You've Never Had It So Good....

Generali

StevieJ wrote: »

They will be bit colder though. I guess we have to consider purchasing power as well, how much is the rent in Guatemala?

The exchange rates used are at 'purchasing power parity' which should reflect the fact that the prices of many things are lower in Guatemala.

The fact that the cost of a holiday or a university education in Guatemala is cheaper than in the UK, doesn't make either affordable for the vast majority of people.

Loughton_Monkey

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I just hate the saying "you have never had it so good".

Reason being, it's nearly always stated by someone doing better and who likely benefits from keeping you where you are or telling you what's better for you (as if from some kind of higher authority)......

Speaking personally, I like the saying "you have never had it so good", but only when it applies. It applied to Generation X in trumps, but thanks to your excellent new thread, we discovered that despite that, they "blew it" in the most massive way.....

I would be interested, though, to learn why you think that the people who say it have some "benefit" in "keeping you where you are....".

Speaking for myself, I have no conceivable reason whatsoever to keep the poor poor. It cost us money for heaven's sake. The more people who can get a job the better. Don't we all applaud higher employment figures? There's probably some Freudian reason why you would think that. Please enlighten us....

Southend1

Generali wrote: »

What sort of sins? The implication is that there are poor Britons that are worse off than poor Guatemalans. It's just not true.

No that's not the implication. It's not a competition as to whether Britain's poorest person is poorer than Guatemala's. It's simply a recognition that there are destitute people facing hardship all over the world. Just because a country is rich, does not make all its inhabitants better off than all those in a poor country. The argument is that the causes of poverty and hardship should be tackled wherever it occurs.

tomterm8

gazter wrote: »

Homelessness is barely a third of what it was a decade ago, and unless some pretty peculiar circumstances exist, those homeless guys would be entitled to emergency housing provided by their local council.

My local job center has one of the lowest claimant counts in the south east at around 660 people. Yet the local churches who open their halls to the homeless are always full now and turning people away. This despite the fact we have a homeless hostel that always used to be half empty.

Maybe your statistics are right.

But it is v hard to count the homeless because most don't want to be found.

Thrugelmir

Generali wrote: »

AIUI, the reason is because they have, most often, severe mental health problems which they are unable to address. It's not about poverty, it's about illness.

Many people in the UK are just one pay cheque away from the slippery slope to homelessness. Few choose to live on the streets.

Loughton_Monkey

tomterm8 wrote: »

.....This despite the fact we have a homeless hostel that always used to be half empty..

... an optimist might say half full.

tomterm8

gazter wrote: »

Sanctioned for not making an effort to find work. If we had a job we would get sanctioned for not turning up for work, or not paying our taxes.

There are no shortage of organisations that will put together a deposit for people who are homeless.

Homelessness is a third of what it was ten years ago, and is lower than it has been for all but three of the last thirty years.

I'm deeply sceptical about this. I've seen enough jobseekers agreements to know that if you followed them to the letter it would toke years to get a job. When unemployed I normally did 30 jobsearch things in a morning.

As a rule sanctions are given to people who are vulnerable targets. People who want to play the system can.

tomterm8

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

... an optimist might say half full.

I want the place closed down because no one needs it.

fennymum

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

Little has changed, other than the percentage of people 'on benefits' continues to escalate.

Is that all it is? What about the percentage of people 'on bonuses' whose income also continues to escalate? (you know who I mean...).

If you are really so untroubled by your prospects, then why do you feel the need to justify your wealth on a forum like this?

TruckerT

TruckerT

fennymum wrote: »

Is that all it is? What about the percentage of people 'on bonuses' whose income also continues to escalate? (you know who I mean...).

If you are really so untroubled by your prospects, then why do you feel the need to justify your wealth on a forum like this?

TruckerT

Annie Nameless changed her name - sorry about that!

TruckerT