+ Post New Thread
Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 127
General Chat Thread, Benefit Culture in General; ...
  1. #16

    localzuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Minehead
    Posts
    17,684
    Thank Post
    516
    Thanked 2,453 Times in 1,899 Posts
    Blog Entries
    24
    Rep Power
    833
    Quote Originally Posted by deceptivex View Post
    It isn't the benefits culture thats the problem. It's the simple fact that most people will never earn "the average wage" of £25k PA and yet you need to earn more than that to be able to afford a normal standard of living.
    Just to be slightly pedantic, in order for the average wage to be £25kpa, people have to be working for less than that amount.

    If those people start earning that amount, then the average will increase. So, it is impossible for everyone to be at the average, unless everyone gets paid the same.

    Instead, showing the mean, mode and median wages would be a more suitable way of presenting that figure.

  2. #17

    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    34
    Thank Post
    0
    Thanked 10 Times in 9 Posts
    Rep Power
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by localzuk View Post
    Just to be slightly pedantic, in order for the average wage to be £25kpa, people have to be working for less than that amount.

    If those people start earning that amount, then the average will increase. So, it is impossible for everyone to be at the average, unless everyone gets paid the same.

    Instead, showing the mean, mode and median wages would be a more suitable way of presenting that figure.
    You got the picture

  3. #18
    JoeBloggs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Leeds
    Posts
    544
    Thank Post
    160
    Thanked 75 Times in 52 Posts
    Rep Power
    35
    Quote Originally Posted by localzuk View Post
    Just to be slightly pedantic, in order for the average wage to be £25kpa, people have to be working for less than that amount.

    If those people start earning that amount, then the average will increase. So, it is impossible for everyone to be at the average, unless everyone gets paid the same.

    Instead, showing the mean, mode and median wages would be a more suitable way of presenting that figure.
    Hahahahaha

  4. #19
    dwhyte85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Berkshire
    Posts
    1,219
    Thank Post
    159
    Thanked 147 Times in 132 Posts
    Rep Power
    103
    The 'average' wage means nothing vs 'normal standard of living' unless we all pay the same rent, all pay the same council tax etc

    25k living in Wales or 25k in London... I know which I'd pick!

  5. #20

    localzuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Minehead
    Posts
    17,684
    Thank Post
    516
    Thanked 2,453 Times in 1,899 Posts
    Blog Entries
    24
    Rep Power
    833
    Quote Originally Posted by deceptivex View Post
    You got the picture
    Indeed. But the problem I imply in my post remains - if everyone's wages increase, then we end up in a situation where money is worth less as more people have more of it, and therefore items will increase in cost.

    So, the issue is not simply one of increasing wages, it is one of reducing living costs - the main one being cost of accommodation. Decades of poor housing policies in this country have left a serious problem - lack of affordable property.

    My parents bought their first home back when they were a few years younger than I am now. They got it based on my dad's teacher salary, with a mortgage of 3 times that amount - and that got them a 2 bed semi. Now, I'd need to get a mortgage at 6 times my salary, with a 20% deposit. And that would buy me a 1 bed flat in most areas, not to mention I'd be lucky if they gave me that mortgage now.

  6. Thanks to localzuk from:

    ButterflyMoon (2nd November 2011)

  7. #21
    JoeBloggs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Leeds
    Posts
    544
    Thank Post
    160
    Thanked 75 Times in 52 Posts
    Rep Power
    35
    In 2011, average individual earnings in Britain were £26,000, while the average income for working-age households was around £33,000. That same year, he after-tax earnings of the median household was around £26,000 per annum.

  8. #22

    nephilim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Dunstable
    Posts
    11,935
    Thank Post
    1,628
    Thanked 1,898 Times in 1,410 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2
    Rep Power
    429
    Quote Originally Posted by GrumbleDook View Post
    That has a small part to play but one problem with a minimum wage is that it contributes to breaking the cycle of effort v reward. Jobs with less requirement for skills and experience, no matter that they take just as much energy to do, are given more pay. This can mean people do not try to gain the skills (ie work hard to gain skills) as there is little benefit in doing so. So they expect greater reward for doing less ... And the ultimate goal is to be rewarded for doing nothing.
    No skill jobs such as retail pay the bare minimum they can get away with, I applied for a job in tesco and asda as a shelf stacker and would have been paid £6 or so an hour, and would need to do a 50 hour week to make what I did in the school doing 30 hours!

    They can be. If a claimant attends an interview and conducts themselves in a manner they know will disqualify them for a job then it is dealt with as if they failed to turn up for the interview. I have grassed people up for this before. The problem about clothing is that they might not own a suit, or even shirt and tie. If they can reasonably explain that they do intend to be appropriately dressed if they get the job then this is fine. I would not like to discriminate against people just because they are below the breadline. I know of schools who, when people have turned up poorly dressed for interviews, put them in touch with local charities who can help on that side until the wage comes rolling in. It is a hand up, not a hand out.
    Agreed. I have no issue with people if they can't afford it, but a few I have interviewed have actually said (and I quote) "I am only here to keep the job seekers happy" outside of the interview. One was a genuine case and as you said, we pointed him to a charity shop to pick up a suit (he managed to pick up an armani suit for £12!!!) and he got the job. I am more than happy to help people.

    You can't complain about people who never worked and with no intention of working and then try to lump into there people who have worked (like yourself) and have no job at the moment. That sort of attitude might be fine with the daily fail readership who want to see their taxes only spent on them, but is not a realistic position. It deals with a small minority and is used to justify attitudes against *all* those claiming benefits, including those on disability support.
    Those that have paid into the system yes deserve something, but there are some of those people that have worked and now stay on benefits as its easier.

    The mines? You are kidding? Nationalisation of core services? Do you understand the relationship between growth in profits and growth in jobs? The mines were not profitable for many years. It is a very inefficient way of getting energy and the investment needed (from our taxes) is unlikely to see any payback in the near future. I think it was the Express who ran an article about this as an idea around 3 years ago and got most of the figures wrong. Nationalisation or energy companies would also take investment we don't have. You then also run into the problem we are having with the attitude to the banks we have large chunks in ... We want them to make a profit as this pays back the investment the state has made. The people who can do this want a wage (and perks) equivalent to what they would get in other banks ... And yet we moan about the wages they get. The same will happen in anything you nationalise. You have to pay the equivalent rates as they would get elsewhere ... Unless you add an extra bit to it ... Public service. The idea that you are doing a public service is no longer seen as a high priority, partly because it is not portrayed as something rewarding. In fact the same media will have a go at anything they can which promotes public service, unless they can jump on a bandwagon, or happily publish / show others knocking it too. It doesn't help when you have politicians from all side who do the same.
    I am not saying nationalise the services on the whole, but have a nationalised service running along side the private companies - whether it is trains, buses, fuel, energy, whatever. I suggested the coal mines as an example btw. As for banks, yes I agree.

    Saying we need wholesale reform is not going to work either, as this is just part of politics. There are too few cross department groups and too many conflicting agendas. Free schools is another way of saying "don't trust the state to give you children education" so why on earth would you trust the state to look after banks, energy, rail? We get told outsourcing to companies who have made profits running companies well is better than letting councils waste money. In the same voice we get told our NHS is the best in the world, but needs wholesale change ...

    And yes, some of the above is correct, but try to read between the line and understand what is selective use of information to prove a point. I could spend all day pointing out where Mr Gove has been selective about his attitude on support staff in schools, or his use of data to justify his departments agenda. Others, however, do it far better than me.
    OK, you have me on that one, but something does need to give!

  9. #23

    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    34
    Thank Post
    0
    Thanked 10 Times in 9 Posts
    Rep Power
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by localzuk View Post
    Indeed. But the problem I imply in my post remains - if everyone's wages increase, then we end up in a situation where money is worth less as more people have more of it, and therefore items will increase in cost.

    So, the issue is not simply one of increasing wages, it is one of reducing living costs - the main one being cost of accommodation. Decades of poor housing policies in this country have left a serious problem - lack of affordable property.

    My parents bought their first home back when they were a few years younger than I am now. They got it based on my dad's teacher salary, with a mortgage of 3 times that amount - and that got them a 2 bed semi. Now, I'd need to get a mortgage at 6 times my salary, with a 20% deposit. And that would buy me a 1 bed flat in most areas, not to mention I'd be lucky if they gave me that mortgage now.
    My post wasn't about increasing wages for everyone. It was about the fact that up to 30% of the working population need benefits of some sort and to varying degrees just to be able to live. I was pointing to the same thing you are, that the cost of living and the wages don't match and whilst people sit around bashing the minority of people on benefits that sit in abject poverty, thye miss the reality which is a system that allows them to work full time and still not be able to afford a decent standard of living.

    You could stop all the long term unemployed benefits tomorrow and it would barely make a dent in the bill at all. Those that Nephilim are talking about are not exactly going to walk into a job paying them 20k a year. They are going to walk out into a tesco job for minimum wage and still receive half the benefits they are getting now.

    The problem is simple, for the majority of people, working simply doesn't provide the quality of life it used too. People can argue semantics and details all they like but that is the reality. You don't work then you don't have to worry about bills but you're poor as hell. You do work and you're going to have to worry about bills and council tax and all for an extra night out a week.

    Who's the real mugs here? us or them?

  10. Thanks to deceptivex from:

    alttab (6th June 2012)

  11. #24
    DAZZD88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Sunderland, Tyne and Wear
    Posts
    788
    Thank Post
    163
    Thanked 77 Times in 66 Posts
    Rep Power
    47
    TBH @nephilim I tend to agree with you on the most part and think you do have valid points BUT you have luxuries yourself, your Sky subscription and your TV license. If you cut these out too you'll find that you have more than your £20 a month emergency money. If you struggled to pay a mortgage or whatever then the mortgage company would point these out to you as being luxuries that you can get rid of. Most of what is on Sky is dross anyway and rarely worth the money unlessyou have the sport packages (if you're into sports).

  12. #25
    JoeBloggs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Leeds
    Posts
    544
    Thank Post
    160
    Thanked 75 Times in 52 Posts
    Rep Power
    35
    Quote Originally Posted by deceptivex View Post
    The problem is simple, for the majority of people, working simply doesn't provide the quality of life it used too. People can argue semantics and details all they like but that is the reality. You don't work then you don't have to worry about bills but you're poor as hell. You do work and you're going to have to worry about bills and council tax and all for an extra night out a week.

    Who's the real mugs here? us or them?
    You keep working your way up until you can afford 2 nights out a week!!

  13. #26

    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    34
    Thank Post
    0
    Thanked 10 Times in 9 Posts
    Rep Power
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by JoeBloggs View Post
    You keep working your way up until you can afford 2 nights out a week!!
    If everyones a chief who's going to be the indians? Like almost as bad as the myth that "There are jobs out there for everyone if you just look".

  14. #27

    nephilim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Dunstable
    Posts
    11,935
    Thank Post
    1,628
    Thanked 1,898 Times in 1,410 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2
    Rep Power
    429
    Quote Originally Posted by DAZZD88 View Post
    TBH @nephilim I tend to agree with you on the most part and think you do have valid points BUT you have luxuries yourself, your Sky subscription and your TV license. If you cut these out too you'll find that you have more than your £20 a month emergency money. If you struggled to pay a mortgage or whatever then the mortgage company would point these out to you as being luxuries that you can get rid of. Most of what is on Sky is dross anyway and rarely worth the money unlessyou have the sport packages (if you're into sports).
    Have the sky package as follows - entertainment (sky 1 and the like), childrens (disney channel), movies (which we are thinking of dropping as we don't watch enough to warrant having it), telephone unlimited package (we upgraded after realising that evening and weekends wouldn't cut it as I had to ring places to enquire about jobs and it was costing more than the unlimited package was), and broadband - this is free for us.

    TV Licence, as has been discussed before, if you have anything that can play live tv (even if it is not used) you still have to pay. But yeah I know what you mean

  15. #28
    DAZZD88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Sunderland, Tyne and Wear
    Posts
    788
    Thank Post
    163
    Thanked 77 Times in 66 Posts
    Rep Power
    47
    Quote Originally Posted by deceptivex View Post
    Who's the real mugs here? us or them?
    We are the mugs because we work hard for money that some people get (sometimes as much as 2-3x) from the government for not working. I get no benefits from working and earning my own wage. I won't get housing benefits when I get my house (which I'm looking to buy soon). Sometimes it really annoys me to know that there are people out there that are 'scroungers' but at least I can hold my head up high and say that I've paid my way.

  16. #29
    DAZZD88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Sunderland, Tyne and Wear
    Posts
    788
    Thank Post
    163
    Thanked 77 Times in 66 Posts
    Rep Power
    47
    Quote Originally Posted by nephilim View Post
    TV Licence, as has been discussed before, if you have anything that can play live tv (even if it is not used) you still have to pay.
    Not entirely true but I suppose the faff on that you have with proving that you aren't viewing live TV using any of your devices means that you may as well pay it.

  17. #30

    nephilim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Dunstable
    Posts
    11,935
    Thank Post
    1,628
    Thanked 1,898 Times in 1,410 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2
    Rep Power
    429
    easier to pay £15 a month than to be fined £1000 IMO

SHARE:
+ Post New Thread
Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. School agreement benefits!
    By localzuk in forum Windows
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 6th May 2009, 11:14 AM
  2. Benefit of using wireless g only?
    By rocknrollstar in forum Wireless Networks
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 30th January 2009, 01:21 PM
  3. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 16th September 2008, 06:23 PM
  4. Hampshire Pay-And-Benefits 'project'
    By Stese in forum General Chat
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 24th April 2007, 01:32 PM

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •