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.
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!
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.
ButterflyMoon (2nd November 2011)
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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
OK, you have me on that one, but something does need to give!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.
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?
alttab (6th June 2012)
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).
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
easier to pay £15 a month than to be fined £1000 IMO
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)