British Workers Wanted - Channel 4

[Mark]

What if you can't live off it or a job paying minimum wage?

[tim...]

ITYF that group have mostly aged out of the system

tim

[tim...]

then (assuming an able bodied person) your expected life-style is unrealistic

tim

[Ian Jackson]

In message , Mark writes

Is there any chance that you can add a space after the -- , so that your admittedly witty joke doesn't appear to be part of the actual text?

[Dave Plowman (News)]

Some or all of those benefits are available to those in work too.

You really do need to compare like for like.

And you mention children. Would you rather they starved, if the parents aren't working? Or put them in care until the parents can afford to support them?

Go for the basics. The basic OAP for a single person (assuming full contribution years) is £119 The basic uneployment benefit if under 25 is £57. Both can be supplemented by means tested benefits if eligible.

Now either one is super generous or one is parsimonious.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

Only if those towns have a new industry to replace mining. Which many haven't.

[JNugent]

[ ... ]

And you never know, you might just catch a glimpse of a BBC programme on catch-up, even without a licence, when that mate of yours (you know, the one who HAS a licence but doesn't want his details bandied about) watches a BBC programme on catch-up round at your place (as he is legally entitled to do).

You allow your non-connected friends to use your computer, don't you?

[JNugent]

Towns, or villages?

There aren't all that many proper towns where the only industry was coal mining.

But whether a town or a village, nothing prevents inhabitants from commuting. Most of the Welsh mining settlements are within easy commuting distance of the South Wales cities, for instance.

Merthyr to Cardiff is around less than 25 miles, for instance, and no more than an hour by road. That is a shorter commute than the classic Tunbridge Wells / Guildford / Woking / Slough - to London journeys (and probably a lot cheaper).

[JNugent]

Does that mean living at a higher living standard than our parents were able to expect (still on money just handed out to you)? It isn't credible that people cannot live on it. Maybe they cannot live the life they would choose on it, but that's the answer to a different question.

It's important to have some perspective on this. Looking back at recent economic and social history, there was a time, within easy living memory, when a phone (of any sort), washing machines, refrigerators, carpets, frequent home-redecoration, meals out, an alcohol-based "social life" and (especially) a motor vehicle were way outside the expectations of the majority. And that was people who were on earnings greater than social security benefits.

[Mark]

IMHO neither are generous.

[Mark]

Ah - you mean the unrealistic lifestyle of eating food and having somewhere to live.

[Mark]

Thanks for pointing that out. I had assumed my newsreader would get it right!

[Mark]

It may mean living on what is considered a minimum standard for nowadays. For example, in the past, many people lived in houses with no heating. I did. Would you expect people to do this nowadays?

The benefits available don't sound too generous to me. Although I cannot speak from experience, since I have never received benefits, although I have been poor.

Things have changed. Nowadays you need a phone, washing machine, fridge, and a motor vehicle. And, if you don't know why, I can explain it to you.

Also, bear in mind that many things are much more expensive than they were, like accomodation, food etc.

[JNugent]

No, you don't. You simply have to decide whether £23,000 (equivalent to over £29,000 gross) is a "pittance" or not.

No. I would just like people not to describe incomes equivalent to £29,000 (higher than the average salary) as a "pittance".

It isn't one, yet it is an easy to reach figure in London and the SE.

Indeed. I have said many times that single people get a raw deal from means tested benefits compared to those with children.

What was that about like for like?

[JNugent]

I don't recognise £119. My RP is £127 a week, plus odd change. I was a bit too old to qualify for the new (higher) rate which is being introduced.

But I am not expected to live on £127 a week long-term (even with a paid-off mortgage). If £127 were my only income and if I were single, I'd be entitled to Pension Credit, which would bring my weekly income up to £155.60 a week. And probably the whole of my Council Tax discounted (worth another £30+ a week).

None of this applies to me because my circumstances are not the same as the example given above.

The difference between a pensioner and an unemployed worker is that the pensioner's position can confidently be expected to last for the rest of their life (winning the Lottery excepted). It is as good as it is ever going to get (save for that Lottery).

Unemployed workers are in a different position: they can improve their economic position by getting a job, or working harder, or getting a better job. Their current position is not "as good as it gets".

[Handsome Jack]

Yellow posted

Because the vast majority of these jobs do not offer 40 hours a week. Far more likely to be 16 or 20.

[Andrew]

Err, no. The 'them and us' union attitudes of the 70's not only existed between groups of workers in the same company but between the unions as well.

I recollect, the electricians union was run by a bloke that the others (Scanlon, Jack Jones etc) utterly hated. I only had to contend with Clive Jenkins running ASTMS in the 70's.

[Yellow]

We are discussing unemployment benefits not the minimum wage, and the solution there is to get a job - obviously.

But if you are in work and decide you want a higher standard of living, whatever your income, the answer is obviously to earn more.

Not sure what else it is you expect me to say.

[Yellow]

That is just rhetoric and takes the discussion nowhere.

[Andrew]

I'm afraid that I'm hoping Spreadsheet Phil will carry out a one-off change to stamp duty to make the seller pay and not the buyer.

This will help the FTB, and claw back some of the massive over-valuation that the UK housing stock has reached.

Australian-style restrictions on ownership of residential property by non-doms and ltd co's would help too.