The UK General Politics Thread Page 71

  • Page

    of 190 First / Last

  • LeoliansBro 9 Jan 2013 17:10:10 43,227 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Mongo, your recollection seems very geared towards 'things you want to be true but don't have any evidence for'.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • MightyMouse 9 Jan 2013 17:59:58 1,127 posts
    Seen 19 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    The thing is there are nowhere near enough jobs even at minimum wage to employ everyone, and with a lot of those kind of jobs they're available because of churn. Cutting minimum wage wouldn't necessarily help either as people paid less means people spending less, means fewer jobs again (I'm pretty sure there's some model for finding out what the balance between this and the positive effects of being able to employ more people, can't remember what it is).

    Fundamentally, you can't solve the problems of benefits by a race to the bottom. Which is why this stuff is all just political posturing and a sham, albeit one that's going to affect a lot of people.
  • Psychotext 9 Jan 2013 18:26:29 53,808 posts
    Seen 14 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Psh. Even people working 40 hours a week on minimum wage are entitled to some benefits. Filthy shirkers.
  • Load_2.0 9 Jan 2013 19:21:04 18,884 posts
    Seen 8 minutes ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    What amazes me is mongos ability to produce a vast array of culinary delicacies, design complex boardgames, along with his ability to spend hour upon hour in front of a monitor bashing out walls of text, coupled with his analysis and dissemination of a huge range of topics and yet be unable to find gainful employment.

    What a cruel world when such a talented individual is forced to sit at home all day playing games and surfing the net.
  • TheSaint 9 Jan 2013 20:37:51 14,199 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Bit of a shock to read about Andrew Marr having a stroke. Sounds like he is recovering though.
  • Bremenacht 9 Jan 2013 23:15:51 17,608 posts
    Seen 46 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    One other problem is people who claim, and earn cash-in-hand on the side. That really fucks me off. They get the best of both worlds. Anyway.

    How about:

    Increase minimum wage
    Cut business NI contributions or some form of SME tax/cost to help them fund it.

    So, rather than simply attack benefits, make low-paid work more attractive?

    I very much believe Khani's comment about poorer types spending more of their disposable income to be true. They spend it more locally too. Presumably, if they had more more money they'd simply spend more in the local businesses where many could work.
  • Khanivor 10 Jan 2013 04:17:42 40,382 posts
    Seen 53 minutes ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    I think a lot of government incentives for employee owned companies would be a good, long-term plan for a healthier economy. Greater tax breaks for small, local businesses. Encourage local shops by reducing their VAT bill to say 15%. Possibly in conjunction with placing a cap on the percentage of businesses that can operate in a regional area. This one could be tricky to implement fairly, but anything to combat the giant national chains is a good thing. Especially when they go tits up because management sucks.

    In the short term, raising the minimum wage a touch can't hurt. Oh no, 2p more for a Big Mac? The horror!

    For benefits, food stamps and a tapering of benefits after a certain period of time as long as the local employment situation is at a certain level. As in, don't punish people for living where there are no jobs, but don't forever tolerate those who live in job rich areas sitting on their arses because it's less hassle.

    Maybe hold back a few hundred million pound sweetners for huge companies to relocate, (for a decade till the can produce in Guatemala for .005% less per product). Spend that money on training schemes and business partnerships. Really invest.

    Determine if people on disability really must spend the rest of their days drawing benefits or if they are actually able to perform a job. Seems lots of them sit at home and are good with computers. Perhaps some tax breaks for telly-comuted call centers and the like. Grade the amount of money can earn while still claiming benefits.

    Sort out housing by putting insane taxes on property sales in the top 5% of the local market and ringfencing that money for newbuilds and brownfields restorations.
  • Dougs 10 Jan 2013 07:41:00 66,653 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Apparently McDonald's is no longer the benchmark for low paid jobs.... It's now Pret.

    For most, being on benefits is hard and miserable. There's a miniscule amount that do ok due to number of kids, type of benefits and size of house but mostly its a bit shit. Mind you, ime job seekers need to also be realistic about what they may be expected to do. Too many refuse to work outside of their local area. Always gave me great pleasure to point out that a number of people I worked with travelled 90-120 mins each Wat just to work in a job centre.
  • FWB 10 Jan 2013 08:12:03 43,806 posts
    Seen 1 day ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    I've travelled two hours both ways for work before. Did it for a year. Twas shit, but you do what you can until you find something better. Had my fair number of shitty jobs. Seems some people expect to be CEOs despite lacking any experience.

    There are most definitely jobs in London. I have students arriving from abroad who are finding them within a week or two. Of course they are in coffee shops and eateries.

    Edited by FWB at 08:13:30 10-01-2013
  • LeoliansBro 10 Jan 2013 08:14:06 43,227 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    I've travelled two hours each way as well, you get used to it. However I totally understand if people want to avoid such a commute on cost grounds.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • Deleted user 10 January 2013 08:43:20
    Also done two hours each way, I don't find it a problem but it would be a problem if I was on low/min wage (anywhere for two hours isn't cheap) and had to somehow arrange childminding for 6 in the morning to 7/8 at night.
  • LeoliansBro 10 Jan 2013 08:48:50 43,227 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    My 2 hour commute was for my first job and I was on 19,500 a year. Admittedly that's a decade ago and I didn't have any independents.

    I guess I should take some of my own medicine and realise that 'what seems fair isn't the same as what's best' applies to both ends of the spectrum. If it is cheaper to leave someone at home looking after their kids than get them working, pay childcare benefit and pay to have them looked after all day, then maybe they should just be left at home.

    The problem with this is that it creates an underclass. Minimising outgoings with the super poor shouldn't be the focus, as maximising tax revenues with the super rich is.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • Dougs 10 Jan 2013 09:02:37 66,653 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    A parent staying at home to raise kids is a different argument though - there can be social and well-being benefits to that. Not that kids whose parents have to work are worse off, and I doubt all stay-at-home parents are whiter than white, but i think there's an argument that kids benefit, in the first few years before school anyway.
  • LeoliansBro 10 Jan 2013 09:05:54 43,227 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    That's what I'm saying. I don't have the luxury of arguing from a pure tax revenue perspective because there's so much more to it than that.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • Shikasama 10 Jan 2013 09:07:07 6,604 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    I strongly believe there has been a massive shift in expectations from job seekers and I think it affects unskilled workers and graduates, just in slightly different ways. Both get in the way of people finding work though.

    1) Unskilled workers don't realise that the number of unskilled jobs is shrinking and within a couple of years will reach a crisis point where there are far too many unskilled workers for positions available. They don't consider themselves to be (in employment terms) low value and don't want to do the few unskilled jobs that ARE available....cleaners, rubbish collectors etc. They want to be earning good money doing something a bit more exciting like the stuff they are constantly told should be available.

    2) Graduates suffer from a massive over valuation of their employment worth. They expect to walk into jobs and be managers in a year and become a high powered marketing/PR/business executive because they have been sold their (pretty worthless) degree on that basis. They have very little concept of time and just how long it is you have to work at a company to start having an impact and producing value. This also leads to a lot of job hopping.

    I see both of these things all the time when I'm hiring. The graduate thing was one of my biggest hang ups when I left University (although I had a rather unique experience) but my working life and attitude to work became much more positive when I finally realized that when you start a new job, you are the worst person in the building at that job and generating the least value.
  • Shikasama 10 Jan 2013 09:07:47 6,604 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    I also think recruitment agencies (and companies massively over using them) are one of the biggest barriers to work in the country.
  • Psychotext 10 Jan 2013 09:40:39 53,808 posts
    Seen 14 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Related, if I had to look for work now I really doubt I'd bother applying for much direct... I'd sign up with four of five agencies and take it from there.
  • Megapocalypse 11 Jan 2013 07:56:24 5,309 posts
    Seen 20 minutes ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Apparently although they've frozen everyone else's wages for a few years MPs stated yesterday that they needed a 32% pay rise. Andrew Bridgen (MP for North West Leicestershire) stated on the radio that only earning 66k would mean his children would have to go without next Christmas.

    /speechless
  • Megapocalypse 11 Jan 2013 07:57:37 5,309 posts
    Seen 20 minutes ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Post deleted
  • senso-ji 15 Jan 2013 13:09:17 5,791 posts
    Seen 27 minutes ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    'MPs want a 32% increase in their salary because we want to attract the best people for the job'

    If you pay Peanuts, you'll get Monkeys

    Edited by senso-ji at 13:09:34 15-01-2013
  • bitch_tits_zero_nine 15 Jan 2013 13:11:05 6,654 posts
    Seen 21 hours ago
    Registered 3 years ago
    Mixed views on this tbh. I can see both sides of the argument.
  • MetalDog 15 Jan 2013 13:12:48 23,708 posts
    Seen 15 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    They're trying to shift policing more into the private sector, so naturally, they're trying to make public policing less attractive.

    These arseholes need to go at the next election and we really need to find a way to stop MPs making money from companies they're actively serving with policy.

    -- boobs do nothing for me, I want moustaches and chest hair.

  • senso-ji 15 Jan 2013 13:13:04 5,791 posts
    Seen 27 minutes ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    @bitch_tits_zero_nine

    Did you follow the link? I was referring to the Police pay cut, in light of the MP salary boost suggestion.
  • bitch_tits_zero_nine 15 Jan 2013 13:14:55 6,654 posts
    Seen 21 hours ago
    Registered 3 years ago
    Yeah, I really hope they do get shitcanned. An Oxbridge elite with a social conscience is the lesser of two evils by a mile imo.
  • bitch_tits_zero_nine 15 Jan 2013 13:17:34 6,654 posts
    Seen 21 hours ago
    Registered 3 years ago
    senso-ji wrote:
    @bitch_tits_zero_nine

    Did you follow the link? I was referring to the Police pay cut, in light of the MP salary boost suggestion.
    Oh right, no sorry, I just presumed you were on about the payrise.

    That is clearly an issue.
  • Megapocalypse 15 Jan 2013 13:40:52 5,309 posts
    Seen 20 minutes ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    I really don't understand some of these proposals. Windsor says we're all all overweight, lazy, uneducated, corrupt and racist, and that a change is needed to recruit better people. Then the government somehow decides that to recruit better candidates they need to pay recruits significantly less, reducing the perks and they're desperately trying to get rid of the job security too. In what world does that make sense.

    But its ok, because they're bringing in direct entry to higher ranks meaning that some deputy manager from Tesco can come and tell us all how it should be done.

    Edited by Megapocalypse at 14:40:01 15-01-2013
  • Psychotext 15 Jan 2013 13:43:50 53,808 posts
    Seen 14 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    I was a bit confused by one of the guys on the radio earlier saying something similar. He said that they got hundreds of thousands of applications for a job but that these changes would allow them to recruit better people.

    I... uhh... all of these better applicants would have been in your original pool, all this does is mean you'll try to pay them less, and you'll have to sort through a few less applications.
  • MetalDog 15 Jan 2013 17:34:15 23,708 posts
    Seen 15 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    And in other creeping privatisation news, NHS providers could be exempt from corporation tax.

    Edited by MetalDog at 17:34:32 15-01-2013

    -- boobs do nothing for me, I want moustaches and chest hair.

  • Psychotext 15 Jan 2013 17:40:56 53,808 posts
    Seen 14 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    ...and here we go.

    Fucksake.
  • LeoliansBro 15 Jan 2013 17:44:37 43,227 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Isn't that more creeping nationalisation MD?

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • Page

    of 190 First / Last

Log in or register to reply