I seriously wasn't aiming anything at you - although you did bring it up it seems - I forgot that! I also never accuse people of lying, just of being mistaken IMO. It is below the belt to put it out as a statement of fact. As I recall I have been accused of making up a specific element of business costs which I swear on my life were correct. It has affected our business model and to compensate, we have diversified our business. I simply didn't feel I should be taking my invoices to Makro car park to be verified by lifers, so it was a lie. More hurtful than that, I was accused of lying about a school friend who was abducted in 1979 never to be found. This is an event that has affected me all of my life and that people (not you) wish to stoop so low is beyond me.
How many of those families have mobile phones and flatscreen TVs...
That was the original post, just to remind people
Whilst discussing "families who can't afford to feed themselves" I would suggest that if you can afford luxuries such as TVs/Sky Subscriptions/Branded clothes, you can 100% afford to feed yourself, you're just making poor life choices.
Of course, this does not apply to all 'poor' people, and as a country, the UK can 100% do more to support those who need it but many people can also do more to help themselves.
Last time I was back home, I fell out with a friend to the extent that we've not spoken since, he went on a massive rant about how 'the government' do nothing to help him and had abandoned his family, how he had to rely on food banks, this is while we sat in his flat, drinking alcohol, smoking and watching sky, it was beyond ridiculous. These are the type of people I'm talking about.
I'm also in no way from a privileged background my family live on the Cherry Orchard and both my parents are disabled, so I'm hardly some toff demonising the poor.
This is getting beyond ridiculous, using real life personal examples to back up your point, whatever next.
How many of those families have mobile phones and flatscreen TVs...
That was the original post, just to remind people
Whilst discussing "families who can't afford to feed themselves" I would suggest that if you can afford luxuries such as TVs/Sky Subscriptions/Branded clothes, you can 100% afford to feed yourself, you're just making poor life choices.
Of course, this does not apply to all 'poor' people, and as a country, the UK can 100% do more to support those who need it but many people can also do more to help themselves.
Last time I was back home, I fell out with a friend to the extent that we've not spoken since, he went on a massive rant about how 'the government' do nothing to help him and had abandoned his family, how he had to rely on food banks, this is while we sat in his flat, drinking alcohol, smoking and watching sky, it was beyond ridiculous. These are the type of people I'm talking about.
I'm also in no way from a privileged background my family live on the Cherry Orchard and both my parents are disabled, so I'm hardly some toff demonising the poor.
This is getting beyond ridiculous, using real life personal examples to back up your point, whatever next.
Handicap (handicap in the sporting sense - before I get pulled apart for the wrong use of language) cage match.
Muttley, Cordoban & Shooters vs Rob7lee & Stu of Kunming
Guest referee Kent Addick.
Rob7lee & Stu of Kunming battle bravely but the odds start to get on top of them. Mutts is just about to finish off Rob7lee with his finishing move, the Corbynite, when Kent Addick turns and takes out Muttley from behind. Stu of Kunming senses a window of opportunity and climbs the cage to escape and claim an unlikely victory
How many of those families have mobile phones and flatscreen TVs...
That was the original post, just to remind people
Whilst discussing "families who can't afford to feed themselves" I would suggest that if you can afford luxuries such as TVs/Sky Subscriptions/Branded clothes, you can 100% afford to feed yourself, you're just making poor life choices.
Of course, this does not apply to all 'poor' people, and as a country, the UK can 100% do more to support those who need it but many people can also do more to help themselves.
Last time I was back home, I fell out with a friend to the extent that we've not spoken since, he went on a massive rant about how 'the government' do nothing to help him and had abandoned his family, how he had to rely on food banks, this is while we sat in his flat, drinking alcohol, smoking and watching sky, it was beyond ridiculous. These are the type of people I'm talking about.
I'm also in no way from a privileged background my family live on the Cherry Orchard and both my parents are disabled, so I'm hardly some toff demonising the poor.
This is getting beyond ridiculous, using real life personal examples to back up your point, whatever next.
How many of those families have mobile phones and flatscreen TVs...
That was the original post, just to remind people
Whilst discussing "families who can't afford to feed themselves" I would suggest that if you can afford luxuries such as TVs/Sky Subscriptions/Branded clothes, you can 100% afford to feed yourself, you're just making poor life choices.
Of course, this does not apply to all 'poor' people, and as a country, the UK can 100% do more to support those who need it but many people can also do more to help themselves.
Last time I was back home, I fell out with a friend to the extent that we've not spoken since, he went on a massive rant about how 'the government' do nothing to help him and had abandoned his family, how he had to rely on food banks, this is while we sat in his flat, drinking alcohol, smoking and watching sky, it was beyond ridiculous. These are the type of people I'm talking about.
I'm also in no way from a privileged background my family live on the Cherry Orchard and both my parents are disabled, so I'm hardly some toff demonising the poor.
This is getting beyond ridiculous, using real life personal examples to back up your point, whatever next.
Handicap (handicap in the sporting sense - before I get pulled apart for the wrong use of language) cage match.
Muttley, Cordoban & Shooters vs Rob7lee & Stu of Kunming
Guest referee Kent Addick.
Rob7lee & Stu of Kunming battle bravely but the odds start to get on top of them. Mutts is just about to finish off Rob7lee with his finishing move, the Corbynite, when Kent Addick turns and takes out Muttley from behind. Stu of Kunming senses a window of opportunity and climbs the cage to escape and claim an unlikely victory
How many of those families have mobile phones and flatscreen TVs...
That was the original post, just to remind people
Whilst discussing "families who can't afford to feed themselves" I would suggest that if you can afford luxuries such as TVs/Sky Subscriptions/Branded clothes, you can 100% afford to feed yourself, you're just making poor life choices.
Of course, this does not apply to all 'poor' people, and as a country, the UK can 100% do more to support those who need it but many people can also do more to help themselves.
Last time I was back home, I fell out with a friend to the extent that we've not spoken since, he went on a massive rant about how 'the government' do nothing to help him and had abandoned his family, how he had to rely on food banks, this is while we sat in his flat, drinking alcohol, smoking and watching sky, it was beyond ridiculous. These are the type of people I'm talking about.
I'm also in no way from a privileged background my family live on the Cherry Orchard and both my parents are disabled, so I'm hardly some toff demonising the poor.
This is getting beyond ridiculous, using real life personal examples to back up your point, whatever next.
.......The arena erupts to the sound of dancing queen
Surely it should be Winner takes it all....... followed by 'ding ding' Mama Mia, here we go again......
How many of those families have mobile phones and flatscreen TVs...
That was the original post, just to remind people
Whilst discussing "families who can't afford to feed themselves" I would suggest that if you can afford luxuries such as TVs/Sky Subscriptions/Branded clothes, you can 100% afford to feed yourself, you're just making poor life choices.
Of course, this does not apply to all 'poor' people, and as a country, the UK can 100% do more to support those who need it but many people can also do more to help themselves.
Last time I was back home, I fell out with a friend to the extent that we've not spoken since, he went on a massive rant about how 'the government' do nothing to help him and had abandoned his family, how he had to rely on food banks, this is while we sat in his flat, drinking alcohol, smoking and watching sky, it was beyond ridiculous. These are the type of people I'm talking about.
I'm also in no way from a privileged background my family live on the Cherry Orchard and both my parents are disabled, so I'm hardly some toff demonising the poor.
I think it's fair enough for you to fall out with your mate about this and I won't pretend there aren't people who play the system or have a sense of entitlement. The key question is whether you set up your policy based on people like your mate or the people who need it. I'd suggest that the effect of things like "Benefits Street" and the like is to demonise the poor (yes even those who are working 12 hours a day) as layabouts who scrounge is designed to get people to think most of the poor are the former and therefore we should cut benefits. Whenever there's a poll, people think something ridiculous like 25% is lost as fraud from the benefits system, when the real total is just over 1%; which shows the hostile environment for benefit claimants is working. Hence the growth in food-banks, the demonising of the disabled, certifying people at death's door as fit for work, etc. It's the same process as with Windrush - you create a hostile environment and try to appeal to your base and make anyone suggesting otherwise look "soft". Ultimately the real fix is to have wages that people can live on, but you only get those through concerted industrial action, which is largely illegal here and I expect would see even more complaints about how "selfish workers fighting for a living wage are disrupting my day".
I agree that there are people who play the system and I hate those people because they are used to demonise those that aren't playing it. Whilst it may not be intended, when a real issue is highlighted that shames us, adding in a group that maybe you can have less sympathy for is a deflection in the context of that discussion.
I have a friend who used to be a claimant adviser and he told me (going back a few years) that when the government doctors were trying to get people off of disability benefit, the people he thought they should be getting off it somehow managed to stay on it and a lot of the people who were kicked off it made him cry.
Only yesterday, we saw IDS (who was a major player in the universal credit system) criticise the government for not funding it to the same extent as the previous system. I think his point was that it was supposed to be a better system, not a reason to pay less out to those that need it.
John Major - an ex Tory Prime Minister said yesterday that Universal credit has the potential to be the next poll tax.
Of course there are lots of other factors too. Mental illness being one. Drugs and alcohol dependency another. People need help sometimes to better help themselves and I have seen at first hand with somebody close to me how poor the support is out there.
The policy is supposed to make work pay. The massive irony is work does not pay enough for people not to have to claim top up benefits. Isn't the employer supposed to avoid wage subsidy from the government? I know there are issues with part time work and such, but ought a person doing an honest 40 hours a week be able to live on that? If there is a problem then I suppose prices as well as taxes ought to go up. I get the argument above about choosing shelter and food before supposed luxuries, the TV and mobile phone were poor examples though. However not all claimants or poor people are feckless, many have genuinely fallen on hard times and it is a pity so many in society resent helping them rather than being glad and privileged to do so.
I agree that there are people who play the system and I hate those people because they are used to demonise those that aren't playing it. Whilst it may not be intended, when a real issue is highlighted that shames us, adding in a group that maybe you can have less sympathy for is a deflection in the context of that discussion.
I have a friend who used to be a claimant adviser and he told me (going back a few years) that when the government doctors were trying to get people off of disability benefit, the people he thought they should be getting off it somehow managed to stay on it and a lot of the people who were kicked off it made him cry.
Only yesterday, we saw IDS (who was a major player in the universal credit system) criticise the government for not funding it to the same extent as the previous system. I think his point was that it was supposed to be a better system, not a reason to pay less out to those that need it.
John Major - an ex Tory Prime Minister said yesterday that Universal credit has the potential to be the next poll tax.
Of course there are lots of other factors too. Mental illness being one. Drugs and alcohol dependency another. People need help sometimes to better help themselves and I have seen at first hand with somebody close to me how poor the support is out there.
Unfortunately the above highlighted part is very true - I know personally of a few examples both ways.
The ones who cheat frustrate me so much when I am aware that some who deserve it have lost out for whatever reason. There are times it truly amazes me how some can get away with it to the detriment of others.
The policy is supposed to make work pay. The massive irony is work does not pay enough for people not to have to claim top up benefits. Isn't the employer supposed to avoid wage subsidy from the government? I know there are issues with part time work and such, but ought a person doing an honest 40 hours a week be able to live on that? If there is a problem then I suppose prices as well as taxes ought to go up. I get the argument above about choosing shelter and food before supposed luxuries, the TV and mobile phone were poor examples though. However not all claimants or poor people are feckless, many have genuinely fallen on hard times and it is a pity so many in society resent helping them rather than being glad and privileged to do so.
Not when the government set and tell the employer what the minimum they have to pay is and many small business are solvent because of it. For all the problems having a minimum wage solved back in 98 it caused a whole heap more that has rolled on and rolled on so is now the norm and in part leads us to where we are now, wages being paid that aren't enough to live on.
It must have been a conscious policy with the advent of in work benefits that employers wouldn't pay enough, otherwise there wouldn't be the need for the majority of in work benefits.
We are a way down the path now so it is difficult to unravel, but not impossible. A Government could increase minimum wage to nearer a true living wage, but at the same time they would need to cut employers NI and change, again, the benefit system. None of which I suspect will be a vote winner so unlikely, but it's what they should do in my view.
You could rightly argue big business could take the hit, but I suspect the average small business would struggle to survive with a decent increase in minimum wage.
The other extreme is to scrap almost all benefits and pay every adult a minimum wage from the state (like a state pension for under 65's). The money that would save in the system cost of managing the benefit system would be huge (BUT would make a hell of a lot of public sectors workers unemployed although of course they would get that 'wage'), then just adjust the taxation rates up and probably remove any form of tax free allowance to balance out.
The policy is supposed to make work pay. The massive irony is work does not pay enough for people not to have to claim top up benefits. Isn't the employer supposed to avoid wage subsidy from the government? I know there are issues with part time work and such, but ought a person doing an honest 40 hours a week be able to live on that? If there is a problem then I suppose prices as well as taxes ought to go up. I get the argument above about choosing shelter and food before supposed luxuries, the TV and mobile phone were poor examples though. However not all claimants or poor people are feckless, many have genuinely fallen on hard times and it is a pity so many in society resent helping them rather than being glad and privileged to do so.
Not when the government set and tell the employer what the minimum they have to pay is and many small business are solvent because of it. For all the problems having a minimum wage solved back in 98 it caused a whole heap more that has rolled on and rolled on so is now the norm and in part leads us to where we are now, wages being paid that aren't enough to live on.
It must have been a conscious policy with the advent of in work benefits that employers wouldn't pay enough, otherwise there wouldn't be the need for the majority of in work benefits.
We are a way down the path now so it is difficult to unravel, but not impossible. A Government could increase minimum wage to nearer a true living wage, but at the same time they would need to cut employers NI and change, again, the benefit system. None of which I suspect will be a vote winner so unlikely, but it's what they should do in my view.
You could rightly argue big business could take the hit, but I suspect the average small business would struggle to survive with a decent increase in minimum wage.
The other extreme is to scrap almost all benefits and pay every adult a minimum wage from the state (like a state pension for under 65's). The money that would save in the system cost of managing the benefit system would be huge (BUT would make a hell of a lot of public sectors workers unemployed although of course they would get that 'wage'), then just adjust the taxation rates up and probably remove any form of tax free allowance to balance out.
It seems to me that the big business' are the ones taking the piss with wages though R7L, not so much the smaller ones?
The policy is supposed to make work pay. The massive irony is work does not pay enough for people not to have to claim top up benefits. Isn't the employer supposed to avoid wage subsidy from the government? I know there are issues with part time work and such, but ought a person doing an honest 40 hours a week be able to live on that? If there is a problem then I suppose prices as well as taxes ought to go up. I get the argument above about choosing shelter and food before supposed luxuries, the TV and mobile phone were poor examples though. However not all claimants or poor people are feckless, many have genuinely fallen on hard times and it is a pity so many in society resent helping them rather than being glad and privileged to do so.
Not when the government set and tell the employer what the minimum they have to pay is and many small business are solvent because of it. For all the problems having a minimum wage solved back in 98 it caused a whole heap more that has rolled on and rolled on so is now the norm and in part leads us to where we are now, wages being paid that aren't enough to live on.
It must have been a conscious policy with the advent of in work benefits that employers wouldn't pay enough, otherwise there wouldn't be the need for the majority of in work benefits.
We are a way down the path now so it is difficult to unravel, but not impossible. A Government could increase minimum wage to nearer a true living wage, but at the same time they would need to cut employers NI and change, again, the benefit system. None of which I suspect will be a vote winner so unlikely, but it's what they should do in my view.
You could rightly argue big business could take the hit, but I suspect the average small business would struggle to survive with a decent increase in minimum wage.
The other extreme is to scrap almost all benefits and pay every adult a minimum wage from the state (like a state pension for under 65's). The money that would save in the system cost of managing the benefit system would be huge (BUT would make a hell of a lot of public sectors workers unemployed although of course they would get that 'wage'), then just adjust the taxation rates up and probably remove any form of tax free allowance to balance out.
It seems to me that the big business' are the ones taking the piss with wages though R7L, not so much the smaller ones?
In the creative fields you can earn a lot more going along or working for smaller companies. For some reason larger companies seem to think having a “name” on your cv is reason enough not to pay you much. Let alone give you pay rises.
The policy is supposed to make work pay. The massive irony is work does not pay enough for people not to have to claim top up benefits. Isn't the employer supposed to avoid wage subsidy from the government? I know there are issues with part time work and such, but ought a person doing an honest 40 hours a week be able to live on that? If there is a problem then I suppose prices as well as taxes ought to go up. I get the argument above about choosing shelter and food before supposed luxuries, the TV and mobile phone were poor examples though. However not all claimants or poor people are feckless, many have genuinely fallen on hard times and it is a pity so many in society resent helping them rather than being glad and privileged to do so.
Not when the government set and tell the employer what the minimum they have to pay is and many small business are solvent because of it. For all the problems having a minimum wage solved back in 98 it caused a whole heap more that has rolled on and rolled on so is now the norm and in part leads us to where we are now, wages being paid that aren't enough to live on.
It must have been a conscious policy with the advent of in work benefits that employers wouldn't pay enough, otherwise there wouldn't be the need for the majority of in work benefits.
We are a way down the path now so it is difficult to unravel, but not impossible. A Government could increase minimum wage to nearer a true living wage, but at the same time they would need to cut employers NI and change, again, the benefit system. None of which I suspect will be a vote winner so unlikely, but it's what they should do in my view.
You could rightly argue big business could take the hit, but I suspect the average small business would struggle to survive with a decent increase in minimum wage.
The other extreme is to scrap almost all benefits and pay every adult a minimum wage from the state (like a state pension for under 65's). The money that would save in the system cost of managing the benefit system would be huge (BUT would make a hell of a lot of public sectors workers unemployed although of course they would get that 'wage'), then just adjust the taxation rates up and probably remove any form of tax free allowance to balance out.
It seems to me that the big business' are the ones taking the piss with wages though R7L, not so much the smaller ones?
I don't think it's quite that simple or black and white and does depend how you define big business but broadly agree they are the worst.
Many sectors, take retail, some big businesses on both turnover and number of employee's but who are all the time going under or make a loss, stick the minimum wage up to £12 and I suspect many more would go under. As consumers we all play a part in this.
You'll also I'm sure find smaller businesses with smaller turn overs but making a good profit who also only pay minimum wage as well as the larger ones we all know about and read about.
McDonlads are in the press a lot lately, they pay only slightly above the minimum at the bottom rung according to the press, although my daughter seems to earn about £1 more an hour than minimum so not sure how that all works through. But think the bigger issue is on zero hour contracts that doesn't work for everyone.
The policy is supposed to make work pay. The massive irony is work does not pay enough for people not to have to claim top up benefits. Isn't the employer supposed to avoid wage subsidy from the government? I know there are issues with part time work and such, but ought a person doing an honest 40 hours a week be able to live on that? If there is a problem then I suppose prices as well as taxes ought to go up. I get the argument above about choosing shelter and food before supposed luxuries, the TV and mobile phone were poor examples though. However not all claimants or poor people are feckless, many have genuinely fallen on hard times and it is a pity so many in society resent helping them rather than being glad and privileged to do so.
Not when the government set and tell the employer what the minimum they have to pay is and many small business are solvent because of it. For all the problems having a minimum wage solved back in 98 it caused a whole heap more that has rolled on and rolled on so is now the norm and in part leads us to where we are now, wages being paid that aren't enough to live on.
It must have been a conscious policy with the advent of in work benefits that employers wouldn't pay enough, otherwise there wouldn't be the need for the majority of in work benefits.
We are a way down the path now so it is difficult to unravel, but not impossible. A Government could increase minimum wage to nearer a true living wage, but at the same time they would need to cut employers NI and change, again, the benefit system. None of which I suspect will be a vote winner so unlikely, but it's what they should do in my view.
You could rightly argue big business could take the hit, but I suspect the average small business would struggle to survive with a decent increase in minimum wage.
The other extreme is to scrap almost all benefits and pay every adult a minimum wage from the state (like a state pension for under 65's). The money that would save in the system cost of managing the benefit system would be huge (BUT would make a hell of a lot of public sectors workers unemployed although of course they would get that 'wage'), then just adjust the taxation rates up and probably remove any form of tax free allowance to balance out.
It seems to me that the big business' are the ones taking the piss with wages though R7L, not so much the smaller ones?
In the creative fields you can earn a lot more going along or working for smaller companies. For some reason larger companies seem to think having a “name” on your cv is reason enough not to pay you much. Let alone give you pay rises.
It's exactly the same out here, I'm the academic manager at a small private English school, I take home a decent salary, I recently went for an interview with Disney, exactly the same job, same hours yet they offered me less than half of that BEFORE tax! When I explained that was an absolute non starter I was told working for Disney will adcance my career, what a load of old bollocks.
They also seemed to think paying me im sterling was a benefit, despite me living in China.
The policy is supposed to make work pay. The massive irony is work does not pay enough for people not to have to claim top up benefits. Isn't the employer supposed to avoid wage subsidy from the government? I know there are issues with part time work and such, but ought a person doing an honest 40 hours a week be able to live on that? If there is a problem then I suppose prices as well as taxes ought to go up. I get the argument above about choosing shelter and food before supposed luxuries, the TV and mobile phone were poor examples though. However not all claimants or poor people are feckless, many have genuinely fallen on hard times and it is a pity so many in society resent helping them rather than being glad and privileged to do so.
Not when the government set and tell the employer what the minimum they have to pay is and many small business are solvent because of it. For all the problems having a minimum wage solved back in 98 it caused a whole heap more that has rolled on and rolled on so is now the norm and in part leads us to where we are now, wages being paid that aren't enough to live on.
It must have been a conscious policy with the advent of in work benefits that employers wouldn't pay enough, otherwise there wouldn't be the need for the majority of in work benefits.
We are a way down the path now so it is difficult to unravel, but not impossible. A Government could increase minimum wage to nearer a true living wage, but at the same time they would need to cut employers NI and change, again, the benefit system. None of which I suspect will be a vote winner so unlikely, but it's what they should do in my view.
You could rightly argue big business could take the hit, but I suspect the average small business would struggle to survive with a decent increase in minimum wage.
The other extreme is to scrap almost all benefits and pay every adult a minimum wage from the state (like a state pension for under 65's). The money that would save in the system cost of managing the benefit system would be huge (BUT would make a hell of a lot of public sectors workers unemployed although of course they would get that 'wage'), then just adjust the taxation rates up and probably remove any form of tax free allowance to balance out.
It seems to me that the big business' are the ones taking the piss with wages though R7L, not so much the smaller ones?
I don't think it's quite that simple or black and white and does depend how you define big business but broadly agree they are the worst.
Many sectors, take retail, some big businesses on both turnover and number of employee's but who are all the time going under or make a loss, stick the minimum wage up to £12 and I suspect many more would go under. As consumers we all play a part in this.
You'll also I'm sure find smaller businesses with smaller turn overs but making a good profit who also only pay minimum wage as well as the larger ones we all know about and read about.
McDonlads are in the press a lot lately, they pay only slightly above the minimum at the bottom rung according to the press, although my daughter seems to earn about £1 more an hour than minimum so not sure how that all works through. But think the bigger issue is on zero hour contracts that doesn't work for everyone.
The other problem with raising the minimum wage is that then everyone wants a payrise, why work a high stress job if the difference in pay between that and stacking shelves has been greatly reduced.
The policy is supposed to make work pay. The massive irony is work does not pay enough for people not to have to claim top up benefits. Isn't the employer supposed to avoid wage subsidy from the government? I know there are issues with part time work and such, but ought a person doing an honest 40 hours a week be able to live on that? If there is a problem then I suppose prices as well as taxes ought to go up. I get the argument above about choosing shelter and food before supposed luxuries, the TV and mobile phone were poor examples though. However not all claimants or poor people are feckless, many have genuinely fallen on hard times and it is a pity so many in society resent helping them rather than being glad and privileged to do so.
Not when the government set and tell the employer what the minimum they have to pay is and many small business are solvent because of it. For all the problems having a minimum wage solved back in 98 it caused a whole heap more that has rolled on and rolled on so is now the norm and in part leads us to where we are now, wages being paid that aren't enough to live on.
It must have been a conscious policy with the advent of in work benefits that employers wouldn't pay enough, otherwise there wouldn't be the need for the majority of in work benefits.
We are a way down the path now so it is difficult to unravel, but not impossible. A Government could increase minimum wage to nearer a true living wage, but at the same time they would need to cut employers NI and change, again, the benefit system. None of which I suspect will be a vote winner so unlikely, but it's what they should do in my view.
You could rightly argue big business could take the hit, but I suspect the average small business would struggle to survive with a decent increase in minimum wage.
The other extreme is to scrap almost all benefits and pay every adult a minimum wage from the state (like a state pension for under 65's). The money that would save in the system cost of managing the benefit system would be huge (BUT would make a hell of a lot of public sectors workers unemployed although of course they would get that 'wage'), then just adjust the taxation rates up and probably remove any form of tax free allowance to balance out.
It seems to me that the big business' are the ones taking the piss with wages though R7L, not so much the smaller ones?
I don't think it's quite that simple or black and white and does depend how you define big business but broadly agree they are the worst.
Many sectors, take retail, some big businesses on both turnover and number of employee's but who are all the time going under or make a loss, stick the minimum wage up to £12 and I suspect many more would go under. As consumers we all play a part in this.
You'll also I'm sure find smaller businesses with smaller turn overs but making a good profit who also only pay minimum wage as well as the larger ones we all know about and read about.
McDonlads are in the press a lot lately, they pay only slightly above the minimum at the bottom rung according to the press, although my daughter seems to earn about £1 more an hour than minimum so not sure how that all works through. But think the bigger issue is on zero hour contracts that doesn't work for everyone.
The other problem with raising the minimum wage is that then everyone wants a payrise, why work a high stress job if the difference in pay between that and stacking shelves has been greatly reduced.
The policy is supposed to make work pay. The massive irony is work does not pay enough for people not to have to claim top up benefits. Isn't the employer supposed to avoid wage subsidy from the government? I know there are issues with part time work and such, but ought a person doing an honest 40 hours a week be able to live on that? If there is a problem then I suppose prices as well as taxes ought to go up. I get the argument above about choosing shelter and food before supposed luxuries, the TV and mobile phone were poor examples though. However not all claimants or poor people are feckless, many have genuinely fallen on hard times and it is a pity so many in society resent helping them rather than being glad and privileged to do so.
Not when the government set and tell the employer what the minimum they have to pay is and many small business are solvent because of it. For all the problems having a minimum wage solved back in 98 it caused a whole heap more that has rolled on and rolled on so is now the norm and in part leads us to where we are now, wages being paid that aren't enough to live on.
It must have been a conscious policy with the advent of in work benefits that employers wouldn't pay enough, otherwise there wouldn't be the need for the majority of in work benefits.
We are a way down the path now so it is difficult to unravel, but not impossible. A Government could increase minimum wage to nearer a true living wage, but at the same time they would need to cut employers NI and change, again, the benefit system. None of which I suspect will be a vote winner so unlikely, but it's what they should do in my view.
You could rightly argue big business could take the hit, but I suspect the average small business would struggle to survive with a decent increase in minimum wage.
The other extreme is to scrap almost all benefits and pay every adult a minimum wage from the state (like a state pension for under 65's). The money that would save in the system cost of managing the benefit system would be huge (BUT would make a hell of a lot of public sectors workers unemployed although of course they would get that 'wage'), then just adjust the taxation rates up and probably remove any form of tax free allowance to balance out.
It seems to me that the big business' are the ones taking the piss with wages though R7L, not so much the smaller ones?
I don't think it's quite that simple or black and white and does depend how you define big business but broadly agree they are the worst.
Many sectors, take retail, some big businesses on both turnover and number of employee's but who are all the time going under or make a loss, stick the minimum wage up to £12 and I suspect many more would go under. As consumers we all play a part in this.
You'll also I'm sure find smaller businesses with smaller turn overs but making a good profit who also only pay minimum wage as well as the larger ones we all know about and read about.
McDonlads are in the press a lot lately, they pay only slightly above the minimum at the bottom rung according to the press, although my daughter seems to earn about £1 more an hour than minimum so not sure how that all works through. But think the bigger issue is on zero hour contracts that doesn't work for everyone.
The other problem with raising the minimum wage is that then everyone wants a payrise, why work a high stress job if the difference in pay between that and stacking shelves has been greatly reduced.
Because it’s still more.
And part of it is around future earning potential.
I can remember when I started work a bottom of the rung office job paid about the same or less than a supermarket till job. But it was more around the future prospective earnings.
The policy is supposed to make work pay. The massive irony is work does not pay enough for people not to have to claim top up benefits. Isn't the employer supposed to avoid wage subsidy from the government? I know there are issues with part time work and such, but ought a person doing an honest 40 hours a week be able to live on that? If there is a problem then I suppose prices as well as taxes ought to go up. I get the argument above about choosing shelter and food before supposed luxuries, the TV and mobile phone were poor examples though. However not all claimants or poor people are feckless, many have genuinely fallen on hard times and it is a pity so many in society resent helping them rather than being glad and privileged to do so.
Not when the government set and tell the employer what the minimum they have to pay is and many small business are solvent because of it. For all the problems having a minimum wage solved back in 98 it caused a whole heap more that has rolled on and rolled on so is now the norm and in part leads us to where we are now, wages being paid that aren't enough to live on.
It must have been a conscious policy with the advent of in work benefits that employers wouldn't pay enough, otherwise there wouldn't be the need for the majority of in work benefits.
We are a way down the path now so it is difficult to unravel, but not impossible. A Government could increase minimum wage to nearer a true living wage, but at the same time they would need to cut employers NI and change, again, the benefit system. None of which I suspect will be a vote winner so unlikely, but it's what they should do in my view.
You could rightly argue big business could take the hit, but I suspect the average small business would struggle to survive with a decent increase in minimum wage.
The other extreme is to scrap almost all benefits and pay every adult a minimum wage from the state (like a state pension for under 65's). The money that would save in the system cost of managing the benefit system would be huge (BUT would make a hell of a lot of public sectors workers unemployed although of course they would get that 'wage'), then just adjust the taxation rates up and probably remove any form of tax free allowance to balance out.
It seems to me that the big business' are the ones taking the piss with wages though R7L, not so much the smaller ones?
I don't think it's quite that simple or black and white and does depend how you define big business but broadly agree they are the worst.
Many sectors, take retail, some big businesses on both turnover and number of employee's but who are all the time going under or make a loss, stick the minimum wage up to £12 and I suspect many more would go under. As consumers we all play a part in this.
You'll also I'm sure find smaller businesses with smaller turn overs but making a good profit who also only pay minimum wage as well as the larger ones we all know about and read about.
McDonlads are in the press a lot lately, they pay only slightly above the minimum at the bottom rung according to the press, although my daughter seems to earn about £1 more an hour than minimum so not sure how that all works through. But think the bigger issue is on zero hour contracts that doesn't work for everyone.
The other problem with raising the minimum wage is that then everyone wants a payrise, why work a high stress job if the difference in pay between that and stacking shelves has been greatly reduced.
The policy is supposed to make work pay. The massive irony is work does not pay enough for people not to have to claim top up benefits. Isn't the employer supposed to avoid wage subsidy from the government? I know there are issues with part time work and such, but ought a person doing an honest 40 hours a week be able to live on that? If there is a problem then I suppose prices as well as taxes ought to go up. I get the argument above about choosing shelter and food before supposed luxuries, the TV and mobile phone were poor examples though. However not all claimants or poor people are feckless, many have genuinely fallen on hard times and it is a pity so many in society resent helping them rather than being glad and privileged to do so.
Not when the government set and tell the employer what the minimum they have to pay is and many small business are solvent because of it. For all the problems having a minimum wage solved back in 98 it caused a whole heap more that has rolled on and rolled on so is now the norm and in part leads us to where we are now, wages being paid that aren't enough to live on.
It must have been a conscious policy with the advent of in work benefits that employers wouldn't pay enough, otherwise there wouldn't be the need for the majority of in work benefits.
We are a way down the path now so it is difficult to unravel, but not impossible. A Government could increase minimum wage to nearer a true living wage, but at the same time they would need to cut employers NI and change, again, the benefit system. None of which I suspect will be a vote winner so unlikely, but it's what they should do in my view.
You could rightly argue big business could take the hit, but I suspect the average small business would struggle to survive with a decent increase in minimum wage.
The other extreme is to scrap almost all benefits and pay every adult a minimum wage from the state (like a state pension for under 65's). The money that would save in the system cost of managing the benefit system would be huge (BUT would make a hell of a lot of public sectors workers unemployed although of course they would get that 'wage'), then just adjust the taxation rates up and probably remove any form of tax free allowance to balance out.
It seems to me that the big business' are the ones taking the piss with wages though R7L, not so much the smaller ones?
I don't think it's quite that simple or black and white and does depend how you define big business but broadly agree they are the worst.
Many sectors, take retail, some big businesses on both turnover and number of employee's but who are all the time going under or make a loss, stick the minimum wage up to £12 and I suspect many more would go under. As consumers we all play a part in this.
You'll also I'm sure find smaller businesses with smaller turn overs but making a good profit who also only pay minimum wage as well as the larger ones we all know about and read about.
McDonlads are in the press a lot lately, they pay only slightly above the minimum at the bottom rung according to the press, although my daughter seems to earn about £1 more an hour than minimum so not sure how that all works through. But think the bigger issue is on zero hour contracts that doesn't work for everyone.
The other problem with raising the minimum wage is that then everyone wants a payrise, why work a high stress job if the difference in pay between that and stacking shelves has been greatly reduced.
I think it really depends - people get different things from work apart from money. I don't think that stressful jobs are concentrated in those that pay minimum wage - the really stressed people I know all work in teaching or health or social care. None of these pay well but it is quite a bit more than minimum wage (unless you include all the extra unpaid hours). I think all these sectors are struggling to keep people and pay is only one factor among many.
The policy is supposed to make work pay. The massive irony is work does not pay enough for people not to have to claim top up benefits. Isn't the employer supposed to avoid wage subsidy from the government? I know there are issues with part time work and such, but ought a person doing an honest 40 hours a week be able to live on that? If there is a problem then I suppose prices as well as taxes ought to go up. I get the argument above about choosing shelter and food before supposed luxuries, the TV and mobile phone were poor examples though. However not all claimants or poor people are feckless, many have genuinely fallen on hard times and it is a pity so many in society resent helping them rather than being glad and privileged to do so.
Not when the government set and tell the employer what the minimum they have to pay is and many small business are solvent because of it. For all the problems having a minimum wage solved back in 98 it caused a whole heap more that has rolled on and rolled on so is now the norm and in part leads us to where we are now, wages being paid that aren't enough to live on.
It must have been a conscious policy with the advent of in work benefits that employers wouldn't pay enough, otherwise there wouldn't be the need for the majority of in work benefits.
We are a way down the path now so it is difficult to unravel, but not impossible. A Government could increase minimum wage to nearer a true living wage, but at the same time they would need to cut employers NI and change, again, the benefit system. None of which I suspect will be a vote winner so unlikely, but it's what they should do in my view.
You could rightly argue big business could take the hit, but I suspect the average small business would struggle to survive with a decent increase in minimum wage.
The other extreme is to scrap almost all benefits and pay every adult a minimum wage from the state (like a state pension for under 65's). The money that would save in the system cost of managing the benefit system would be huge (BUT would make a hell of a lot of public sectors workers unemployed although of course they would get that 'wage'), then just adjust the taxation rates up and probably remove any form of tax free allowance to balance out.
It seems to me that the big business' are the ones taking the piss with wages though R7L, not so much the smaller ones?
I don't think it's quite that simple or black and white and does depend how you define big business but broadly agree they are the worst.
Many sectors, take retail, some big businesses on both turnover and number of employee's but who are all the time going under or make a loss, stick the minimum wage up to £12 and I suspect many more would go under. As consumers we all play a part in this.
You'll also I'm sure find smaller businesses with smaller turn overs but making a good profit who also only pay minimum wage as well as the larger ones we all know about and read about.
McDonlads are in the press a lot lately, they pay only slightly above the minimum at the bottom rung according to the press, although my daughter seems to earn about £1 more an hour than minimum so not sure how that all works through. But think the bigger issue is on zero hour contracts that doesn't work for everyone.
The other problem with raising the minimum wage is that then everyone wants a payrise, why work a high stress job if the difference in pay between that and stacking shelves has been greatly reduced.
Because it’s still more.
And part of it is around future earning potential.
I can remember when I started work a bottom of the rung office job paid about the same or less than a supermarket till job. But it was more around the future prospective earnings.
It’s a tough one with this, because undoubtedly there are professions that pay more, but if you make a good crack at working in a supermarket role and move up the ladder, you can also get on good money. I’d be interested to see stats on how many people rise up through the shop floor to management positions, or do they syphon off those roles for their graduates etc. I think the whole world of work will need a rethink in the future on so many levels. AI, machine learning, flexible working, apprenticeships, going to uni, grad schemes, I think the whole thing might need tearing up and being rewritten to meet the future
My basic when I started in telesales back in August 06 was £15k p.a plus commission. Obviously as Rob7lee highlights you can look at potential, but not many people stick at it let alone do well. If I hadn’t have been living at home with my dad when I came back from uni there is no way in the world I could’ve of moved to London on that and found somewhere to live. London really is now a place for those on grad schemes or well paid roles if you want any sort of life.
The policy is supposed to make work pay. The massive irony is work does not pay enough for people not to have to claim top up benefits. Isn't the employer supposed to avoid wage subsidy from the government? I know there are issues with part time work and such, but ought a person doing an honest 40 hours a week be able to live on that? If there is a problem then I suppose prices as well as taxes ought to go up. I get the argument above about choosing shelter and food before supposed luxuries, the TV and mobile phone were poor examples though. However not all claimants or poor people are feckless, many have genuinely fallen on hard times and it is a pity so many in society resent helping them rather than being glad and privileged to do so.
Not when the government set and tell the employer what the minimum they have to pay is and many small business are solvent because of it. For all the problems having a minimum wage solved back in 98 it caused a whole heap more that has rolled on and rolled on so is now the norm and in part leads us to where we are now, wages being paid that aren't enough to live on.
It must have been a conscious policy with the advent of in work benefits that employers wouldn't pay enough, otherwise there wouldn't be the need for the majority of in work benefits.
We are a way down the path now so it is difficult to unravel, but not impossible. A Government could increase minimum wage to nearer a true living wage, but at the same time they would need to cut employers NI and change, again, the benefit system. None of which I suspect will be a vote winner so unlikely, but it's what they should do in my view.
You could rightly argue big business could take the hit, but I suspect the average small business would struggle to survive with a decent increase in minimum wage.
The other extreme is to scrap almost all benefits and pay every adult a minimum wage from the state (like a state pension for under 65's). The money that would save in the system cost of managing the benefit system would be huge (BUT would make a hell of a lot of public sectors workers unemployed although of course they would get that 'wage'), then just adjust the taxation rates up and probably remove any form of tax free allowance to balance out.
It seems to me that the big business' are the ones taking the piss with wages though R7L, not so much the smaller ones?
I don't think it's quite that simple or black and white and does depend how you define big business but broadly agree they are the worst.
Many sectors, take retail, some big businesses on both turnover and number of employee's but who are all the time going under or make a loss, stick the minimum wage up to £12 and I suspect many more would go under. As consumers we all play a part in this.
You'll also I'm sure find smaller businesses with smaller turn overs but making a good profit who also only pay minimum wage as well as the larger ones we all know about and read about.
McDonlads are in the press a lot lately, they pay only slightly above the minimum at the bottom rung according to the press, although my daughter seems to earn about £1 more an hour than minimum so not sure how that all works through. But think the bigger issue is on zero hour contracts that doesn't work for everyone.
The other problem with raising the minimum wage is that then everyone wants a payrise, why work a high stress job if the difference in pay between that and stacking shelves has been greatly reduced.
The policy is supposed to make work pay. The massive irony is work does not pay enough for people not to have to claim top up benefits. Isn't the employer supposed to avoid wage subsidy from the government? I know there are issues with part time work and such, but ought a person doing an honest 40 hours a week be able to live on that? If there is a problem then I suppose prices as well as taxes ought to go up. I get the argument above about choosing shelter and food before supposed luxuries, the TV and mobile phone were poor examples though. However not all claimants or poor people are feckless, many have genuinely fallen on hard times and it is a pity so many in society resent helping them rather than being glad and privileged to do so.
Not when the government set and tell the employer what the minimum they have to pay is and many small business are solvent because of it. For all the problems having a minimum wage solved back in 98 it caused a whole heap more that has rolled on and rolled on so is now the norm and in part leads us to where we are now, wages being paid that aren't enough to live on.
It must have been a conscious policy with the advent of in work benefits that employers wouldn't pay enough, otherwise there wouldn't be the need for the majority of in work benefits.
We are a way down the path now so it is difficult to unravel, but not impossible. A Government could increase minimum wage to nearer a true living wage, but at the same time they would need to cut employers NI and change, again, the benefit system. None of which I suspect will be a vote winner so unlikely, but it's what they should do in my view.
You could rightly argue big business could take the hit, but I suspect the average small business would struggle to survive with a decent increase in minimum wage.
The other extreme is to scrap almost all benefits and pay every adult a minimum wage from the state (like a state pension for under 65's). The money that would save in the system cost of managing the benefit system would be huge (BUT would make a hell of a lot of public sectors workers unemployed although of course they would get that 'wage'), then just adjust the taxation rates up and probably remove any form of tax free allowance to balance out.
It seems to me that the big business' are the ones taking the piss with wages though R7L, not so much the smaller ones?
I don't think it's quite that simple or black and white and does depend how you define big business but broadly agree they are the worst.
Many sectors, take retail, some big businesses on both turnover and number of employee's but who are all the time going under or make a loss, stick the minimum wage up to £12 and I suspect many more would go under. As consumers we all play a part in this.
You'll also I'm sure find smaller businesses with smaller turn overs but making a good profit who also only pay minimum wage as well as the larger ones we all know about and read about.
McDonlads are in the press a lot lately, they pay only slightly above the minimum at the bottom rung according to the press, although my daughter seems to earn about £1 more an hour than minimum so not sure how that all works through. But think the bigger issue is on zero hour contracts that doesn't work for everyone.
The other problem with raising the minimum wage is that then everyone wants a payrise, why work a high stress job if the difference in pay between that and stacking shelves has been greatly reduced.
Because it’s still more.
And part of it is around future earning potential.
I can remember when I started work a bottom of the rung office job paid about the same or less than a supermarket till job. But it was more around the future prospective earnings.
It’s a tough one with this, because undoubtedly there are professions that pay more, but if you make a good crack at working in a supermarket role and move up the ladder, you can also get on good money. I’d be interested to see stats on how many people rise up through the shop floor to management positions, or do they syphon off those roles for their graduates etc. I think the whole world of work will need a rethink in the future on so many levels. AI, machine learning, flexible working, apprenticeships, going to uni, grad schemes, I think the whole thing might need tearing up and being rewritten to meet the future
My basic when I started in telesales back in August 06 was £15k p.a plus commission. Obviously as Rob7lee highlights you can look at potential, but not many people stick at it let alone do well. If I hadn’t have been living at home with my dad when I came back from uni there is no way in the world I could’ve of moved to London on that and found somewhere to live. London really is now a place for those on grad schemes or well paid roles if you want any sort of life.
Bloody whipper snappers, did I really start work 17 years before you..... (£5,016 P.A. no commission but a £1 luncheon voucher a day!)
The policy is supposed to make work pay. The massive irony is work does not pay enough for people not to have to claim top up benefits. Isn't the employer supposed to avoid wage subsidy from the government? I know there are issues with part time work and such, but ought a person doing an honest 40 hours a week be able to live on that? If there is a problem then I suppose prices as well as taxes ought to go up. I get the argument above about choosing shelter and food before supposed luxuries, the TV and mobile phone were poor examples though. However not all claimants or poor people are feckless, many have genuinely fallen on hard times and it is a pity so many in society resent helping them rather than being glad and privileged to do so.
Not when the government set and tell the employer what the minimum they have to pay is and many small business are solvent because of it. For all the problems having a minimum wage solved back in 98 it caused a whole heap more that has rolled on and rolled on so is now the norm and in part leads us to where we are now, wages being paid that aren't enough to live on.
It must have been a conscious policy with the advent of in work benefits that employers wouldn't pay enough, otherwise there wouldn't be the need for the majority of in work benefits.
We are a way down the path now so it is difficult to unravel, but not impossible. A Government could increase minimum wage to nearer a true living wage, but at the same time they would need to cut employers NI and change, again, the benefit system. None of which I suspect will be a vote winner so unlikely, but it's what they should do in my view.
You could rightly argue big business could take the hit, but I suspect the average small business would struggle to survive with a decent increase in minimum wage.
The other extreme is to scrap almost all benefits and pay every adult a minimum wage from the state (like a state pension for under 65's). The money that would save in the system cost of managing the benefit system would be huge (BUT would make a hell of a lot of public sectors workers unemployed although of course they would get that 'wage'), then just adjust the taxation rates up and probably remove any form of tax free allowance to balance out.
It seems to me that the big business' are the ones taking the piss with wages though R7L, not so much the smaller ones?
I don't think it's quite that simple or black and white and does depend how you define big business but broadly agree they are the worst.
Many sectors, take retail, some big businesses on both turnover and number of employee's but who are all the time going under or make a loss, stick the minimum wage up to £12 and I suspect many more would go under. As consumers we all play a part in this.
You'll also I'm sure find smaller businesses with smaller turn overs but making a good profit who also only pay minimum wage as well as the larger ones we all know about and read about.
McDonlads are in the press a lot lately, they pay only slightly above the minimum at the bottom rung according to the press, although my daughter seems to earn about £1 more an hour than minimum so not sure how that all works through. But think the bigger issue is on zero hour contracts that doesn't work for everyone.
The other problem with raising the minimum wage is that then everyone wants a payrise, why work a high stress job if the difference in pay between that and stacking shelves has been greatly reduced.
Because it’s still more.
And part of it is around future earning potential.
I can remember when I started work a bottom of the rung office job paid about the same or less than a supermarket till job. But it was more around the future prospective earnings.
It’s a tough one with this, because undoubtedly there are professions that pay more, but if you make a good crack at working in a supermarket role and move up the ladder, you can also get on good money. I’d be interested to see stats on how many people rise up through the shop floor to management positions, or do they syphon off those roles for their graduates etc. I think the whole world of work will need a rethink in the future on so many levels. AI, machine learning, flexible working, apprenticeships, going to uni, grad schemes, I think the whole thing might need tearing up and being rewritten to meet the future
My basic when I started in telesales back in August 06 was £15k p.a plus commission. Obviously as Rob7lee highlights you can look at potential, but not many people stick at it let alone do well. If I hadn’t have been living at home with my dad when I came back from uni there is no way in the world I could’ve of moved to London on that and found somewhere to live. London really is now a place for those on grad schemes or well paid roles if you want any sort of life.
Bloody whipper snappers, did I really start work 17 years before you..... (£5,016 P.A. no commission but a £1 luncheon voucher a day!)
The policy is supposed to make work pay. The massive irony is work does not pay enough for people not to have to claim top up benefits. Isn't the employer supposed to avoid wage subsidy from the government? I know there are issues with part time work and such, but ought a person doing an honest 40 hours a week be able to live on that? If there is a problem then I suppose prices as well as taxes ought to go up. I get the argument above about choosing shelter and food before supposed luxuries, the TV and mobile phone were poor examples though. However not all claimants or poor people are feckless, many have genuinely fallen on hard times and it is a pity so many in society resent helping them rather than being glad and privileged to do so.
Not when the government set and tell the employer what the minimum they have to pay is and many small business are solvent because of it. For all the problems having a minimum wage solved back in 98 it caused a whole heap more that has rolled on and rolled on so is now the norm and in part leads us to where we are now, wages being paid that aren't enough to live on.
It must have been a conscious policy with the advent of in work benefits that employers wouldn't pay enough, otherwise there wouldn't be the need for the majority of in work benefits.
We are a way down the path now so it is difficult to unravel, but not impossible. A Government could increase minimum wage to nearer a true living wage, but at the same time they would need to cut employers NI and change, again, the benefit system. None of which I suspect will be a vote winner so unlikely, but it's what they should do in my view.
You could rightly argue big business could take the hit, but I suspect the average small business would struggle to survive with a decent increase in minimum wage.
The other extreme is to scrap almost all benefits and pay every adult a minimum wage from the state (like a state pension for under 65's). The money that would save in the system cost of managing the benefit system would be huge (BUT would make a hell of a lot of public sectors workers unemployed although of course they would get that 'wage'), then just adjust the taxation rates up and probably remove any form of tax free allowance to balance out.
It seems to me that the big business' are the ones taking the piss with wages though R7L, not so much the smaller ones?
I don't think it's quite that simple or black and white and does depend how you define big business but broadly agree they are the worst.
Many sectors, take retail, some big businesses on both turnover and number of employee's but who are all the time going under or make a loss, stick the minimum wage up to £12 and I suspect many more would go under. As consumers we all play a part in this.
You'll also I'm sure find smaller businesses with smaller turn overs but making a good profit who also only pay minimum wage as well as the larger ones we all know about and read about.
McDonlads are in the press a lot lately, they pay only slightly above the minimum at the bottom rung according to the press, although my daughter seems to earn about £1 more an hour than minimum so not sure how that all works through. But think the bigger issue is on zero hour contracts that doesn't work for everyone.
The other problem with raising the minimum wage is that then everyone wants a payrise, why work a high stress job if the difference in pay between that and stacking shelves has been greatly reduced.
Because it’s still more.
And part of it is around future earning potential.
I can remember when I started work a bottom of the rung office job paid about the same or less than a supermarket till job. But it was more around the future prospective earnings.
It’s a tough one with this, because undoubtedly there are professions that pay more, but if you make a good crack at working in a supermarket role and move up the ladder, you can also get on good money. I’d be interested to see stats on how many people rise up through the shop floor to management positions, or do they syphon off those roles for their graduates etc. I think the whole world of work will need a rethink in the future on so many levels. AI, machine learning, flexible working, apprenticeships, going to uni, grad schemes, I think the whole thing might need tearing up and being rewritten to meet the future
My basic when I started in telesales back in August 06 was £15k p.a plus commission. Obviously as Rob7lee highlights you can look at potential, but not many people stick at it let alone do well. If I hadn’t have been living at home with my dad when I came back from uni there is no way in the world I could’ve of moved to London on that and found somewhere to live. London really is now a place for those on grad schemes or well paid roles if you want any sort of life.
Bloody whipper snappers, did I really start work 17 years before you..... (£5,016 P.A. no commission but a £1 luncheon voucher a day!)
Luncheon vouchers! Blimey, I remember getting them many years ago.
Comments
Muttley, Cordoban & Shooters vs Rob7lee & Stu of Kunming
Guest referee Kent Addick.
Rob7lee & Stu of Kunming battle bravely but the odds start to get on top of them. Mutts is just about to finish off Rob7lee with his finishing move, the Corbynite, when Kent Addick turns and takes out Muttley from behind. Stu of Kunming senses a window of opportunity and climbs the cage to escape and claim an unlikely victory
The arena erupts to the sound of dancing queen
I'd prefer Mr Happy, thanks.
BY GAWD IS THAT WHO I THINK IT IS
The key question is whether you set up your policy based on people like your mate or the people who need it. I'd suggest that the effect of things like "Benefits Street" and the like is to demonise the poor (yes even those who are working 12 hours a day) as layabouts who scrounge is designed to get people to think most of the poor are the former and therefore we should cut benefits. Whenever there's a poll, people think something ridiculous like 25% is lost as fraud from the benefits system, when the real total is just over 1%; which shows the hostile environment for benefit claimants is working.
Hence the growth in food-banks, the demonising of the disabled, certifying people at death's door as fit for work, etc. It's the same process as with Windrush - you create a hostile environment and try to appeal to your base and make anyone suggesting otherwise look "soft".
Ultimately the real fix is to have wages that people can live on, but you only get those through concerted industrial action, which is largely illegal here and I expect would see even more complaints about how "selfish workers fighting for a living wage are disrupting my day".
I have a friend who used to be a claimant adviser and he told me (going back a few years) that when the government doctors were trying to get people off of disability benefit, the people he thought they should be getting off it somehow managed to stay on it and a lot of the people who were kicked off it made him cry.
Only yesterday, we saw IDS (who was a major player in the universal credit system) criticise the government for not funding it to the same extent as the previous system. I think his point was that it was supposed to be a better system, not a reason to pay less out to those that need it.
John Major - an ex Tory Prime Minister said yesterday that Universal credit has the potential to be the next poll tax.
Of course there are lots of other factors too. Mental illness being one. Drugs and alcohol dependency another. People need help sometimes to better help themselves and I have seen at first hand with somebody close to me how poor the support is out there.
Isn't the employer supposed to avoid wage subsidy from the government?
I know there are issues with part time work and such, but ought a person doing an honest 40 hours a week be able to live on that?
If there is a problem then I suppose prices as well as taxes ought to go up.
I get the argument above about choosing shelter and food before supposed luxuries, the TV and mobile phone were poor examples though.
However not all claimants or poor people are feckless, many have genuinely fallen on hard times and it is a pity so many in society resent helping them rather than being glad and privileged to do so.
The ones who cheat frustrate me so much when I am aware that some who deserve it have lost out for whatever reason. There are times it truly amazes me how some can get away with it to the detriment of others.
It must have been a conscious policy with the advent of in work benefits that employers wouldn't pay enough, otherwise there wouldn't be the need for the majority of in work benefits.
We are a way down the path now so it is difficult to unravel, but not impossible. A Government could increase minimum wage to nearer a true living wage, but at the same time they would need to cut employers NI and change, again, the benefit system. None of which I suspect will be a vote winner so unlikely, but it's what they should do in my view.
You could rightly argue big business could take the hit, but I suspect the average small business would struggle to survive with a decent increase in minimum wage.
The other extreme is to scrap almost all benefits and pay every adult a minimum wage from the state (like a state pension for under 65's). The money that would save in the system cost of managing the benefit system would be huge (BUT would make a hell of a lot of public sectors workers unemployed although of course they would get that 'wage'), then just adjust the taxation rates up and probably remove any form of tax free allowance to balance out.
Many sectors, take retail, some big businesses on both turnover and number of employee's but who are all the time going under or make a loss, stick the minimum wage up to £12 and I suspect many more would go under. As consumers we all play a part in this.
You'll also I'm sure find smaller businesses with smaller turn overs but making a good profit who also only pay minimum wage as well as the larger ones we all know about and read about.
McDonlads are in the press a lot lately, they pay only slightly above the minimum at the bottom rung according to the press, although my daughter seems to earn about £1 more an hour than minimum so not sure how that all works through. But think the bigger issue is on zero hour contracts that doesn't work for everyone.
They also seemed to think paying me im sterling was a benefit, despite me living in China.
I can remember when I started work a bottom of the rung office job paid about the same or less than a supermarket till job. But it was more around the future prospective earnings.
My basic when I started in telesales back in August 06 was £15k p.a plus commission. Obviously as Rob7lee highlights you can look at potential, but not many people stick at it let alone do well. If I hadn’t have been living at home with my dad when I came back from uni there is no way in the world I could’ve of moved to London on that and found somewhere to live. London really is now a place for those on grad schemes or well paid roles if you want any sort of life.