Skip to main content

How magnanimous of Pound Savers was it to give them two weeks unpaid work Confused Laugh


And yes the woman (and her over the top lip gloss) was totally patronising.

The thing is .....one of the women on the course made the most valid point in that she'd be happy to work but she'd be much worse off ....why don't the government help low paid workers in regard to housing benefot and council tax to make it worth her while?

Actually - it's my guess they probably do .........it was a very one sided look at things IMO. There is help out there for single mothers in low paid jobs as far as I'm aware.
Soozy Woo
That woman - the course leader - was putrid in every way imaginable. She was patronising and condescending and harsh and vile. Also, she brown-nosed the woman who started to agency to the fullest possible extent. Every single fibre of her made me want to smash my tellybox up Mad

And the woman who created that agency (that the government pay to get people off benefits,) is a multi-millionaire living in a mansion with dozens of acres of land, that has seemingly been provided for her by money from the government to get people back out to work. Maybe the government are over-paying these 'agencies' Ninja I am sure the money could be put to better use...

Have to say that I long for the day that that hideous woman in charge of that course, is out of work, and when she is, I hope to God that SHE has someone speaking to HER like she is something they just scraped off their shoe!

All she was interested in was getting these women into some poxy minimum-wage job to score brownie points and bonuses for herself; she didn't care about THEM at all. "Whoop whoop, we got them all jobs at poundland on minumum wage!" she screeches.. "Failing that, they can try burger king or mcdonalds! They are ALWAYS taking on!"

What about getting them trained up for a job that pays Β£30,000 a year, with a company car and benefits and incentives, or helping them train for a degree course? Or is it just easier to dump them in a low paid dead-end job? Roll Eyes

Back to the thread title: I really struggle to understand why or how that woman who was Β£75K in debt managed to get THAT much in debt. What the hell has she spent it all on? I am 42, and have never had a QUARTER of THAT much debt in my life!
CheekyPixie
quote:
Originally posted by Cheeky-Pixie:
That woman - the course leader - was putrid in every way imaginable. She was patronising and condescending and harsh and vile. Also, she brown-nosed the woman who started to agency to the fullest possible extent. Every single fibre of her made me want to smash my tellybox up Mad

And the woman who created that agency (that the government pay to get people off benefits,) is a multi-millionaire living in a mansion with dozens of acres of land, that has seemingly been provided for her by money from the government to get people back out to work. Maybe the government are over-paying these 'agencies' Ninja I am sure the money could be put to better use...

Have to say that I long for the day that that hideous woman in charge of that course, is out of work, and when she is, I hope to God that SHE has someone speaking to HER like she is something they just scraped off their shoe!

All she was interested in was getting these women into some poxy minimum-wage job to score brownie points and bonuses for herself; she didn't care about THEM at all. "Whoop whoop, we got them all jobs at poundland on minumum wage!" she screeches.. "Failing that, they can try burger king or mcdonalds! They are ALWAYS taking on!"

What about getting them trained up for a job that pays Β£30,000 a year, with a company car and benefits and incentives, or helping them train for a degree course? Or is it just easier to dump them in a low paid dead-end job? Roll Eyes

Back to the thread title: I really struggle to understand why or how that woman who was Β£75K in debt managed to get THAT much in debt. What the hell has she spent it all on? I am 42, and have never had a QUARTER of THAT much debt in my life!



oh well said, I actually thought I was going to put my foot through the telly, HOW DARE she talk about that woman on national telly (the one who she thought was a alcoholic), the way she did, very sad IMO
Lockes
quote:
Originally posted by Cheeky-Pixie:
That woman - the course leader - was putrid in every way imaginable. She was patronising and condescending and harsh and vile. Also, she brown-nosed the woman who started to agency to the fullest possible extent. Every single fibre of her made me want to smash my tellybox up Mad

And the woman who created that agency (that the government pay to get people off benefits,) is a multi-millionaire living in a mansion with dozens of acres of land, that has seemingly been provided for her by money from the government to get people back out to work. Maybe the government are over-paying these 'agencies' Ninja I am sure the money could be put to better use...

Have to say that I long for the day that that hideous woman in charge of that course, is out of work, and when she is, I hope to God that SHE has someone speaking to HER like she is something they just scraped off their shoe!

All she was interested in was getting these women into some poxy minimum-wage job to score brownie points and bonuses for herself; she didn't care about THEM at all. "Whoop whoop, we got them all jobs at poundland on minumum wage!" she screeches.. "Failing that, they can try burger king or mcdonalds! They are ALWAYS taking on!"

What about getting them trained up for a job that pays Β£30,000 a year, with a company car and benefits and incentives, or helping them train for a degree course? Or is it just easier to dump them in a low paid dead-end job? Roll Eyes

Back to the thread title: I really struggle to understand why or how that woman who was Β£75K in debt managed to get THAT much in debt. What the hell has she spent it all on? I am 42, and have never had a QUARTER of THAT much debt in my life!


Clapping

didn't watch the show but i've had experience in these types of people, and the training the job centre puts people on. it's seriously seriously shit. and they do NOTHING to boost confidence or self esteem. if anything they put people off wanting to train for a better job and/or work
Darthhoob
quote:
Originally posted by Darthhoob:
quote:
Originally posted by Cheeky-Pixie:
That woman - the course leader - was putrid in every way imaginable. She was patronising and condescending and harsh and vile. Also, she brown-nosed the woman who started to agency to the fullest possible extent. Every single fibre of her made me want to smash my tellybox up Mad

And the woman who created that agency (that the government pay to get people off benefits,) is a multi-millionaire living in a mansion with dozens of acres of land, that has seemingly been provided for her by money from the government to get people back out to work. Maybe the government are over-paying these 'agencies' Ninja I am sure the money could be put to better use...

Have to say that I long for the day that that hideous woman in charge of that course, is out of work, and when she is, I hope to God that SHE has someone speaking to HER like she is something they just scraped off their shoe!

All she was interested in was getting these women into some poxy minimum-wage job to score brownie points and bonuses for herself; she didn't care about THEM at all. "Whoop whoop, we got them all jobs at poundland on minumum wage!" she screeches.. "Failing that, they can try burger king or mcdonalds! They are ALWAYS taking on!"

What about getting them trained up for a job that pays Β£30,000 a year, with a company car and benefits and incentives, or helping them train for a degree course? Or is it just easier to dump them in a low paid dead-end job? Roll Eyes

Back to the thread title: I really struggle to understand why or how that woman who was Β£75K in debt managed to get THAT much in debt. What the hell has she spent it all on? I am 42, and have never had a QUARTER of THAT much debt in my life!


Clapping

didn't watch the show but i've had experience in these types of people, and the training the job centre puts people on. it's seriously seriously shit. and they do NOTHING to boost confidence or self esteem. if anything they put people off wanting to train for a better job and/or work


I was put on a course (allthough granted not (AforE) Put on a placement in the admin dept in same building and got a job from it Nod
FM
Apols for not having read the thread before posting but I have to vent first!

I have never ever hated someone on telly as much as I hated that Hayley woman tonight. Who the hell does she think she is the patronising, smug, meddling bully! Mad

She is now on my list. I have even bumped Cliff Richard to make room for her against the wall when the revolution comes. Ninja

*breathes*
skive
Thanks folks. Blush Just my opinions and views. And I do think that the DSS and those types of folk, talk to people like they're shit. (Some of them anyway....) Not EVERY single mum (or any other person on benefits,) is a lazy freeloading dole-scrounging git who does not want to work - EVER, yet this is the impression that this show gave.

I think if a wage paid twice as much as benefit, (or more,) most people on benefits would be happy to work. But when it pays no more, (and in some cases less,) you can hardly blame people for wanting to stay at home, where they are there for their kids, pets, elderly parents, neighbours, and whoever else needs them, and where they are not harrassed and bullied and nagged at and made to meet targets and goals every week, made to work with people they despise (and FOR people they despise,) for a shitty minimum wage, and where they get treated like a criminal and given the third degree if they have a day off or are 10 minutes late.

Going out to work is confidence building and character building, if you enjoy your job and are in a career you love and are being paid well, but when you're on minimum wage at macdonalds or poundland, doing a dead end job you hate, for a boss you despise, who treats you like shit, for the SAME money you get on benefits, it's not 'character building,' then; it's just thoroughly depressing. Frowner
CheekyPixie
quote:
Originally posted by onetoo:
quote:
Originally posted by Darthhoob:
quote:
Originally posted by Cheeky-Pixie:
That woman - the course leader - was putrid in every way imaginable. She was patronising and condescending and harsh and vile. Also, she brown-nosed the woman who started to agency to the fullest possible extent. Every single fibre of her made me want to smash my tellybox up Mad

And the woman who created that agency (that the government pay to get people off benefits,) is a multi-millionaire living in a mansion with dozens of acres of land, that has seemingly been provided for her by money from the government to get people back out to work. Maybe the government are over-paying these 'agencies' Ninja I am sure the money could be put to better use...

Have to say that I long for the day that that hideous woman in charge of that course, is out of work, and when she is, I hope to God that SHE has someone speaking to HER like she is something they just scraped off their shoe!

All she was interested in was getting these women into some poxy minimum-wage job to score brownie points and bonuses for herself; she didn't care about THEM at all. "Whoop whoop, we got them all jobs at poundland on minumum wage!" she screeches.. "Failing that, they can try burger king or mcdonalds! They are ALWAYS taking on!"

What about getting them trained up for a job that pays Β£30,000 a year, with a company car and benefits and incentives, or helping them train for a degree course? Or is it just easier to dump them in a low paid dead-end job? Roll Eyes

Back to the thread title: I really struggle to understand why or how that woman who was Β£75K in debt managed to get THAT much in debt. What the hell has she spent it all on? I am 42, and have never had a QUARTER of THAT much debt in my life!


Clapping

didn't watch the show but i've had experience in these types of people, and the training the job centre puts people on. it's seriously seriously shit. and they do NOTHING to boost confidence or self esteem. if anything they put people off wanting to train for a better job and/or work


I was put on a course (allthough granted not (AforE) Put on a placement in the admin dept in same building and got a job from it Nod


when my partner was put on a course (a VERY basic IT course...i'd call it C.L.A.I.T) they told him he was too old to do proper training for IT (he was 36) he was told he shouldn't aim high, he was told by the course managers that the course was useless, which it turned out to be anyway by not giving them the qualification in the end (after they all did 12 weeks on the course and did the exams) because of cut backs. the people on the course argued about this and managed to get them to still give a qualification...but only in future courses...not to them, so was a waste of time.

so he spent 13 weeks, from 9-5 everyday, sat in front of a PC ficking through an idiots guide to PCs, which he already knew anyway....in fact he even showed them a thing or two. when he could have spent that time actually going out and looking for a job. (or even at home with me helping me with our newborn as i had PND...and that course made me feel ten times worse lol)
Darthhoob
quote:
Originally posted by Cheeky-Pixie:
Thanks folks. Blush Just my opinions and views. And I do think that the DSS and those types of folk, talk to people like they're shit. (Some of them anyway....) Not EVERY single mum (or any other person on benefits,) is a lazy freeloading dole-scrounging git who does not want to work - EVER, yet this is the impression that this show gave.

I think if a wage paid twice as much as benefit, (or more,) most people on benefits would be happy to work. But when it pays no more, (and in some cases less,) you can hardly blame people for wanting to stay at home, where they are there for their kids, pets, elderly parents, neighbours, and whoever else needs them, and where they are not harrassed and bullied and nagged at and made to meet targets and goals every week, made to work with people they despise (and FOR people they despise,) for a shitty minimum wage, and where they get treated like a criminal and given the third degree if they have a day off or are 10 minutes late.

Going out to work is confidence building and character building, if you enjoy your job and are in a career you love and are being paid well, but when you're on minimum wage at macdonalds or poundland, doing a dead end job you hate, for a boss you despise, who treats you like shit, for the SAME money you get on benefits, it's not 'character building,' then; it's just thoroughly depressing. Frowner


exactly Smiler
Darthhoob
quote:
Originally posted by skive:
Apols for not having read the thread before posting but I have to vent first!

I have never ever hated someone on telly as much as I hated that Hayley woman tonight. Who the hell does she think she is the patronising, smug, meddling bully! Mad

She is now on my list. I have even bumped Cliff Richard to make room for her against the wall when the revolution comes. Ninja

*breathes*

'Patronising, smug, meddling bully' ' sounds like Bea fits the person specification..and she'll be looking for work after Friday.
W
quote:
Originally posted by electric6:
That careers woman...shades of Pauline-League of Gentleman about her, I hope no one nicks her pens Ninja

"Think about a butterfly, its egg, a caterpillar is ugly"

Its egg? Crazy And she is patronising as heck, talking to them like they're bairns.


they aint ALL like that, my OH does a similar job and she watched it with her jaw on the floor,
I have also seen these things in action, from the unemployed side, for a start you must NEVER loose sight of the fact that these people get PAID a FEE for every person they get off the dole,
and this means that IF you are unfortunate enough to get SENT on one of these things, that they are NOT there to "help" you or to improve your life, their one and only aim is to get you off the dole, they dont give a rats arse if that means you end up shovelling shit for minimum wage working for a total arsehole with no prospects etc etc, its NOT about the person its about the cheque,
I wouldve verbaly ripped HER to shreds everytime she opened her mouth,
it would seem that when a person is unemployed they loose the right to expect a decent rate of pay and decent working condidtions, ESPECAILY if you are male and single and werent lucky enough to have been born in the "university for nowt" generation, then you are expected to "know you place" and work in shit jobs for shit pay,
I KNOW cause I have been there several times,
oh yeah its shocking all these people getting 3 and 400 pound a week, I used to get 55 quid a week and my rent paid, cause I was male and single and therefore not worth shit, Mad
old hippy guy
quote:
Originally posted by redtriangle:
Lazy cows all of them.

Our taxes go onto benefits for these lazy work-sky people who then use our taxes to get top level Sky subscriptions and her 60 inch plasma TV.


OUR TAXES ALSO go to fund an illegal war and build nuclear submarines, and build aircraft carriers and up grade nuclear weapons, dont hear many people complaining about that though,
perhaps thats cause they are made to "look the other way" seriously do you REALLY think if everysingle unemployed person got work TOMORROW OUR taxes would go down by any noticable ammount? cause I dont, Shake Head
old hippy guy
I actually went to bed and had to get up again because I kept thinking about that awful woman and it's made my blood pressure rise. Mad

So I need to vent some more before I can sleep....

Another thing that made me want to slap the stupid cow was the way she handled the woman with the 'drink problem'. The private meeting - with a sodding camera crew, not exactly private luv - where she slyly asked her how she 'relaxed' and then jumped on the glass of wine answer.

If the woman is alcohol dependent it is none of your effing business you callous witch. You are not medically qualified to diagnose her in any way and you don't even have a sodding crappy counselling qualification. If you really cared about her welfare you would have directed her to QUALIFIED help away from the cameras.

The way she announced in a giggly over-excited way that something sooooo fabulous had happened that she couldn't put it into words. I'm thinking she's seen Elvis or summat and it turns out to be the stupid trolloping bosswoman who is raking it in from taxpayers money on her sham of a 'business'.

Then bosswoman arrives and asks for reasons why Hayley is so fabulous with her in the room. In what universe is that any type of performance appraisal???????????????

She gets a book out and says it's her 'bible' and it's effing Trinny and Susanna's "What not to Wear". What?????? Are you kidding me you moron!!!!

There are so many more reasons but I fear I may be here all night and I might be the first person to hit the maximum word count on one post.

Mad
skive
quote:
Originally posted by skive:
I actually went to bed and had to get up again because I kept thinking about that awful woman and it's made my blood pressure rise. Mad

So I need to vent some more before I can sleep....

Another thing that made me want to slap the stupid cow was the way she handled the woman with the 'drink problem'. The private meeting - with a sodding camera crew, not exactly private luv - where she slyly asked her how she 'relaxed' and then jumped on the glass of wine answer.

If the woman is alcohol dependent it is none of your effing business you callous witch. You are not medically qualified to diagnose her in any way and you don't even have a sodding crappy counselling qualification. If you really cared about her welfare you would have directed her to QUALIFIED help away from the cameras.

The way she announced in a giggly over-excited way that something sooooo fabulous had happened that she couldn't put it into words. I'm thinking she's seen Elvis or summat and it turns out to be the stupid trolloping bosswoman who is raking it in from taxpayers money on her sham of a 'business'.

Then bosswoman arrives and asks for reasons why Hayley is so fabulous with her in the room. In what universe is that any type of performance appraisal???????????????

She gets a book out and says it's her 'bible' and it's effing Trinny and Susanna's "What not to Wear". What?????? Are you kidding me you moron!!!!

There are so many more reasons but I fear I may be here all night and I might be the first person to hit the maximum word count on one post.

Mad


Clapping
I said exactly that, well some of it, with a few "extra" words thrown in while I watched,
as someone who has been down that "route" a few times I can tell you its ALL bollox, smoke and mirrors,
it LOOKS as though something "constructive" is being done but scratch bellow the surface and there is nothing there,

I have a brother, he hasnt had a job for over 3 years now, he is in his 40s, the people at the jobcentre keep threatening to stop his 60Β£ a week because he doesnt want to do shift work in a warehouse for minimum wage,
hes been there done that and knows exactly what its like trying to have any sort of "life" on minimum wage when you are single and yours is the only income,
what he DOES want and keeps asking for is a chance to re train, says all he wants is a chance to improve his life, and NOT "yet another" dead end low paid menial job that will probably end in redundancy,
but they aint interested, you WILL take ANY job because you are unemployed and therefore give up the right to ANY expectations, Nod
old hippy guy
This whole government thing is scam ridden, the rich get richer, the poor stay poor. I think the government have a responsiblity to the unemployed, by increasing the minimal wage from Β£5.75 to an evidently obvious reasonable level, in line with current living costs. These 'lifecoach' companies are the ones raking in the taxpayers money, allocated for the so called benefit loungers. A single parent is forced to leave Income Support for JSA, their kids are put into childcare (paid for by the taxpayer) or left to wander the streets if older, or left home alone. They may get to be 'selected' for unpaid work, a trial to employment, or a 'free tax benefit' for the employer.
Say the single parent gets the job at Β£5.75 per hour and may have to do shifts that are not conducive with family life, apart from losing housing benefit and free school meals, they will only survive if they are supplemented with tax credits (paid for by the taxpayer)!!!
The political and business 'spin and win' swings and roundabouts go on, the money is still being spent, the newly low-paid worker will benefit from taxpayers tax credits, a necessary must and rightly so, but 'business' is also benefiting from the same tax credits, through being able to pay low hourly rates.
The benefit culture stops at the government door, not the people on it.
F
we're getting a lot of business from the job centres at the moment (not complaining it helps us meet our budgets) even if it is coming out of tax payers pockets Ninja but i really don't think they have done their homework as the offshore industry is in a downturn at the moment too ... i hope at least some of the people we have put through get jobs cause the money isn;t too bad offshore, but on the whole it's a bit of a waste of money.
*yogi Bear*
quote:
She gets a book out and says it's her 'bible' and it's effing Trinny and Susanna's "What not to Wear". What?????? Are you kidding me you moron!!!!



ja ja ja ja ja ja ja ja ja ja ja ja ja ja ja ja ja ja ja ja ja ja ja ja ja ja ja ja ja ja ja ja ja ja ja ja ja ja ja ja ja ja ja ja ja ja ja ja ja ja ja ja ja ja ja ja ja ja ja ja ja ja ja ja ja ja ja ja ja ja ja ja ja ja ja ja ja ja ja ja ja ja ja ja ja ja ja ja ja ja ja ja ja ja ja ja ja ja ja ja ja ja ja ja ja ja ja ja ja ja ja ja ja ja ja ja ja ja ja ja
Gabriel Pennywise
Why do people keep going on about places like Poundland, McDonalds, Burger King etc being dead end jobs? Somebody has to work there. I bet a fair few here shop or eat in these places. So it's good enough to go to but not good enough to work in? That's a very snobbish attitude. A jobs a job. My mother was a cleaner in the mornings, worked in a corner shop in the afternoon and the chippy in the evening when we were little just so she wouldn't have to claim benefits. She didn't make a fortune but she felt her money was well earned. If benefits are gonna pay for luxuries like Sky TV and a plasma telly then yeah they probably are better off not working though
Cagney
C'mon, we all know that people living off the state can get Β£1M mansions in London and all sorts of extras, such as cars and holidays, if they know the system. Especially, if they're immigrants. I've seen loads of threads in the past about this and the tabloids manage to find someone every couple of weeks to report on. Surely it'd be better to employ private agencies to teach people how to find their way around our money-for-nothing, queue-jumping, honey-pot for immigrants, social-security system than have them putting people into McJobs and depressing everyone? Ninja
FM
It’s amazing how much attitudes have changed in the past 20 or 30 years. I’m 35 and my Mum didn’t work when we were kids, she looked after us and was there each day when we got home from school – which I think is far preferable to being put in a crΓ¨che or sent to a child minder.
There seems to be a culture nowadays where women are frowned upon for NOT leaving their kids, the muppet running the class referred to their kids as an β€˜excuse’!
BBea
quote:
Originally posted by Cagney:
Why do people keep going on about places like Poundland, McDonalds, Burger King etc being dead end jobs? Somebody has to work there. I bet a fair few here shop or eat in these places. So it's good enough to go to but not good enough to work in? That's a very snobbish attitude. A jobs a job. My mother was a cleaner in the mornings, worked in a corner shop in the afternoon and the chippy in the evening when we were little just so she wouldn't have to claim benefits. She didn't make a fortune but she felt her money was well earned. If benefits are gonna pay for luxuries like Sky TV and a plasma telly then yeah they probably are better off not working though


Clapping
After my father buggered off my Mum worked days, evenings and weekends to feed and clothe us, as she believed it was her responsibility not the taxpayers.
The benefits system is supposed to be a safety net not a way of life. If somebody on benefits is able to afford a oversized flat screen TV then they are being given to much.
Luxor
quote:
Originally posted by BBea:
It’s amazing how much attitudes have changed in the past 20 or 30 years. I’m 35 and my Mum didn’t work when we were kids, she looked after us and was there each day when we got home from school – which I think is far preferable to being put in a crΓ¨che or sent to a child minder.
There seems to be a culture nowadays where women are frowned upon for NOT leaving their kids, the muppet running the class referred to their kids as an β€˜excuse’!

It's not just attitudes that have changed. It's difficult now for both partners in a couple not to work yet maintain the lifestyle people have come to expect. As households have switched to dual-income, the real cost of living of has up to match ... as you'd expect in economic activity terms. That naturally makes it quite difficult for singletons like me to keep up despite having a reasonable salary.

There are positives too of course. It's had a knock-on effect on gender equality and given women more power as individuals. When my mum separated from my father when I was a kid, she struggled financially as he was the main breadwinner in the couple. This may be part of the reason why divorce rates have climbed I suppose; divorce is now more likely to be financially viable for women as well as easier legally and culturally.
FM
quote:
Originally posted by luxor:
quote:
Originally posted by Cagney:
Why do people keep going on about places like Poundland, McDonalds, Burger King etc being dead end jobs? Somebody has to work there. I bet a fair few here shop or eat in these places. So it's good enough to go to but not good enough to work in? That's a very snobbish attitude. A jobs a job. My mother was a cleaner in the mornings, worked in a corner shop in the afternoon and the chippy in the evening when we were little just so she wouldn't have to claim benefits. She didn't make a fortune but she felt her money was well earned. If benefits are gonna pay for luxuries like Sky TV and a plasma telly then yeah they probably are better off not working though


Clapping
After my father buggered off my Mum worked days, evenings and weekends to feed and clothe us, as she believed it was her responsibility not the taxpayers.
The benefits system is supposed to be a safety net not a way of life. If somebody on benefits is able to afford a oversized flat screen TV then they are being given to much.

they probably get the big tv from 'britehouse' or places like that, where you pay loads over the normal price
you know the place i mean?
its like a glorified legal loan shark shop
charmer
quote:
Originally posted by luxor:
The benefits system is supposed to be a safety net not a way of life.

I'd rather it was not just a safety net to stop people starving or freezing to death. It shouldn't become a way of life but paying (single, childless) people just enough to survive is not productive if they have fallen out of work. If a person's industry has crashed (such as the car industry now, telecoms in 2001, and coal mining in the 1980s) then those falling out of work already have a work ethic and the right mindset. Losing that is really not good and the state would be better paying lots to ease those people into alternative work.
FM
quote:
Originally posted by Cagney:
Why do people keep going on about places like Poundland, McDonalds, Burger King etc being dead end jobs? Somebody has to work there. I bet a fair few here shop or eat in these places. So it's good enough to go to but not good enough to work in? That's a very snobbish attitude. A jobs a job. My mother was a cleaner in the mornings, worked in a corner shop in the afternoon and the chippy in the evening when we were little just so she wouldn't have to claim benefits. She didn't make a fortune but she felt her money was well earned. If benefits are gonna pay for luxuries like Sky TV and a plasma telly then yeah they probably are better off not working though


And of course it's the attitude of other people which made your Mother view benefit as a dirty word, which I think is a shame.

I don’t look at the top line of my pay slip, as someone else has already said taxes are inevitable – guilt tripping people off of benefit won’t benefit any of us!
I actually cringe when I hear the pompous β€œmy taxes” line because it’s never in reference to genuine government squander; it’s always having a go at your fellow man.
Maybe I’m just a soft touch but I think your Mum was entitled to a decent quality of life with her kids - and working every morning, afternoon and evening wouldn’t have been allowing her that.
BBea
quote:
Originally posted by Daniel J*:
quote:
Originally posted by BBea:
It’s amazing how much attitudes have changed in the past 20 or 30 years. I’m 35 and my Mum didn’t work when we were kids, she looked after us and was there each day when we got home from school – which I think is far preferable to being put in a crΓ¨che or sent to a child minder.
There seems to be a culture nowadays where women are frowned upon for NOT leaving their kids, the muppet running the class referred to their kids as an β€˜excuse’!

It's not just attitudes that have changed. It's difficult now for both partners in a couple not to work yet maintain the lifestyle people have come to expect. As households have switched to dual-income, the real cost of living of has up to match ... as you'd expect in economic activity terms. That naturally makes it quite difficult for singletons like me to keep up despite having a reasonable salary.

There are positives too of course. It's had a knock-on effect on gender equality and given women more power as individuals. When my mum separated from my father when I was a kid, she struggled financially as he was the main breadwinner in the couple. This may be part of the reason why divorce rates have climbed I suppose; divorce is now more likely to be financially viable for women as well as easier legally and culturally.


Not entirely true,Deej.

If both partners have to work to maintain a lifestyle,then splitting up means the lifestyle's no longer viable.
Round these parts,divorce is still too costly an option for many.Mainly because dual income families have helped inflate property prices to a level a single person could not afford.
M
quote:
Originally posted by BBea:
Maybe I’m just a soft touch but I think your Mum was entitled to a decent quality of life with her kids - and working every morning, afternoon and evening wouldn’t have been allowing her that.

Why entitled? I mean philosophically. On what is that entitlement based? We're a modern capitalist society which is predicated on the idea that people sell their labour for wages, or amass enough money not to have to work, or employ people to generate wealth from their labour for you.
FM
quote:
Originally posted by Daniel J*:
quote:
Originally posted by luxor:
The benefits system is supposed to be a safety net not a way of life.

I'd rather it was not just a safety net to stop people starving or freezing to death. It shouldn't become a way of life but paying (single, childless) people just enough to survive is not productive if they have fallen out of work. If a person's industry has crashed (such as the car industry now, telecoms in 2001, and coal mining in the 1980s) then those falling out of work already have a work ethic and the right mindset. Losing that is really not good and the state would be better paying lots to ease those people into alternative work.


I agree that re-training should be a huge part of any system. But we must in some way make it difficult for those who do not want to and are happy to live off society. It is these people who have made the benefits system so complicated.
People who have a true work ethic should be given every assistance, no matter the cost.
Luxor
quote:
Originally posted by Mazzystar:
Not entirely true,Deej.

If both partners have to work to maintain a lifestyle,then splitting up means the lifestyle's no longer viable.
Round these parts,divorce is still too costly an option for many.Mainly because dual income families have helped inflate property prices to a level a single person could not afford.

Well, yes. Middle-class people usually live close to their means and so a couple will live close to their combined means. You split up and you revert to a single-person's lifestyle, which might mean a rented flat or even a house-share. It's still usually viable.
FM
quote:
Originally posted by Daniel J*:
quote:
Originally posted by BBea:
It’s amazing how much attitudes have changed in the past 20 or 30 years. I’m 35 and my Mum didn’t work when we were kids, she looked after us and was there each day when we got home from school – which I think is far preferable to being put in a crΓ¨che or sent to a child minder.
There seems to be a culture nowadays where women are frowned upon for NOT leaving their kids, the muppet running the class referred to their kids as an β€˜excuse’!

It's not just attitudes that have changed. It's difficult now for both partners in a couple not to work yet maintain the lifestyle people have come to expect. As households have switched to dual-income, the real cost of living of has up to match ... as you'd expect in economic activity terms. That naturally makes it quite difficult for singletons like me to keep up despite having a reasonable salary.

There are positives too of course. It's had a knock-on effect on gender equality and given women more power as individuals. When my mum separated from my father when I was a kid, she struggled financially as he was the main breadwinner in the couple. This may be part of the reason why divorce rates have climbed I suppose; divorce is now more likely to be financially viable for women as well as easier legally and culturally.


I don’t think it’s had any (significant) positive consequence gender wise. Women are still expected to be the primary carer for their kids, thus jobs and wages reflect that.
BBea
quote:
Originally posted by Daniel J*:
quote:
Originally posted by Mazzystar:
Not entirely true,Deej.

If both partners have to work to maintain a lifestyle,then splitting up means the lifestyle's no longer viable.
Round these parts,divorce is still too costly an option for many.Mainly because dual income families have helped inflate property prices to a level a single person could not afford.

Well, yes. Middle-class people usually live close to their means and so a couple will live close to their combined means. You split up and you revert to a single-person's lifestyle, which might mean a rented flat or even a house-share. It's still usually viable.


Not when you have kids.
I know men who have no option but to remain in their marital home because they don't earn enough to support their children AND pay rent for single accomodation.Let alone being able to rent a property where they can have their kids to stay at weekends.
M
quote:
Originally posted by Cagney:
Why do people keep going on about places like Poundland, McDonalds, Burger King etc being dead end jobs? Somebody has to work there. I bet a fair few here shop or eat in these places. So it's good enough to go to but not good enough to work in? That's a very snobbish attitude. A jobs a job. My mother was a cleaner in the mornings, worked in a corner shop in the afternoon and the chippy in the evening when we were little just so she wouldn't have to claim benefits. She didn't make a fortune but she felt her money was well earned. If benefits are gonna pay for luxuries like Sky TV and a plasma telly then yeah they probably are better off not working though



I dont think anyone is being snobby about these places of work, traditionally macdonalds kfc et al have all been places that students work, nothing wrong with that. BUT to go on a six week course and to be TOLD they should be queing up outside these places is a disgrace. The woman on that show were not offered training places, further education etc, all that could make a massive difference in their employability they were just told you HAVE to work any where, why shouldnt they have expectations, did anyone ask what THEY really wanted to do and told well we will help you get there NO, it was just there is a job take it.


The funny thing is they are a product of our education system and the whole circle will continue with their kids......and on and on, until such time as the education system in this country changes. WHY should those who are well off be able to BUY the best education in the country, every child in this country should be given exactly the same education regardless of their wealth, race etc
Lockes
quote:
Originally posted by BBea:
quote:
Originally posted by Daniel J*:
quote:
Originally posted by BBea:
It’s amazing how much attitudes have changed in the past 20 or 30 years. I’m 35 and my Mum didn’t work when we were kids, she looked after us and was there each day when we got home from school – which I think is far preferable to being put in a crΓ¨che or sent to a child minder.
There seems to be a culture nowadays where women are frowned upon for NOT leaving their kids, the muppet running the class referred to their kids as an β€˜excuse’!

It's not just attitudes that have changed. It's difficult now for both partners in a couple not to work yet maintain the lifestyle people have come to expect. As households have switched to dual-income, the real cost of living of has up to match ... as you'd expect in economic activity terms. That naturally makes it quite difficult for singletons like me to keep up despite having a reasonable salary.

There are positives too of course. It's had a knock-on effect on gender equality and given women more power as individuals. When my mum separated from my father when I was a kid, she struggled financially as he was the main breadwinner in the couple. This may be part of the reason why divorce rates have climbed I suppose; divorce is now more likely to be financially viable for women as well as easier legally and culturally.


I don’t think it’s had any (significant) positive consequence gender wise. Women are still expected to be the primary carer for their kids, thus jobs and wages reflect that.


Yes...women are still more likely to have part-time or poorly paid jobs than men.
Even with more men being able to work from home,it's almost exclusively women who collect their kids from school.
M
quote:
Originally posted by Daniel J*:
quote:
Originally posted by BBea:
Maybe I’m just a soft touch but I think your Mum was entitled to a decent quality of life with her kids - and working every morning, afternoon and evening wouldn’t have been allowing her that.

Why entitled? I mean philosophically. On what is that entitlement based? We're a modern capitalist society which is predicated on the idea that people sell their labour for wages, or amass enough money not to have to work, or employ people to generate wealth from their labour for you.


Entitle in the allow sense (and purely from a basic humane β€˜one to another’ perspective).
BBea
quote:
Originally posted by Mazzystar:
Not when you have kids.
I know men who have no option but to remain in their marital home because they don't earn enough to support their children AND pay rent for single accomodation.Let alone being able to rent a property where they can have their kids to stay at weekends.

Oh I see what you mean.
FM

Add Reply

×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×
×