We all pay your benefits

grizzly1911

Pete111 wrote: »

Most people who earn that kind of cash work their behinds off.

I have a mate who works in the city for a brokerage. He is up at 5.30am every day and at his desk by 6.45am. Leaves work after 6 usually. Sure he does well for himself and enjoys a work hard/play hard lifestyle but most weeks he works 55-60 hours by his own reckoning.

You may not like how their money is earned but don't make the mistake of thinking that the majority of people in the city don't put in serious amounts of effort. Especially in this economy.

I have worked in the City thanks.

I have also worked with many twonks who were tied to their desks.

Some are undoubtedly talented.

It doesn't have to be investment bankers.

The carer works up to 60 hours a week,. the lorry driver works nights. Nurses work 365/7x24 shift patterns.

morganedge

I like the quote from Margaret:
''he isn't the sort of person who is capable of grabbing hold of his own destiny''

That's a little how I feel about myself. Never heard it put like that.

princeofpounds

There is. this one was started on Wednesday.

I meant on this specific board actually... mostly interested in discusing it with the people here. But thanks, I'll take a look.

The other family were probably the most interesting, and I wish that their circumstances and finances were examined in rather more detail. Benefits of 1800 pounds monthly, but still reliant on food banks suggests to me that something was missing from the analysis of their situation. They were given a very sympathetic portrayal, which I remain to be convinced was wholly justified.

Yes I agree. I think with the others it was fairly plain what they were and how their situation worked. I think the sympathy came from the fact that the working visitor had previously been unemployed.

They get 1800 a month. The guy claimed he would have to earn 18k to consider working again. I wanted that challenged, because he is getting over 21k net, so would really need 24+.

I think their use of the food bank was not because they were REALLY on the breadline (unless they had unspecified debts), but because it's simply a load of free stuff, quite frankly.

Saw part of it, the bit about food banks and the overweight woman said without food banks her kids might not eat, not a problem she was having, now this is not me having a go at overweight people (I'm 20st but over 6 ft 2). But simply making an observation

And smoking, if I remember correctly.

McKneff

I wouldn't pay that graduate in washers.

He called it 'my family are supporting me' even though JSA is supposed to fund your day to day living.

I call it sponging off your family and the family are daft enough to let him keep doing it.

Not helping him at all I'm afraid.

JencParker

Pete111 wrote: »

Most people who earn that kind of cash work their behinds off.

I have a mate who works in the city for a brokerage. He is up at 5.30am every day and at his desk by 6.45am. Leaves work after 6 usually. Sure he does well for himself and enjoys a work hard/play hard lifestyle but most weeks he works 55-60 hours by his own reckoning.

You may not like how their money is earned but don't make the mistake of thinking that the majority of people in the city don't put in serious amounts of effort. Especially in this economy.

True, but don't make the mistake of think that other people don't work equally hard for a wage that is barely enough to exist, much less have a life.

Troutwrestler

Can't find this on iplayer? Anyone know if it's on there?

JencParker

princeofpounds wrote: »

I meant on this specific board actually... mostly interested in discusing it with the people here. But thanks, I'll take a look.



Yes I agree. I think with the others it was fairly plain what they were and how their situation worked. I think the sympathy came from the fact that the working visitor had previously been unemployed.

They get 1800 a month. The guy claimed he would have to earn 18k to consider working again. I wanted that challenged, because he is getting over 21k net, so would really need 24+.

I think their use of the food bank was not because they were REALLY on the breadline (unless they had unspecified debts), but because it's simply a load of free stuff, quite frankly.



And smoking, if I remember correctly.

You don't just get given a load of free stuff from a food bank, your financial and home situation will be looked at by social services/carers/health visitors/doctors etc who will assess whether the recipient is in need and if after consideration, there is a need will refer the recipient to the food bank with a voucher to exchange for food.

morganedge

Troutwrestler wrote: »

Can't find this on iplayer? Anyone know if it's on there?

this link?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b036yrm8/Nick_and_Margaret_We_All_Pay_Your_Benefits_Episode_1/

N1AK

elantan wrote: »

i work those hours and more sometimes, hard physical work, i dont get paid anything like that

Welcome to capitalism. You get paid based on the demand their is for the service you provide and the availability (supply) of other people who can provide it.

The point he is making, and it is a fair one, is that banking isn't some easy cushy job. You have to be able to do something most people can't and it is demanding as well. Sure there are other jobs that are demanding and pay far lower wages but that isn't their fault.

N1AK

jojo1964 wrote: »

My problem with programmes like this is that participants are hand picked, and depending on the bias of the producers can give a very different view to reality.

This. Even a genuinely unbiased producer who has to cut down to for example three cases is going to provide an inaccurate representation of the entire population of benefit claimants.

Additionally it takes a lot of time and in depth observation to understand an individuals situation. I have nothing against this kind of program because it gives an insight regardless of perspective however I hope people don't base their opinion on all benefit claimants etc on such a limited source of information.