid for out of free money for people who could work.

What about people who can't work due to being a carer for relative? They can claim Carer's Allowance, Income Support, Housing Benefit & Council Tax Support.

Although they are 'doing something', it's not something on your 'doing' list. So they aren't allowed to buy themselves a bottle of wine for a wind-down treat at the end of the week? They aren't allowed to buy a lotto ticket? Or perhaps they aren't allowed to have any relaxation time in front of a TV?

Blackjack_Davy

stinktankcynic wrote: »

People getting benefits should do something for 40 hours a week, whether training, work experience or sitting in an office doing CV's. It must be soul destroying for struggling working families being worse off and having to pay tax on earnings that non workers get in benefits free of tax. It's not right. Certain lifestyles, drinking, smoking, gambling and premium TV should not be paid for out of free money for people who could work.

I think the USA have the right idea, they get benefits for 6 months and then thats it, nothing, nada, zilch. Its considered long enough for people to find some kind of work even it's not something that necessarily want to do.

Universal benefits are simply encouraging many to chose benefits as a lifestyle choice, I'm sure we all know someone like that.

atush

I wonder if a further series could be the workers paired with investment bankers or similar. How would the carer feel picking up £1300 per month v £5/6K and 100% bonuses?

I find comments like this astoundingly Naive.

Did the carer work hard at school, pass her 11+ and go to University, work hard get a first class degree?

Sometimes people are educated and do work hard. Sometimes they get paid more than those who left school w/o meaningful qualifications.

And I remember the days when bankers weren't the devils, but estate agents and lawyers were.

atush

LydiaJ wrote: »

So did anybody else watch the second episode last night?

Yes, I did. Was interesting how hard the benefits people found the work (and to work a full day), and how the media studies numpty didn't turn up for work the next day.

but in the end, he took a job as a carer, so it was a satisfactory ending for him at least.