You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
richmtb - MemberTax Credits are basically a subsidy to the profits of businesses who can't or won't pay a living wage.
And if we break it down further... 'living wage' is usually dictated by most people's largest expense - housing costs.
The root cause once again being sky high house prices.
It amuses me how people are demanding a living wage etc on here, try running a small business and then see how tough it really is.
you are getting shat on from all angles from council tax to rent, to phone and electric, NI, tax etc, imports from overseas, european non vat imports, etc, then factor in wages and you will find its not that easy. what actually happens is that companies will not employ people at all the higher the wages are demanded, companies are not a social charity, if you want that then look at the hight street and the only growth industry is charity shops. but they arent paying anything as they are full of volunteers.
It amuses you that people want a living wage?
You would prefer an economy that forces employees into poverty so you can play at being a businessman.
yes, if I am going to employ someone and i cant afford to pay living wage then I wont employ someone.
but would you rather I paid less than living wage and employed someone or not employ anyone, let the other staff take up the demand with overtime etc.
it's a big committment to employ someone, and I dont take it lightly.
If wages are constantly driven down, and people have ever lower disposable incomes, then how is a society based on selling each other lattes going to function?
play?
you cheeky ****, it's my livelihood.
Or how about just a full-time 40hr properly contracted minimum wage job even!
Go to the job centre and try n find one...
and MSP I dont mind anyone wanting a living wage, or more than living wage, but not all jobs warrant it, so what amuses me are people on this site insisting that these jobs are just given out to people, the jobs arent there and are even less likely to be there with wage limits, I dont want people living in poverty, but jobs in factories making things in a low skilled environment arent going to happen as they are all in the far east.
so unless someone can dream up a new industry in the uk which pays a living wage to low skilled workers then we are going to have high levels of unemployment for ever.
i agree with kevevs-- a full lime job should pay a wage that should not need topping up from the state in order to provide a 'living income'-- in truth £9 hour would be a living minimum--
rebel12 - MemberThe vast majority of people who claim this sort of benefit are in rental accommodation so your argument is not really valid is it?
Got numbers?
how do the scandawegians and germans manage ?
so unless someone can dream up a new industry in the uk which pays a living wage to low skilled workers then we are going to have high levels of unemployment for ever.
Agreed, so it seems rather crappy of the government to cut peoples benefits on the pretence that it will push them into work when there are no jobs.
The germans employ about a third of their workforce on way less than minimum wage, the Germans are a low wage economy.
there are many germans on 3 euros an hour.
The government intends to lend to people whom the banks won't? Which will then drive property prices up again? In a market that still hasn't had a much needed readjustment? Should that not be setting alarm bells off all over the place? Have we really learned absolutely nothing?
Today's "society" is greed driven. It's fine to say that there will be another crash, whether that be banker driven or housing boom, but the people making these short term decisions, where will they be when this happens? You can guarantee they only have their own best interests at heart and will be long gone when it happens.
I dont want people living in poverty, but jobs in factories making things in a low skilled environment arent going to happen as they are all in the far east.
There is a simple choice really, You pay a living working wage, or you top up their wages with benefits. But you probably want to have your cake and eat it and have neither.
Sancho - Member...so unless someone can dream up a new industry in the uk which pays a living wage to low skilled workers then we are going to have high levels of unemployment for ever.
Or, work on the other side of the equation and try to figure out a way to lower the level of what's required for a 'living wage' 😉
The government needs to address social housing, and address its bullshit war policies and stop wasting money on IT, the NHS, the navy etc etc stop tax loopholes for international companies, tax freight and airlines properly, stop bullshit imports, get tought with China on copyright etc, clamp down on duty, etc, drop VAT, and build infrastructure for local/regional railways etc,
but i live in a dreamworld and I will be struggling to get buy until I die.
[i]The germans employ about a third of their workforce on way less than minimum wage, the Germans are a low wage economy.
there are many germans on 3 euros an hour.[/i]
But, based upon living there, they have far greater level of rent control/restrictions - which must make a difference.
And long term rents and a culture that doesn't worship at the high altar of house ownership.
So everyone who disagrees with the STW metro liberals is a daily mail reading fool who given the proper re-education (presumably you will set up camps come the revolution) would see their errors and conform.
house ownership in itself isnt such a bad thing, but seeing houses as investment boils my piss.
and buy to let should be banned. or at least taxed to **** to make it unprofitable.
and all those tv show presenters telling you how to make a profit on a house should be lined up and shot
IanW - Member
So everyone who disagrees with the STW metro liberals is a daily mail reading fool who given the proper re-education (presumably you will set up camps come the revolution) would see their errors and conform.
What are you worried about? It [i]is[/i] the most popular policy of evar, afterall. Isn't it?
Sancho - Member
house ownership in itself isnt such a bad thing, but seeing houses as investment boils my piss.
and buy to let should be banned. or at least taxed to **** to make it unprofitable.
and all those tv show presenters telling you how to make a profit on a house should be lined up and shot
Really?
In order to maintain mobility in the jobs market we are inadvertent landlords for the 3rd time now. Are we evil or victims of a screwed housing market and a decade of reckless government spending that has left nothing in reserve after the most profitable period in recent history? It's not that profitable but it is better than having to leave houses empty or stay put and not work. I guess you don't mean people like me but your making sweeping generalisations that don't really help.
Physical mobility would be useful a this point but people are afraid of change.
Im not trying to help or resolve any issues, this is a forum where sweeping generalisation is part of it, but it sounds like you have a habit of bying houses and then moving on and renting out the old ones, which is nice if you can afford it, but what would stop you renting instead of buying and letting.
Im not trying to help or resolve any issues, this is a forum where sweeping generalisation is part of it, but it sounds like you have a habit of bying houses and then moving on and renting out the old ones, which is nice if you can afford it, but what would stop you renting instead of buying and letting.
Nope very wrong, I understand it's part of making the point on the internet.
1 house the missus bought when she was settled, tried working elsewhere but didn't want to sell, by the time we tried impossible to sell as no buyers anywhere. Now emigrated can't sell better off renting, we are not screwing anyone over but charging market rate for rent.
We are renting currently as our money is tied up in property and common sense prevents us from over committing again to a difficult property situation. FWIW I'm mostly for renting as a more sensible financial proposition than buying in the current market. Just when those of us who have had to move and rent our properties out get flamed for doing what we needed to then it gets a bit annoying.
mikewsmith - Member
Just when those of us who have had to move and rent our properties out get flamed for doing what we needed to then it gets a bit annoying.
Seems to me like you didn't do any of the stuff sancho flamed though?
FTFY.house the missus bought when she was settled, tried working elsewhere but didn't want to sell, by the time we tried impossible to sell [s]as no buyers anywhere[/s] [i]as asking too much money for it[/i]
This is the problem rearing it's head again, house prices are just too high. Guessing here, but if you took a large mortgage you can't afford to sell at a loss so are forced to keep it. Had house prices been lower you would not have had to borrow so much to buy it and would have been able to sell without making a loss.
The best thing the government could do to help out is to find a way of lowering house prices, either increase supply (council house building, planning controls) or reducing demand (taxing investors, tougher imegration controls). In simple terms a cut in housing benefit should reduce the amount tennants have to spend on rent, reduced demand leads to lower rent leads to lower prices as investors leave the market, meaning those who now receive less benefit can afford the same house when the rent falls. It's this transitional period when benefits are aflling but costs remain high which is going to be the problem.
I have a horrible feeling the government are going to blink first though and benefits and rents and then house prices will continue to rise.
Just because you could sell a house at a given price doesn't mean it's the right thing to do - depends on what the reasons for sale are really.
The council are doing the best to increase supply around my way, we're now discussing which parts of the green belt to build on around the village.
love your comment mike, in that you did what you needed to do, ie buy a bunch of property around the country and then emigrate.
you are exactly part of the problem and I would happily see people like you being taxed heavily for these investments maybe then you would be selling off cheaper and thus relieve the burden on the property stock in the uk.
but dont worry Im sure you will be fine with your portfolio
Theres a shortage of social housing & the construction industry is struggling.
I've had an idea!
The germans employ about a third of their workforce on way less than minimum wage, the Germans are a low wage economy.
there are many germans on 3 euros an hour.
No they don't, the low wage workers are transient (temporary migrant workers) ie seasonal workers, you get them in the UK too picking fruit etc. Only in the UK the employers cheat the system another way by taking board and lodgings out of pay.
Most people earn more in Germany than the UK.
I've had an idea!
Does it involve cakes? 😀 All the best ideas do.
But this is a problem with democracy isn't it? Most homeowner voters will register their disappointment with falling house prices at the ballot box, won't they? Even if it's needed.
love your comment mike, in that you did what you needed to do, ie buy a bunch of property around the country and then emigrate.you are exactly part of the problem and I would happily see people like you being taxed heavily for these investments maybe then you would be selling off cheaper and thus relieve the burden on the property stock in the uk.
but dont worry Im sure you will be fine with your portfolio
1 house love to sell it but only had 1 viewing even with asking price lower than everything else around. It's not as simple as people think. What are you going too tax? the massive profit - about £50/year currently over the mortgage
I sit somewhat on the fence over this. There are people who take advantage of the system, those who could undoubtedly work some hrs per week but choose not to. However the family work related benefit system just doesn't add up. The system at the moment is banded so if you work 18 hours per week you get the same income for doing 29 hrs work. If you work 30 hrs or more you are entitled to an extra £750 per yr or £14.42 per week based on one parent with one child. Now please tell me who would work an extra 12 hrs per wk for £14.42.
For me it comes down to education. I know not everyone can be a rocket scientist but if you come out of the education system with few or no qualifications you will more than likely be better off on benefits. IMO we need to stop cutting back our schools budgets and change the value/attitude some people have toward both education and lifestyle. Based on having little or no qualifications which would you choose: a full time minimum wage job OR 18 hrs work & benefits top up when both choices give a similar lifestyle? Think about it…you could work 2 days and MTB 5 days…! 😯
MSP 30% of Germans are on lower pay than a living wage so thats not transient workers.
the ones on under 3 euros are probably many transient workers but the Germans on higher pay than uk is not exactly right.
Its why other EU countries have asked Germany to implment minimum wages that we in the uk have
Theres a shortage of social housing & the construction industry is struggling.I've had an idea!
That's the scary thing, it's hardly rocket science yet the government seems determined to plow the barren furrow of austerity until all of our ends.
You can't keep hammering spending while doing nothing about the demand side of the economy. That's just a race to the bottom
-
The trouble with the [url= http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/4-80-windfall-ruined-my-life-2013041665641 ]minimum wage[/url]
[i]This is the problem rearing it's head again, house prices are just too high. Guessing here, but if you took a large mortgage you can't afford to sell at a loss so are forced to keep it. Had house prices been lower you would not have had to borrow so much to buy it and would have been able to sell without making a loss.[/i]
In the US you can just give your house back to the bank with no further loss, which is what caused the 2008 crash, rather than here where any loss is 'assigned' to you. Consequently our crash is still going on, obviously not so obvious in areas with a shortage of property.
There are 2 problems
There is a lack of Credit which stops people entering the market
The market is stopped from lending to people who cant repay
To keep this market going we need a massive crash, very unpopular. It would still leave us in a hole but would also make the rest of the UK get going.
That's the scary thing, it's hardly rocket science yet the government seems determined to plow the barren furrow of austerity until all of our ends
Well they aren't stupid, obviously. The question is, what hidden reason is there for them not to kill those two birds with one stone?
The problem is government itself it is the biggest waste of money there is, we are a rich country yet we waste money on projects that are doomed to fail, like multiple aircraft carriers, a nuclear arsenal, multiple wars, NHS IT systems, etc etc, just billions wasted.
not to mention protecting tax havens and multinationals who pay nothing to the country.
molgrips - Member
But this is a problem with democracy isn't it? Most homeowner voters will register their disappointment with falling house prices at the ballot box, won't they? Even if it's needed.
That is exactly the problem.
Reminds me of a quote from the Prime Minister of Luxembour when all this kicked off in about 2008. "Everyone knows what should be done. No-one knows how to get re-elected afterwards."
We need a government prepared to commit political suicide for the good of the nation. Or a benign dictator 🙂
geetee1972 - Member"I think many people don't realise just how wealthy the super rich are. The 1,000 wealthiest people in Britain, according to the Sunday Times Rich List, are now worth a combined £395.8 billion, equivalent to more than a third of the national debt."
[b]And...? Who cares and what difference does it make? [/b]
Well if you paid attention geetee1972, you wouldn't have to ask those questions. You would have seen that the comment was made with reference to total income tax contributions by the top 1% earners.
mikewsmith - MemberTo keep this market going we need a massive crash, very unpopular.
On the plus side, it'd make for a [i]brilliant[/i] series of house improvement programs. They were always a bit dull when it went "We bought a house, ruined it, but it took 2 years and prices had gone up anyway- we're GENIUSES". I'd love to see a series where they end up selling themselves down the docks because of a housing crash. Sarah Beenie telling them how if they'd been better project managers they'd have one less STD.
No I don't own a house. Why do you ask?
Supposing then we got a social housing construction scheme underway.
Skilled work done by construction industry workers.
Unskilled (i.e digging holes, site clearance, manual stuff that doesn't require specialist "trade" skills) work is then made available at just above minimum wage. If you are assessed as "fit to work", you have to take one of these jobs if available or benefits are cut.
Houses get built, fit & capable workers are pushed into work. Any objections?
at just above minimum wage
Just above the minimum wage for heavy manual work ? This is Britain you know, one of the wealthiest nations on earth, not some poor underdeveloped third world country ffs.
Why do single unemployed need to live in a house and get paid landlords subsidy to pay the rent,perhaps built hostels similar to what students live in thwen when they get a job, just let them apply for rented housing using their pay to pay the rent or get a mortgage.
Sorry , just went into the Daily mail for a few seconds.
andyrm... Yes- people who want those jobs now can't, because someone who doesn't want the job is doing it. Probably less well. And it wouldn't make a serious dent in the jobless total anyway.
How about- let's build houses, and get builders to do it.
andyrm... Yes- people who want those jobs now can't, because someone who doesn't want the job is doing it. Probably less well. And it wouldn't make a serious dent in the jobless total anyway.How about- let's build houses, and get builders to do it.
Agreed - we need to build the houses, I was just trying to work out a way that we can create work and put people who can work into work. It shouldn't be a choice whether to work or not if they are capable of working, otherwise in effect that punishes those who [i]do [/i]choose to work.
We keep hearing on here about it being wrong that an employer can pay less than benefits, but the flipside to that is that how morally right is it that someone can make more by [i]not [/i]working? Same question, 2 perspectives.
A quick scan round any "sink" estate on any given day sees lots of young lads hanging round, all capable of being put to useful work of some form or another. But whether out of fear or something else (I don't claim to be a politician or have a masterplan), nobody is doing anything to force their hand. And that seems wrong to me.
Unskilled (i.e digging holes, site clearance, manual stuff that doesn't require specialist "trade" skills) work is then made available at just above minimum wage. If you are assessed as "fit to work", you have to take one of these jobs if available or benefits are cut.
quite apart from the point already made about asking someone to do heavy labour for minimum wage, i can only assume that you've never actually worked on a building site if you think that everyone is cut out for digging holes, site clearance, manual stuff that doesn't require specialist "trade" skills. i have and can assure you that not everyone can do that sort of stuff - unless of course you think that people should be [i]made[/i] to do it, but i think you'd probably concede that you're then talking about forced labour and i'm sure that's not what you have in mind.
on top of this, what if the person you're forcing to dig holes is highly skilled in other areas, how does it benefit anyone to have them digging holes and missing opportunities to make a much more applicable contribution ?
andyrm - MemberBut whether out of fear or something else (I don't claim to be a politician or have a masterplan), nobody is doing anything to force their hand. And that seems wrong to me.
And that does seem resaonable on the face of it, but we're still talking about forcing the unwilling into work, when there's not enough work for the willing, and that makes no sense other than that it feels good for a minute.
Would these employees be state employed?
How long would you have to be unemployed before being forced to labour? I'm a software engineer, I wouldn't want to be digging holes instead of trying to find jobs I'm better suited for.
im a soft namby pamby university educated science type
currently unemployed (made redundant end of december)
must admit i thought it would be a lot easier t get something quicker, but from the feedback ive had from my 2 (unseccessful) interviews there have been well over a hundred applicants for each job
even the lower skilled jobs in my field are hard to get at the moment and ive also been rejected from a few part time retail jobs!
had a different advisor from normal((supervisor infact) at the jobcentre last week she basically said that in the current climate their really wasnt much more I could do, and that it wasnt worth aiming too low as the building site mentioned above (as an example) wouldnt hire a graduate anyway
fair enough although im currently looking at volunteering for some local stuff at the moment, obviously cant tell the job centre as that means im not eligable for my 70 quid a week!
Kimbers, that all sounds painfully familiar
I was told id need to apply for 100 jobs to get one interview, and id need three interviews to get a job. Just as an average.
They where almost right, I only needed two interviews. Everything else was correct.
so , a problem is vastly exacerbated due to govt policies, the answer to such problem is enforced labour --sounds very fascistic to me.....
Maybe rather than concentrating on work schemes for the small percentage who are long term unemployed / unemployable the Job Centres should be made to do what their name suggests, become a centre for jobs. The majority of people who are unemployed are back into work within 12 (often very painful and demoralising) months, and often not into a job utilising their skills and expereince fully. The problem is often not lack of jobs but getting the right candidates to the right interviews. This is massively costly and frustrating from both an employee and employers perspective. The majority of jobs advertised through the Job Centres are low skill / low paid. The more skilled and managerial jobs are all advertised through the private sector which is pretty hit and miss. Maybe, just maybe if we got the Job Centres right, concentrated on the vast majority, no the parasitic few the whole expereince of finding a new job quickly could be improved.
Most employers don't even consider advertising through the Job Centres as the calibre of candidates offered is so low. Mind you the Job Centres aren't interested in the more skilled either, when I signed on last year I was told I was a 'light touch' candidate, when I asked what that meant I was told we can't do anything for you.
Mind you it's pretty typical of most government services, ignore the needs of the majority (who put something into the systems) to concentrate on the no hopers who just take. The only alternative is the private sector (recruitment agencies etc.) who do a better, but still poor job of matching candidates with vacancies.
Edit - I quite like the idea of punitive workfare but other than making me feel more self righteous and less tax abused I don't actually think it will address any of the underlying issues we have in the employment market but it will suck in massive resources to make it not work properly.
stumpyjon--
--- are you for real ?the problem is not the lack of jobs
you show your empathy there--you like the idea of punitive workfare-- as long as its not you eh......
I was chatting to my old man last night about this whole thing. He reminded me about when he got made redundant at 55 from a senior managerial job in the HE sector, I must have been about 21 at the time, so 14/15 years ago.
He couldn't find a job of similar calibre at the time, but understood the importance of taking a job - any job - to fulfill his obligations as a family man and pay the mortgage and feed us. So he worked nights in a Currys warehouse, shifting washing machines & fridges etc. Proper heavy, hard physical labour, way below his skill level and some would argue probably a bit physical for a 55 year old - but he understood his duties as a man and took the job.
What we seem to see at the moment (and I am talking in real life and on several comments here) is that people expect to be able to pick and choose. Maybe I am of a different mindset (my family is of mixed immigrant background - Irish/Portugese gypsy who always moved to where the work was back in the day) but I believe you have an obligation to take work, any work, if it is available. But how we create that mindset on a national scale is not something I have the answer for.
unbelievable --pick and choose--what are you on about --andyrm--i see so everyone should take any job, irrespective of anything-- even if that scenario was enacted --There Are Not Enough JOBS -- 🙄
What we seem to see at the moment (and I am talking in real life and on several comments here) is that people expect to be able to pick and choose.
It's not quite that. The issue is that you might end up stuck in that menial job unable to go to interviews etc for better jobs, where you can contribute to the economy better.
andyrm - I think you're delusional. Or just believing what you read in te press. I do think there's a small element in society that has some culture of entitlement, that thinks that they can pick and choose. But I'd say they're more at the top level of earners, if anything. The children of the rich. And a tiny minority on benefits who think they're too good to work.
Cold, harsh reality dictates that the other 99% of the population has to take whatever it can get. For exactly the same reason as your dad. Do you somehow think its any different for anyone else with bills to pay today? Seriously?
And I speak from a similar experience myself there
It's not quite that. The issue is that you might end up stuck in that menial job unable to go to interviews etc for better jobs, where you can contribute to the economy better.
Good point there - as I say, I'm not claiming to have all the answers, just thinking from personal experience and things I see round me.
I know that in Bristol, every agency has windows full of industrial/warehouse jobs - not sure if they get advertised in the job centre as well, but I wonder how many people sign on with as many agencies as possible too? I did when I was made redundant at 23 - and took a factory job after a day, until I could find something better.
Perhaps (and again this is me thinking out loud) if the government set up something like a recruitment agency in place of the job centre, where you had recruitment consultants paid commission like in the private sector, it would help. In other words, they would have a financial interest to get people into jobs. Couple that with a centralised pool where it is free for companies to advertise jobs, that this new organisation could tap into for requirements and to place candidates.
As part of the new scheme, the jobs would be built round 4 12 hour shifts so that staff then had a free work day each week to attend interviews for something more suited to their skillset.
Or am I missing something? Anyone else got any other ideas how this could work?
I'm genuinely interested in this topic, having worked in recruitment earlier in my career and now as a hiring manager - we've never placed ads in the job centre.
andyrm - I think you're delusional.
Shame you have to resort to insults.
just out of interest andy--where /whom do you work--hiring manager sounds a bit vague--are you able to say ?
You think that's an insult? 😯
Based in Bristol, work for a tech startup that was acquired by a major telco last year. Currently about to advertise a number of sales roles (£35-40k realistic OTE) as part of phase 3 expansion plans - and my understanding is there will be a significant number of tech roles coming soon too 🙂
My email is in my profile if anyone thinks they might fit the bill.
🙂
Perhaps (and again this is me thinking out loud) if the government set up something like a recruitment agency in place of the job centre, where you had recruitment consultants paid commission like in the private sector, it would help. In other words, they would have a financial interest to get people into jobs.
I suggest you google the work programme tbh
I then suggest you google work programme fraud
By this i mean the companies lie and cheat to get their payments rather than to help out the unemployed
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17476415
You are the current govt and I claim my £5 fraudulently
Couple that with a centralised pool where it is free for companies to advertise jobs, that this new organisation could tap into for requirements and to place candidates.
what like the Universal Job match website [ or the JC job points service] - that sort of thing they have doine for decades?
It is pointless as there are no jobs [ certainly not enough for all] and this is the basic problem
I don't want you to get upset, as you're clearly a sensitive soul, but you don't seem to have been [url= http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2013/02/22/work-programme-failure-finger-pointed-at-payment-by-results ]paying attention[/url]
The governments work programme is basically exactly what you're suggesting. The results have been far worse than if people had been left to their own devices. Its been an absolute shambles. And as JY pointed out, riddled with fraud
I've always found work when Ive been made redundant, sacked whatever, there are jobs out there, Ive worked in kitchens, packed boxes in warehouses, call centre, cleaner, lab work, whatever came up quickly at the agencies,
most of those jobs have led to better positions within the companies themselves.
And havent stopped me going for interviews, or applying for other jobs.
I never felt i had to keep myself unemployed in order to wait for a job of my standing, I have no standing, I just do what I can when I can.
to me its a matter of attitude.
I don't want you to get upset, as you're clearly a sensitive soul, but you don't seem to have been paying attention
Far from it mate. I'm one of the least sensitive and most emotionally level people you'd meet. I do however think it not unreasonable to expect a certain level of politeness in conversation, whether online or in person.
Hope that helps 🙂
I've always found work when Ive been made redundant, sacked whatever, there are jobs out there, Ive worked in kitchens, packed boxes in warehouses, call centre, cleaner, lab work, whatever came up quickly at the agencies,
most of those jobs have led to better positions within the companies themselves.
And havent stopped me going for interviews, or applying for other jobs.
I never felt i had to keep myself unemployed in order to wait for a job of my standing, I have no standing, I just do what I can when I can.
to me its a matter of attitude.
^^this is what I am taking about.
I know that in Bristol, every agency has windows full of industrial/warehouse jobs
They may not all be genuine jobs though.. in fact it could all be lies..
As for taking anything - last time I was out of work I tried to do a job for a two bit company in Hereford that strung me along for 4 months and basically gave me sod all. Once that was properly done for I got a temp job, warehouse work for a vanilla and mint distributors. It wasn't too bad actually - quite light work, nice and quiet, smelled fantastic, and there was a huge vat of hot liquid menthol in a special room which was brilliant to stick your head over and inhale deeply 🙂
I never felt i had to keep myself unemployed in order to wait for a job of my standing, I have no standing, I just do what I can when I can.
to me its a matter of attitude.
your right there are literally enpugh jobs to go round and the problem is attitude 😕
If the answers were as simple as some seem to think we would have no unemployed folk just motivational speakers instilling the right attitude which would somehow generate jobs
it does a diservice to people to suggest that everyone unemployed has the wrong attitude and to further suggest it is somehow their fault they have no work - simply we dont have enough jobs and if it was easy the work programme would be a massive success
But only 3.53% of people found a job for six months or more - missing the coalition's 5.5% target.
see even with fiddling they failed and even with experts the govt only expected 5 %
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20499836
You two could make millions if your solutions worked
You two could make millions if your solutions worked
Like I said, I don't claim to have all the answers - but was exploring ideas. There's got to be some kind of happy medium I guess, somewhere between total commoditisation of a workforce and the current system which is clearly failing.
I dont say there are enough jobs to go round, but I have always been able to find work at whatever level it needed to be, to enable me to earn some money.
and attitude is critical in my view when it comes to finding work.
and some of my jobs have been shit, and I mean shovelling it, but it paid a wage.
It's a competitive jobs market and there wont be any new jobs being developed en masse very soon, so the current unemployed need to face up to a harsh reality of getting competitive in the jobs market in order to get a job.
or live on benefits, it sucks at the bottom but you dont have to be there for ever.
race to the bottom sancho with that attitude
Clearly failing.. hmm
Well let's think about this.. any system is bound to have some aberrations, isn't it? Someone's always going to end up getting more than they need I'd think.
So the question is, what should your target be? Zero claimant cases getting more than they should? How do you decide how much they should get anyway? Post it on the Daily Mail website and see how many negative comments it gets?
How much money should we spend chasing the last few people who are making a killing? Cos if you don't make your money back it's not worth it, is it? Or is it?
If you cap benefits like they are doing now, then what happens when you have three kids and get accidentally pregnant with twins, say? Sure, it's your own fault for being careless - or is it? Contraception fails. And the twins and the other kids would suffer too wouldn't they?
so the current unemployed need to face up to a harsh reality of getting competitive in the jobs market in order to get a job.
or live on benefits
I think that's pretty much where we are anyway, isn't it? Maybe they could offer to work for a packet Wotsits, a dairylea dunker and a can of lemonade a day. That's going to make them more competitive than those bloody militants demanding £6 an hour!
race to the bottom rudebwoy I dont understand how you get that from my comments.
more a case of looking what you can do to get out of the position you find yourself in.
the cumbersome state is never going to be able to help everyone find work that needs it.
I do think there's a small element in society that has some culture of entitlement
yup, they're called the aristocracy