Benifits Cap at 26k

rick_chasey

Pross wrote:

I've often wondered why the government don't just pay the costs for essentails directly. I believe that this might now be done with housing but why not provide food vouchers, clothing vouchers, travel vouchers etc.? They could then provide a reasonable amount of cash for other items, it could also be linked in with schemes to ensure healthy eating as the vouchers could be redeemable only against healthier items but then you are starting to get into social engineering which is a bit risky! In going down that route you would ensure no-one starves, they have a roof over their heads and they can travel around as required to look for work whilst having a small amount to spend on other things. It would stop claims of people living in luxury on benefits (and yes, I know that isn't the case in many situations).

I think that would a) be prohibitively expensive and b) would make being unemployed unnecessarily humiliating.

markos1963

I agree there is a need for change and we can't go on like we have. I tend to agree with Pross, perhaps there is some call for a voucher type of system. It might even ensure that food goes into the childrens mouths rather than on non essentials such as Sky Tv.

However housing benefit is another matter. What is the point of forcing families to move out of their area that they might have been born in and putting them somewhere else. Someone on the dole in London is going to have a far better chance of finding work than if they were forced to move to Bradford. They will have a far better support network in their home area. Would any of the parents on here be happy if their son/daughter and their partner and kids had to move to the other end of the country just because they had the misfortune to be made redundant? Hardly a return to traditional family values the Tories are always keen to harp on about.

Pross

Rick Chasey wrote:

Pross wrote:

I've often wondered why the government don't just pay the costs for essentails directly. I believe that this might now be done with housing but why not provide food vouchers, clothing vouchers, travel vouchers etc.? They could then provide a reasonable amount of cash for other items, it could also be linked in with schemes to ensure healthy eating as the vouchers could be redeemable only against healthier items but then you are starting to get into social engineering which is a bit risky! In going down that route you would ensure no-one starves, they have a roof over their heads and they can travel around as required to look for work whilst having a small amount to spend on other things. It would stop claims of people living in luxury on benefits (and yes, I know that isn't the case in many situations).

I think that would a) be prohibitively expensive and b) would make being unemployed unnecessarily humiliating.

a) Why? The government would just be buying the essentials that they currently provide the cash to buy. If anything it should be cheaper as the government would be in a strong position to negotiate contracts with suppliers.
b) I've never understood that argument. I was on free school dinners / clothing coupons for a few months as a kid when my dad lost his job, it wasn't humiliating. In fact, I would be happy for my employer to pay my mortgage out of my salary, give me food vouchers, pay my essential bills etc. and only give me what is left as cash. It would be a very good way of controlling household budgets.

verylonglegs

I always thought the biggest argument against food vouchers is that they would just be traded anyway, eg someone would give their £10 food voucher to someone else for say £8 cash and just buy what they really want.

rick_chasey

Pross wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Pross wrote:

I've often wondered why the government don't just pay the costs for essentails directly. I believe that this might now be done with housing but why not provide food vouchers, clothing vouchers, travel vouchers etc.? They could then provide a reasonable amount of cash for other items, it could also be linked in with schemes to ensure healthy eating as the vouchers could be redeemable only against healthier items but then you are starting to get into social engineering which is a bit risky! In going down that route you would ensure no-one starves, they have a roof over their heads and they can travel around as required to look for work whilst having a small amount to spend on other things. It would stop claims of people living in luxury on benefits (and yes, I know that isn't the case in many situations).

I think that would a) be prohibitively expensive and b) would make being unemployed unnecessarily humiliating.

a) Why? The government would just be buying the essentials that they currently provide the cash to buy. If anything it should be cheaper as the government would be in a strong position to negotiate contracts with suppliers.
b) I've never understood that argument. I was on free school dinners / clothing coupons for a few months as a kid when my dad lost his job, it wasn't humiliating. In fact, I would be happy for my employer to pay my mortgage out of my salary, give me food vouchers, pay my essential bills etc. and only give me what is left as cash. It would be a very good way of controlling household budgets.

Either the gov't decides what the unemployed get from the state (which, would be pretty intrusive, especially for Britian, and would open up an enormous can of worms re what is appropriate and what isn't - a political nightmare), or the govt would have to judge on a case by case basis. Imagine the man-hours that would take?

LeicesterLad

Rick Chasey wrote:

Pross wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Pross wrote:

I've often wondered why the government don't just pay the costs for essentails directly. I believe that this might now be done with housing but why not provide food vouchers, clothing vouchers, travel vouchers etc.? They could then provide a reasonable amount of cash for other items, it could also be linked in with schemes to ensure healthy eating as the vouchers could be redeemable only against healthier items but then you are starting to get into social engineering which is a bit risky! In going down that route you would ensure no-one starves, they have a roof over their heads and they can travel around as required to look for work whilst having a small amount to spend on other things. It would stop claims of people living in luxury on benefits (and yes, I know that isn't the case in many situations).

I think that would a) be prohibitively expensive and b) would make being unemployed unnecessarily humiliating.

a) Why? The government would just be buying the essentials that they currently provide the cash to buy. If anything it should be cheaper as the government would be in a strong position to negotiate contracts with suppliers.
b) I've never understood that argument. I was on free school dinners / clothing coupons for a few months as a kid when my dad lost his job, it wasn't humiliating. In fact, I would be happy for my employer to pay my mortgage out of my salary, give me food vouchers, pay my essential bills etc. and only give me what is left as cash. It would be a very good way of controlling household budgets.

Either the gov't decides what the unemployed get from the state (which, would be pretty intrusive, especially for Britian, and would open up an enormous can of worms re what is appropriate and what isn't - a political nightmare), or the govt would have to judge on a case by case basis. Imagine the man-hours that would take?

You have just unlocked the secret to ending unemployment.

daviesee

markos1963 wrote:

Would any of the parents on here be happy if their son/daughter and their partner and kids had to move to the other end of the country just because they had the misfortune to be made redundant?

Once upon a time I was made redundant and had to move abroad to get a job. I don't remember any fuss.
No sympathy.

Dammit! Drawn in again.......... :oops:

MaxwellBygraves

Isn't it interesting how effectively the media and politicians can turn us against people who we perhaps know or associate with, simultaneously making us forget about much more pressing problems facing us.

For example, many people we work with likely receive benefits, or their family members. Even people who are related to us. There is no army of feckless scroungers queueing up to steal your money. Yet because their rhetoric appeals to very basic, socialised prejudices or emotions people lap it up without questioning it - getting really worked up in the process.

In the meantime, the media remains deathly silent over important issues such as the privatisation of the NHS, for example. Or the inherent failures of neo-liberal free market economics. All the while, we continue to squabble over the crumbs, failing to take our politicians to task or asking more important questions.

LeicesterLad

MaxwellBygraves wrote:

Isn't it interesting how effectively the media and politicians can turn us against people who we perhaps know or associate with, simultaneously making us forget about much more pressing problems facing us.

For example, many people we work with likely receive benefits, or their family members. Even people who are related to us. There is no army of feckless scroungers queueing up to steal your money. Yet because their rhetoric appeals to very basic, socialised prejudices or emotions people lap it up without questioning it - getting really worked up in the process.

In the meantime, the media remains deathly silent over important issues such as the privatisation of the NHS, for example. Or the inherent failures of neo-liberal free market economics. All the while, we continue to squabble over the crumbs, failing to take our politicians to task or asking more important questions.

:roll: Who are you kidding? 90% of all cases coming through our Courthouse are of the same distinct background...Fact is there are genuine cases, but if you think that there are no scroungers, you are far more blind than Cameron/Ed et al. Come to Leicester and tell me otherwise. I signed on for 4 Months a couple of years ago...90% of those around me in the DWP honestly couldn't give a monkeys about being employed.

Squaggles

When I was unemployed I got £65 a week , plus council tax benefit and housing benefit , but the housing benefit didn't cover all the rent . I was basically living on £50 a week for bills , food , clothes , transport etc.

Life of luxury :roll:

I'm afraid which ever way you look at there aren't enough jobs , not all the unemployed are scroungers but it's very difficult to even get minimum wage factory work in most places now , all zero hour contracts etc.

A lot of people who work still get benefits because they don't get a living wage from their employer ( Tesco etc. )

EKIMIKE

Jez mon wrote:

How do you put all facts into perspective without some sort of statistical manipulation?

How do you get all of the facts?

You can't do either, as soon as you attempt to put something into context, you manipulate it. As for all of the facts, in any analysis, you have to make assumptions, it's just about impossible to avoid that...

I appreciate what you're saying but *groan* i didn't mean it literally.

I'm shocked at the generalisations and conclusions some people appear to make on the basis of a few shaky anecdotes. Scary $hit.

I also bemoan the partisan attitudes. Not everyone is trying to argue for or against yourself... This is why a effing despise party politics. Always boils down to, and gets bogged down in the dogma and ideology.

tim_wand

Ekimike, you appear not to accept that some people do have strong personal opinions on this.

Not all those opinions are based on reading the daily mail or polarised by political rhetoric.

I would Imagine a lot of the opinion expressed in the post (certainly mine) is a based on actual experiences and observations of daily life and society.

None of us know each others circumstances or the crosses we all have to bare.

Sure there are a large number of people who can and will form opinions based on ignorance and prejudice, who are just picking up on the jingolistic soundbites of media and politicians.

The fact still remains that no matter how spun the examples, data and anecdotes are tainted to influence opinion, it is still legitamate and understandable that people who pay taxes and work hard do not see the sense in a system that hands out more to people in benefits than they receive from working.

Its simply not sustainable, how can an economy remain intact which pays out more in benefits than it collects in PAYE.

Admittedly we need to look more vigorously at other sources of contribution (Tax evaders/ Corporation Taxes/ Transaction Taxes) to help balance the books.

But there should not be an inbalance in the first place through supporting a system which has more net benefactors than contributors.

EKIMIKE

And what is wrong with resenting an opinion reasoned upon dogma and/or shaky anecdotes?

It's not the opinions i resent. A variety of opinions is something to value. It's how people get/reason their opinions that matters.

It's funny to see how dogmatists react to someone's lack of opinion.

Again, has anyone looked at the opposite side to this coin and asked whether they should be paid more by their employer? Wages of the ordinary man, like me and you, are pathetically low in the spectrum of pay in institutions (both private and public sector) and more widely, society. That's before you stack on the wider context of cost of living or how income is taxed or any other relevant consideration.

It's a fairly obvious question that you almost never hear asked. I guess the obvious counter-point is that we should be contempt considering there are people in the world who get paid less than $2 per day for their labour. In any case, it is absurd to use poverty (we're talking 'absolute' poverty here) as a 'positive' justification for anything.

verylonglegs

EKIMIKE wrote:

And what is wrong with resenting an opinion reasoned upon dogma and/or shaky anecdotes?

It's not the opinions i resent. A variety of opinions is something to value. It's how people get/reason their opinions that matters.

It's funny to see how dogmatists react to someone's lack of opinion.

Again, has anyone looked at the opposite side to this coin and asked whether they should be paid more by their employer? Wages of the ordinary man, like me and you, are pathetically low in the spectrum of pay in institutions (both private and public sector) and more widely, society. That's before you stack on the wider context of cost of living or how income is taxed or any other relevant consideration.

It's a fairly obvious question that you almost never hear asked. I guess the obvious counter-point is that we should be contempt considering there are people in the world who get paid less than $2 per day for their labour. In any case, it is absurd to use poverty (we're talking 'absolute' poverty here) as a 'positive' justification for anything.

You mean well no doubt but christ you sound young and naive.

tim_wand

Apparently its quite easy to ask for a rise in Wages on a paper round, you just have to offer the Shop Keeper to do the marking Up

Jez mon

EKIMIKE wrote:

And what is wrong with resenting an opinion reasoned upon dogma and/or shaky anecdotes?

It's not the opinions i resent. A variety of opinions is something to value. It's how people get/reason their opinions that matters.

It's funny to see how dogmatists react to someone's lack of opinion.

Again, has anyone looked at the opposite side to this coin and asked whether they should be paid more by their employer? Wages of the ordinary man, like me and you, are pathetically low in the spectrum of pay in institutions (both private and public sector) and more widely, society. That's before you stack on the wider context of cost of living or how income is taxed or any other relevant consideration.

It's a fairly obvious question that you almost never hear asked. I guess the obvious counter-point is that we should be contempt considering there are people in the world who get paid less than $2 per day for their labour. In any case, it is absurd to use poverty (we're talking 'absolute' poverty here) as a 'positive' justification for anything.

So the first hand experiences of those on here boil down to shaky anecdote? I think I'll take their own story at face value, with the caveat that the claimants may well be attempting to wind up the posters.

The wage gap between the top and bottom is astounding, it often seems (to me at least) that the more obvious management perks (their own loos, their own dining rooms etc) have been phased out, and less obvious MASSIVE pay rises, have been phased in.

But I think that is an issue for another day. Make work pay better than benefits, then look at wealth distribution, I don't mind paying highish taxes if they allow the hard working but less fortunate members of society a reasonable standard of living. I do mind it, when they allow feckless breeders to be well stocked in fags and booze :twisted:

As for having to move to get work, I don't have much sympathy, I'm studying mech eng, ideally I would like to return to the South when I graduate, but there are sweet f'all jobs in engineering in the South, so it's likely that I'll be staying in the Midlands for the foreseeable future. Which is fine, so long as travelling doesn't become even more expensive.

rick_chasey

Jez mon wrote:

As for having to move to get work, I don't have much sympathy, I'm studying mech eng, ideally I would like to return to the South when I graduate, but there are sweet f'all jobs in engineering in the South, so it's likely that I'll be staying in the Midlands for the foreseeable future. Which is fine, so long as travelling doesn't become even more expensive.

Mechanical engineering? That's about as mathsy as engineering gets right?

If you're hungry enough and actually want it, you'd have a good shot in finance... Come across a lot of people who have an engineering academic background.

tim_wand

Rick Chasey wrote:

Jez mon wrote:

As for having to move to get work, I don't have much sympathy, I'm studying mech eng, ideally I would like to return to the South when I graduate, but there are sweet f'all jobs in engineering in the South, so it's likely that I'll be staying in the Midlands for the foreseeable future. Which is fine, so long as travelling doesn't become even more expensive.

Mechanical engineering? That's about as mathsy as engineering gets right?

If you're hungry enough and actually want it, you'd have a good shot in finance... Come across a lot of people who have an engineering academic background.

Rick are you being deliberatley provacative?
Possibly your offering the Lad sound advice.
But isnt this part of the whole problem with this country today.

Where once we had Brunel, Watt, Stevenson and the finest engineering and production base in the world.
We now consider it sound careers advice to point engeneering graduates into the same career path as. Fred Godwin (Couldnt bring myself to say sir) Nick Leesom and the board of EMRON.

I know not all bankers are bad, and we need these people to recover the economy, but please please lets also have some engineers.

Jez mon

tim wand wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Jez mon wrote:

As for having to move to get work, I don't have much sympathy, I'm studying mech eng, ideally I would like to return to the South when I graduate, but there are sweet f'all jobs in engineering in the South, so it's likely that I'll be staying in the Midlands for the foreseeable future. Which is fine, so long as travelling doesn't become even more expensive.

Mechanical engineering? That's about as mathsy as engineering gets right?

If you're hungry enough and actually want it, you'd have a good shot in finance... Come across a lot of people who have an engineering academic background.

Rick are you being deliberatley provacative?
Possibly your offering the Lad sound advice.
But isnt this part of the whole problem with this country today.

Where once we had Brunel, Watt, Stevenson and the finest engineering and production base in the world.
We now consider it sound careers advice to point engeneering graduates into the same career path as. Fred Godwin (Couldnt bring myself to say sir) Nick Leesom and the board of EMRON.

I know not all bankers are bad, and we need these people to recover the economy, but please please lets also have some engineers.

Either way, this country can't win with me, I want to work abroad ASAP...

It's all very well looking back at Brunel, Stevenson, Whittle and so on, but the cold hard fact is, the majority of engineering graduate jobs pay less than 30k, sometimes, a lot less. Finance jobs on the other hand pay more, a fair bit more...

Plus, have you ever told a girl you're an Engineer? When I was working at Rolls Royce last year, you could see their interest peak at the mention of Rolls, but then come crashing down at the mention of the E-word I mean, at least they know a bankers going to be well off!!

rick_chasey

tim wand wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Jez mon wrote:

As for having to move to get work, I don't have much sympathy, I'm studying mech eng, ideally I would like to return to the South when I graduate, but there are sweet f'all jobs in engineering in the South, so it's likely that I'll be staying in the Midlands for the foreseeable future. Which is fine, so long as travelling doesn't become even more expensive.

Mechanical engineering? That's about as mathsy as engineering gets right?

If you're hungry enough and actually want it, you'd have a good shot in finance... Come across a lot of people who have an engineering academic background.

Rick are you being deliberatley provacative?
Possibly your offering the Lad sound advice.
But isnt this part of the whole problem with this country today.

Where once we had Brunel, Watt, Stevenson and the finest engineering and production base in the world.
We now consider it sound careers advice to point engeneering graduates into the same career path as. Fred Godwin (Couldnt bring myself to say sir) Nick Leesom and the board of EMRON.

I know not all bankers are bad, and we need these people to recover the economy, but please please lets also have some engineers.

No. I'm not being provocative. I do senior recruitment in the City, so I see what successful people in this industry did...

People's perspectives begin to change when you sit them down in front of what they could actually do.

After all, someone's got to do it.

bdu98252

The main issue stopping benefit reform is the age old argument that it will put children in poverty and the ideology that the children cannot be blamed for the actions of others. The problem is that it is hard to see how you can give the benefits to the child and expect it to be spent well. A four year old may well have the financial acumen of the parent but this does not really help.

Education and healthcare is provided to residents of the UK free of charge. Housing is provided to people free of charge if they require it. This may not be in the best condition or area however I strongly support a councils desire
to achieve value for money for the tax payer. All you now need is food and water to survive and the children would have the same life chances as anyone else if driven correctly. I strongly support a voucher system as it could be limited to essential items and if companies flought this then they go to jail. If claimants trade the vouchers for cash then that is their perogative and they will have to live with the consequences.

The reason that children with shit parents struggle to survive is begause they have shit parents. No amount of sky tv, trips to the beach and cash can rectify this fact. Even state sponsored adoption won't rectify this as in many cases they wil be going to even more negative environments. We currently have a system that promotes the procreation of the least able within society. It is the equivalent of state sponsored intelligence reduction. Are we all looking forward to the average school intake in 50 years time.

guinea

I suggest a lot of people need to read an economics book or two...

When you understand supply and demand in the labour market and how that affects inflation and the price of goods, and in turn how that affects overall demand come back and lets talk.

This economy needs unemployed people. We cannot function without them. Any civilised society should be treating these people with decency and respect. They are essential. There cannot be wealthy people if there are no poor.

If everyone in this country had a job we'd be bankrupt in no time.

Frank the tank

The point bdu98252 makes about the use of a voucher scheme I believe is a good one, one dare I say i've always espoused.

I'd have been quite happy to have recieved child benefit in the form of vouchers be they in a mix of food/clothing. I also believe CB should only be paid for the first two children and this would be paid to the mother, unless she is no longer around of course. Obviously such a scheme would need some sorting out (it wouldn't be retrospective) as there would be potential pit falls, but once you know the rules the choice is yours.

I think one thing we can all agree on is benefit reform is anything but simple.

symo

Jez Mon, I work in engineering in the SE. Mechanical Engineer by Degree. I earn more than 30k basic + car + Bonus. The issue is that once you get your degree you have to pay your dues and get your experience, I am in my late 30's but earning significantly more than when I left uni.

Experience is unfortunatly what people want, and you have to eat crap to get it in Engineering. However once you have it you will have
a) A real degree.
b) A wealth of real world knowledge.
Which makes your earning capacity worldwide huge.

tim_wand

Jez Mon, If a woman wants to judge you on your choosen profession and finds you more desireable as a banker than an engineer, then I would suggest the superficiality of her judgement makes her someone best avoided.

I have a great deal more respect and appreciation for the creators and producers of things , than those who merely profit from administrating and shepherding of the profits of such labour.

Rick I am sure you are very good at what you do, I am sure you have supplied the financial industry with many capable workers who now contribute more in tax than I ever will , (I would imagine an equal amount have also used their skill to insure that many employed by them avoid such responsibilities).

I know I come across as polarised and buying into the stereotype that Bankers are bad, and anyone on benefits is unworthy.

I am sure there are more examples of both bankers and benefits clamimants who are either working hard or suffering through no fault of their own in the circumstances that now prevail.

Once again however its a simple see-saw, you cannot take more out of something than is put in.
You cannot pay more in Benefit than you are able to raise in PAYE.
You cant lend more than a countries GDP can cover in interest let alone debt.
We need more contributors (Be they engineers or bankers) and less detractors.

Cameroon fought hard to veto a 27 country euro zone recovery policy in order to avoid a "Financial Transaction Tax"
which would have seen the City of London loose its advantage as the premier centre for such business and IMO he was right to do so, the markets would have just moved on to Asia and we would have lost the revenue.

But why did no previous or subsequent Government take similiar action to protect our manufacturing and production industries, they seemed quite content to watch these be under cut by Asian markets?


P.s Jezmon ex Rolls Royce engineer It didnt do the two boys at HOPE any harm did it? Give it a go, lets have a UK rival for Chris King , I m sure RickChasey could find you a capital backer, I' d buy in.

rick_chasey

tim wand wrote:

Jez Mon, If a woman wants to judge you on your choosen profession and finds you more desireable as a banker than an engineer, then I would suggest the superficiality of her judgement makes her someone best avoided.

I have a great deal more respect and appreciation for the creators and producers of things , than those who merely profit from administrating and shepherding of the profits of such labour.

Rick I am sure you are very good at what you do, I am sure you have supplied the financial industry with many capable workers who now contribute more in tax than I ever will , (I would imagine an equal amount have also used their skill to insure that many employed by them avoid such responsibilities).

I know I come across as polarised and buying into the stereotype that Bankers are bad, and anyone on benefits is unworthy.

I am sure there are more examples of both bankers and benefits clamimants who are either working hard or suffering through no fault of their own in the circumstances that now prevail.

Once again however its a simple see-saw, you cannot take more out of something than is put in.
You cannot pay more in Benefit than you are able to raise in PAYE.
You cant lend more than a countries GDP can cover in interest let alone debt.
We need more contributors (Be they engineers or bankers) and less detractors.

Cameroon fought hard to veto a 27 country euro zone recovery policy in order to avoid a "Financial Transaction Tax"
which would have seen the City of London loose its advantage as the premier centre for such business and IMO he was right to do so, the markets would have just moved on to Asia and we would have lost the revenue.

But why did no previous or subsequent Government take similiar action to protect our manufacturing and production industries, they seemed quite content to watch these be under cut by Asian markets?


P.s Jezmon ex Rolls Royce engineer It didnt do the two boys at HOPE any harm did it? Give it a go, lets have a UK rival for Chris King , I m sure RickChasey could find you a capital backer, I' d buy in.

Look, a) I only headhunt pretty senior people in a pretty niche area. (hence I have enough time to waste on here). I doubt I'd be much use. It's not a job I particularly enjoy or am proud of.

b) I'm more a of a lefty than my profession would suggest. You're right that the UK is overbalanced towards finance, and that it is getting (or has got) to the point where finance is a brain-drain on other industries.

Given the fickle nature of finance, a re-balance wouldn't be a bad thing. I just mentioned the career thing to Jez, since, y'know, he might not have thought about it.



Not sure what it has to do with benefits, but that's probably my fault anyway

NickintheLakes

guinea wrote:

This economy needs unemployed people. We cannot function without them. Any civilised society should be treating these people with decency and respect. They are essential.

I'm dim, can you please expand and explain this to me. Thanks. NB: I am ok with the decency and respect bit.

bdu98252

NickintheLakes wrote:

guinea wrote:

This economy needs unemployed people. We cannot function without them. Any civilised society should be treating these people with decency and respect. They are essential.

I'm dim, can you please expand and explain this to me. Thanks. NB: I am ok with the decency and respect bit.

The point he is making is that in a free economy where labour can move around in a situation where there was more jobs than people then people would not do the least paying job. Therefore the least paying job would have to offer more and a inflation sprial would take place. Eventually everyone would be on a high wage in relation to other countries and we could no longer compete hence losing business to other contries and then unemployment would follow. This is particulalry pronounced in jobs like manufacturing whereby a product could in theory be made anywhere excluding factors like brand image etc. Then the jobs that cannot be exported like healthcare, bin emtying, etc would then be able to offer reduced wage offers and the unemployed people would flock to those tasks thereby reducing wage costs.

I agree with a previous poster on the issue of tackling low pay. After all if £26k is not enough for someone on the dole then what about your Tesco shelfstacker on minimum wage far below this. Do we expect that person to live with their family for the rest of their life. Unfortunately this has to be limited to other countries general wages so that the UK can remain competitive in what is an international market. We cannot get richer by just selling the same stuff to ourselves repeatedly.

Squaggles

No takers to live on £50 a week then ?

I wonder how many people have spent that amount on one meal

NickintheLakes

bdu98252 wrote:

NickintheLakes wrote:

guinea wrote:

This economy needs unemployed people. We cannot function without them. Any civilised society should be treating these people with decency and respect. They are essential.

I'm dim, can you please expand and explain this to me. Thanks. NB: I am ok with the decency and respect bit.

The point he is making is that in a free economy where labour can move around in a situation where there was more jobs than people then people would not do the least paying job. Therefore the least paying job would have to offer more and a inflation sprial would take place. Eventually everyone would be on a high wage in relation to other countries and we could no longer compete hence losing business to other contries and then unemployment would follow. This is particulalry pronounced in jobs like manufacturing whereby a product could in theory be made anywhere excluding factors like brand image etc. Then the jobs that cannot be exported like healthcare, bin emtying, etc would then be able to offer reduced wage offers and the unemployed people would flock to those tasks thereby reducing wage costs.

Gotcha!

But I still don't understand why we need unemployed people