Sanctions to hit part time workers

[elmarko]

Easy to lol when you ain't ever been the victim of racism (not that I have of course). Insensitive.

Try harder.

That doesn't answer my question. If someone ain't happy with their lot why are they not doing something about it?

As usual you are missing the point.

A finite amount of roles exist which pay above the national minimum wage, not everybody can 'do something about it', only a finite amount of demand exists for self start-ups before you attempt that angle also (making it an equally void argument).

I do mind you asking because I find your attitude disgusting and your incessant internet arguing tactics annoying. Suffice to say that I'm constantly trying and succeeding in advancing my career. And I don't need to whine about how many handouts I'm not getting.

To be honest I really don't care what you think about me as a person, I'm simply judging you by your own standards (not mine).

It's not my fault you can't defend your position adequately.

For some reason. I often wonder why it's impossible to state an opinion without career arguers like Elmarko coming to save the day.

It's nothing to do with being a 'career arguer', just you happen to make poorly thought out logically flawed statements on a regular basis.

I'm not the first person to notice this trend.

 

[Caged]

The government would do well to promote the idea of people bettering themselves by doing something to prevent public libraries having to close at an alarming rate. At the moment it's all hot air.

 

[pitchfork]

I don't think anyone has a fundamental problem with minimum wage jobs, no one is saying "binman john should get the same as Mr. It Support"

But one of the key jobs of our government is to provide jobs and ensure employees are treated fairly - if someone is prepared to work 40 hours a week, they should at the very least be entitled to a fair wage which will allow them to pay for their bread and board without having to rely on government schemes and food banks.

When it's getting to a situation, whereby most of us in the country haven't seen a pay rise in years, and in a lot of cases we've seen the value of our income decrease in real terms - then you have to question whether the government is even attempting to look after their people.

Or as appears to be the case, just the people with money who can make their figures look better while in practise they contribute nothing to society except a few crappy minimum wage jobs and syphon our wealth into offshore accounts. Our government do as they please in order to further their own causes, abusing their power to keep the people they are screwing subdued.

Oh it's a sad state of affairs - this is why I have always refused to pay minimum wage and always paid my dues.

 

[elmarko]

if someone is prepared to work 40 hours a week, they should at the very least be entitled to a fair wage which will allow them to pay for their bread and board without having to rely on government schemes and food banks.

Exactly, even many of my more Conservatives learning friends agree with this stance - it's hardly donning the hammer & sickle & blasting out the 'Gosudarstvenny Gimn'.

The disdain some people have for even low paid workers in this country is quite frankly shameful.

 

[robgmun]

I don't think anyone has a fundamental problem with minimum wage jobs, no one is saying "binman john should get the same as Mr. It Support".

A london living wage is pitched at £16931.2 per year, which is the same as the avarage 1st line IT support for a young lackey fresh from college/uni. Personally i don't see that as fair that a unskilled shop worker should be paid the same as someone who put in the graft to get through uni and has intelligance

And before you start bleat on about how the IT support guy should be paid more then, where's the money going to come from? Raise wages too high and business will not be able to hire more because it's way too expensive.

 

[Frightful Boar]

You really should learn about social policy as the evidence suggests otherwise. The lack of opportunity comes from being poor in the first place, the chances of having the facility to drag yourself out of it isn't there.

Go tell the slum dwellers in India that all they have to do to get out is have a bit of get up and go

We don't live in India, Einstein, it's a bit different there. I've been. More than once. And you know what? They whinge less than you lot. A lot less.

Poor doesn't make you useless, maybe being stupid does.

Have you ever had to live on minimum wage? I seriously doubt it.

If you're working 60 hours a week in a minimum wage job and you have absolutely no qualifications, what exactly can you do about it? Nothing, odds are.

A. You can't afford to retain
B. You don't have time to wipe your arse, let alone retrain.

You sound like a right spoilt middle class ball juggler.

Yes I have in fact. I once lived in a rented flat, doing a menial job, didn't have a TV, my food bill was £12 a week and my entertainment came from library books.

You sound like a right lazy, whining, excuse-maker who can't face his shortcomings.

For a family with 4 kids? Wife no longer able to work due to illness?

Surely in this situation you'd be pulling in enough benefits to afford more than a £100 per week place, but feel free to raise the stakes even further with grandparents, pets and insane cousins.

 

[Frightful Boar]

I'm not the first person to notice this trend.

What you're missing with all your internet arguing skillz is that I don't need to justify my opinions. I don't need to use all the tricks in the book to bolster my self-esteem.

You crack on with your lame opinions and wanabee cleverness. I'll just sit here and look down on people like you.

 

[jas72]

There is a definite problem with people deliberately cutting back on work hours so they qualify for more benefits and therefore take home more money overall. It's far from unusual in low paid work.

I can't blame people for using the system as it exists, but the system has -- with the best of intentions -- become ridiculously distorting and far too expensive. We've barely scratched the surface of the cuts necessary to get the deficit under control, and some cultural changes are going to have to take place.

One of those is a move back towards council housing. Nothing fancy, just cheap, basic, healthy habitation for those in low paid work who shouldn't be at the mercy of a mercenary private sector which leeches off our taxes.

But there again, you can't blame landlords for using the system. Time for a new system.

Hmm yes but if you cut too deeply then people will start to use other means to survive thus reducing govt income even more.

usually deficit was compensated by increased growth how does it go

you have to speculate to accumulate.

 

[elmarko]

What you're missing with all your internet arguing skillz is that I don't need to justify my opinions. I don't need to use all the tricks in the book to bolster my self-esteem.

You crack on with your lame opinions and wanabee cleverness. I'll just sit here and look down on people like you.

I'm happy to just continue highlighting the flaws in the badly thought out illogical posts.

Consider it a public service.

 

[spookywillow]

Surely in this situation you'd be pulling in enough benefits to afford more than a £100 per week place, but feel free to raise the stakes even further with grandparents, pets and insane cousins.

You said you could afford to live on £6 an hour, you never said anything about benefits.

 

[elmarko]

A london living wage is pitched at £16931.2 per year, which is the same as the avarage 1st line IT support for a young lackey fresh from college/uni. Personally i don't see that as fair that a unskilled shop worker should be paid the same as someone who put in the graft to get through uni and has intelligance

And before you start bleat on about how the IT support guy should be paid more then, where's the money going to come from? Raise wages too high and business will not be able to hire more because it's way too expensive.

Let's use London as an example.

1. Does London need people to work in shops? (Yes/No?).
2. Would anybody pay £100's a month to commute into London for a job at national minimum wage?. (Yes/No).
3. How would you solve the two above problems if the government didn't support those on low wages or pushed for a living wage?.

 

[Frightful Boar]

You said you could afford to live on £6 an hour, you never said anything about benefits.

And the "you" was singular.

So a person doesn't need benefits. Should that person need to support others, well that's entirely different.

Even someone as argumentative as you seem to be must admit I didn't say "a person can support a family of 6 on £6 per hour".

 

[spookywillow]

But as stated above, even a single person would struggle to live on £6 an hour once all bills and expenses are covered.

Or as you said they could get a room in a shared house living with complete strangers hoping your stuff won't get stolen and living by someone else's rules.

That to me is not living but exisiting for someone else's benefit.

 

[Duke]

it's always the poor people they target

Why do you need to be rich to use loop holes? Also the 'poor' get targeted as they get all the hand outs.

 

[robgmun]

Let's use London as an example.

1. Does London need people to work in shops? (Yes/No?).
2. Would anybody pay £100's a month to commute into London for a job at national minimum wage?. (Yes/No).
3. How would you solve the two above problems if the government didn't support those on low wages or pushed for a living wage?.

1. Yes

2. I live in zone 4 for i don't pay 100's to get into the centre of London to work, I pay £170 a month. or £1800 per year (saving me a further £20 per month) But most shops aren't in Centre London. They're all over the capital and for most people that work in shops it's a bus ride to the nearest shopping complex.

3. The government isn't pushing for a living wage, they are against it, and i agree with them. Personally i think wages are where they should be. You want more money? Get through uni, get skilled, and get a decent job.

 

[elmarko]

Why do you need to be rich to use loop holes? Also the 'poor' get targeted as they get all the hand outs.

It depends on how you define handouts.

Corporate welfare is huge but not really focused on.

1. Yes

Which is my point.

2. I live in zone 4 for i don't pay 100's to get into the centre of London to work, I pay £170 a month. or £1800 per year (saving me a further £20 per month) But most shops aren't in Centre London. They're all over the capital and for most people that work in shops it's a bus ride to the nearest shopping complex.

I said into London - not between zones. (the point being if people are not going to be aided to cover the additional cost of living in London, the wage would not be sufficient.)

3. The government isn't pushing for a living wage, they are against it, and i agree with them. Personally i think wages are where they should be. You want more money? Get through uni, get skilled, and get a decent job.

If you read my statement I said 'if'.

 

[spookywillow]

Hard to pay for that education or training if you can barely make ends meet as it is though isn't it?

 

[Frightful Boar]

But as stated above, even a single person would struggle to live on £6 an hour once all bills and expenses are covered.

Or as you said they could get a room in a shared house living with complete strangers hoping your stuff won't get stolen and living by someone else's rules.

That to me is not living but exisiting for someone else's benefit.

Nobody said it's pleasant, but if you don't like it, get a better job. And you might struggle, but that's life.

This is my point. If you don't earn much you ain't gonna live that well. Stands to reason. Don't like it, earn more.

 

[Caged]

The "get a decent job" argument just isn't a valid one. There are more people than there are jobs, full stop. That's jobs of any sort, crap ones, part-time ones, etc.

The economy simply needs fewer people - there's only so many Costas and restaurants that are required, and if they are paying a survivable wage instead of a living one then there's a knock-on effect to people employed in leisure activities. I would love for government policy to plan to address this, as full employment will never be a reality no matter how hard you want to hit people.

 

[FuriousGeorge]

Nobody said it's pleasant, but if you don't like it, get a better job. And you might struggle, but that's life.

This is my point. If you don't earn much you ain't gonna live that well. Stands to reason. Don't like it, earn more.

Must be nice to live in your world where life is so simple with absolutely no complications that might prevent someone from doing this.