Program on channel 4 last night SKINT

135

Comments

  • fast as fupp
    fast as fupp Posts: 2,277
    Frank the tank wrote:
    fast as fupp wrote:
    BLAH! BLAH BLAH! weve had your life story- its a pity youve lost whatever compassion you ever had for those where you grew up.

    frank- i think the jobcentres would need a lot more staff if your plan were to be put into place! (perhaps we could have workfare staff in the jobcentres- in fact everyone could work for £71.00 per week!)

    but who would get rich as no one would have money to spend!
    The thinking behind the idea of "clocking on" is to keep people in the routine of getting up and going out, rather than just vegetating in bed.

    The method could be along the lines of a chip and pin type of card at a hole in the wall type of thing.

    I'm not into demonising people on benefits the vast majority are genuine claimants. I'm just thinking of one way to stop people falling into a state of despair.

    there is already a system-its called universal jobmatch- claimants signed up to it are monitored electronically on their search for work.
    'dont forget lads, one evertonian is worth twenty kopites'
  • ballysmate
    ballysmate Posts: 15,921
    Frank the tank wrote:
    fast as fupp wrote:
    BLAH! BLAH BLAH! weve had your life story- its a pity youve lost whatever compassion you ever had for those where you grew up.

    frank- i think the jobcentres would need a lot more staff if your plan were to be put into place! (perhaps we could have workfare staff in the jobcentres- in fact everyone could work for £71.00 per week!)

    but who would get rich as no one would have money to spend!
    The thinking behind the idea of "clocking on" is to keep people in the routine of getting up and going out, rather than just vegetating in bed.

    The method could be along the lines of a chip and pin type of card at a hole in the wall type of thing.

    I'm not into demonising people on benefits the vast majority are genuine claimants. I'm just thinking of one way to stop people falling into a state of despair.

    Frank, my understanding of the present system is that you have to apply for a minimum number of jobs each week in order to continue to receive benefit. All vacancies are now online, to be accessed either at home or from within the job centre. All claimants have an unique ID that can be audited to ensure that they are complying.
    I am not 100% sure of the system but I believe that is the case. I don't know if there is anything to preclude someone just pressing the 'APPLY' button for the first 10 jobs that appear on the screen on a Monday morning though, from the comfort of their warm bed.
    I am sure someone will be along soon to tell me I am wrong. :)
  • wheels50
    wheels50 Posts: 8
    The guy in the video worked in the steel works until a year ago (apparently), so he's hardly a hardcore scrounger. Could be anyone here. Cutting benefits without creating job opportunities helps no one. It's useless to attack the unemployed when there are so few jobs, and the ones that are available are short term, zero hour contracts, the kind of jobs that probably cost as much in working tax credits and housing benefit as they save in jobseekers allowance. Only 3% of the benefits bill goes to the unemployed, almost nothing. Banning/limiting zero hour contracts and phony self employed jobs will probably be of a much bigger benefit to society than cutting jobseekers allowance, or any kind of forced labor scheme.
  • ballysmate
    ballysmate Posts: 15,921
    wheels50 wrote:
    The guy in the video worked in the steel works until a year ago (apparently), so he's hardly a hardcore scrounger. Could be anyone here. Cutting benefits without creating job opportunities helps no one. It's useless to attack the unemployed when there are so few jobs, and the ones that are available are short term, zero hour contracts, the kind of jobs that probably cost as much in working tax credits and housing benefit as they save in jobseekers allowance. Only 3% of the benefits bill goes to the unemployed, almost nothing. Banning/limiting zero hour contracts and phony self employed jobs will probably be of a much bigger benefit to society than cutting jobseekers allowance, or any kind of forced labor scheme.

    The welfare budget is around £159 Billion, so 3% is not anywhere near nothing. Over £4.75 Billion in fact.
    But that is by the by. What people here have suggested is getting claimants to carry out some community tasks/work in exchange for their benefits, not slashing jobseekers allowance. The principle is the same no matter at what the level of benefit is set. If you are fit, you should have to contribute something in order to receive benefits.
  • fast as fupp
    fast as fupp Posts: 2,277
    to be fair to the original poster that crowd on that programme were a bad bunch of meffs!

    made birko look like paradise. :D
    'dont forget lads, one evertonian is worth twenty kopites'
  • MisterMuncher
    MisterMuncher Posts: 1,302
    It's not like a telly program was going to show the (gag) "deserving poor" anyway. They were always going to show the extreme cases, and it seems confirmation bias will do the rest. To base any judgement on this would be the actions of a mental midget. Luckily, they don't appear to be in short supply.

    As for enforced work, realistically, what happens to the council workers &c. whose job these much vaunted "community programmes" would be taking over? Fired on the dole to do it for £70 a week. That'll really help the economy, that.

    Enforced work for the unemployed joins other populist notions oft cited in saloon bars and the pages of mid-market newspapers. They sound great, but are worked out with nary a regard for consequence or effect beyond the simple emotional pull they have.
  • Giraffoto
    Giraffoto Posts: 2,078
    MisterMuncher wrote:
    Enforced work for the unemployed joins other populist notions oft cited in saloon bars and the pages of mid-market newspapers. They sound great, but are worked out with nary a regard for consequence or effect beyond the simple emotional pull they have.

    I feel some small responsibility for the "Make 'em work!" message, having brought up as an example the old Soviet idea of full employment. To clarify . . .

    The question (to which I don't know the answer) was, would it cost so much more than the allegedly extortionate benefits bill to provide jobs for the unemployed, rather than just hand them cash?

    Now, obviously it'll cost more, but how much more? And would the benefits to the country of creating these jobs outweigh the costs? Benefits such as restoring a work ethic to people who've forgotten theirs (perhaps through no fault of their own, this is not meant to be judgemental)

    For example - the owners of a factory want to transfer production abroad for the cheaper labour. What would be the cost/benefit of the government coughing up a bit extra for them to stay in the UK? Or to build their extra factories here?

    For example - the government want to throw a load of cash at building a high-speed rail network. What would be the cost/benefit of taking on extra people to build both the North and South bits of it simultaneously?

    What would be the cost/benefit of employing a large number of people to restore as much as possible of the UK's canal network, thus providing lots of towpaths to ride on?

    These may be ridiculous examples. But it's the kind of thing I was thinking about, not chain gangs!
    Specialized Roubaix Elite 2015
    XM-057 rigid 29er
  • Pituophis
    Pituophis Posts: 1,025
    VTech wrote:
    fast as fupp wrote:
    im not denigrating supermarket workers - they do more for society than the banking classes for example. i denigrate the fact that people are being ruthlessly exploited.

    and vtech you do know that most of the people claiming housing benefit are actually employed?

    Without wanting to sound rude, I dont really have an interest in whats claimed other than that I think people should do what they can to attain self respect and sitting at home giving up doesnt help them or anyone. I realise people will always have different views on life and mine wont match everyone else's, I just think that being in the game (doing something) gives people a better chance to get ahead.

    You are living in a fantasy land. If you really come from a "poor" background as you repeatedly claim, how can you have become so blinkered?
    You'll be pleased to know I work and always have. Own my own house and car, nothing special there :?
    My son is also a proper grafter. He cannot get a permanent job!
    He has a reasonable education (above high school standard, but not university :roll: ) and yet he cannot get anyone to employ him on anything longer than a 3 month contract.
    He has had jobs as diverse as barrowing concrete for 12 hours a day to managing a warehouse, and a lot in between. He will do anything.
    His general wages hover around the £7 per hour mark, and yet he is desperate to work.
    He lives in a rented house as he cannot save the £10k+ he needs for a deposit on a mortgage.
    Some months he cannot afford to pay his bills, so I pay them. Again, nothing special there, lots of "poor" people do this :wink:
    He will never be able to own his own new car (but then neither will I :roll: ) if he could ever afford the insurance on it!
    And no, he doesn't drink, smoke or take drugs. Does that disappoint you?

    The (Un)employment agency/dole or what ever, is set up to get people off the statistics, not to find them jobs.
    So what is you answer for people like this? He's doing all he can to "attain self respect" but not getting any from anyone else. What do you suggest he does to "get ahead"? Just get on with it and think himself lucky?
  • VTech
    VTech Posts: 4,736
    Pituophis wrote:
    VTech wrote:
    fast as fupp wrote:
    im not denigrating supermarket workers - they do more for society than the banking classes for example. i denigrate the fact that people are being ruthlessly exploited.

    and vtech you do know that most of the people claiming housing benefit are actually employed?

    Without wanting to sound rude, I dont really have an interest in whats claimed other than that I think people should do what they can to attain self respect and sitting at home giving up doesnt help them or anyone. I realise people will always have different views on life and mine wont match everyone else's, I just think that being in the game (doing something) gives people a better chance to get ahead.

    You are living in a fantasy land. If you really come from a "poor" background as you repeatedly claim, how can you have become so blinkered?
    You'll be pleased to know I work and always have. Own my own house and car, nothing special there :?
    My son is also a proper grafter. He cannot get a permanent job!
    He has a reasonable education (above high school standard, but not university :roll: ) and yet he cannot get anyone to employ him on anything longer than a 3 month contract.
    He has had jobs as diverse as barrowing concrete for 12 hours a day to managing a warehouse, and a lot in between. He will do anything.
    His general wages hover around the £7 per hour mark, and yet he is desperate to work.
    He lives in a rented house as he cannot save the £10k+ he needs for a deposit on a mortgage.
    Some months he cannot afford to pay his bills, so I pay them. Again, nothing special there, lots of "poor" people do this :wink:
    He will never be able to own his own new car (but then neither will I :roll: ) if he could ever afford the insurance on it!
    And no, he doesn't drink, smoke or take drugs. Does that disappoint you?

    The (Un)employment agency/dole or what ever, is set up to get people off the statistics, not to find them jobs.
    So what is you answer for people like this? He's doing all he can to "attain self respect" but not getting any from anyone else. What do you suggest he does to "get ahead"? Just get on with it and think himself lucky?


    In afraid that you have totally misunderstood my point. Someone like your son doesn't need the support or assistance I am talking about, if he is actively looking for work he does not come into the category of those becoming accustomed to not working, instead he is a victim of the times.
    I refer to those who either do not want to work or can't be bothered whilst at the same time pretending to want to work or viewing unemployment as a vocation.

    Getting angry at me won't help, and the only reason I mentioned my background was because it showed I have experience in both not having much early in life and growing up with people who had nothing.

    I feel for people who want to work yet can't find permanent work but without wanting to sound like I don't care (I really do care) it may be that for a time, the only option is temp work and assistance off mom and dad.
    Surely you must agree that temp work is better than no work even though as you say, it probably will never afford him a car or house but he will have pride which when he looks back later in life will mean far more.

    I hope he finds a full time and perminent job. With his work ethic he will surely be a step ahead of the rivals.
    Living MY dream.
  • BelgianBeerGeek
    BelgianBeerGeek Posts: 5,226
    fast as fupp wrote:
    pair of jokers you two.

    utterly clueless.

    lets hope you dont fall on hard times (not).
    Is it just me or do VTech and the playing mantis come across as hardline Stalinists? :wink:
    Ecrasez l’infame
  • VTech
    VTech Posts: 4,736
    BelgianBeerGeek wrote:
    fast as fupp wrote:
    pair of jokers you two.

    utterly clueless.

    lets hope you dont fall on hard times (not).
    Is it just me or do VTech and the playing mantis come across as hardline Stalinists? :wink:


    I call It ethical.
    How can we ever expect people to work when in many cases they are better off unemployed ?
    How is that fair ? How does that give us all a better future ?
    We get lots of people moaning about immigration but they take the jobs so many of us simply won't or can't be bothered too do.
    Living MY dream.
  • laurentian
    laurentian Posts: 2,394
    VTech wrote:
    How can we ever expect people to work when in many cases they are better off unemployed ?

    Name two cases
    Wilier Izoard XP
  • GiantMike
    GiantMike Posts: 3,139
    laurentian wrote:
    VTech wrote:
    How can we ever expect people to work when in many cases they are better off unemployed ?

    Name two cases

    Define 'better off'.

    If I got £30 less a week and not go to work, or spend a day putting sausage rolls into a plastic container, I would consider myself better off getting £30 a week less. The pure stats won't answer this question.
  • MisterMuncher
    MisterMuncher Posts: 1,302
    Giraffoto wrote:
    Now, obviously it'll cost more, but how much more? And would the benefits to the country of creating these jobs outweigh the costs? Benefits such as restoring a work ethic to people who've forgotten theirs (perhaps through no fault of their own, this is not meant to be judgemental)

    Fair enough. You're actually thinking stuff through.
    For example - the owners of a factory want to transfer production abroad for the cheaper labour. What would be the cost/benefit of the government coughing up a bit extra for them to stay in the UK? Or to build their extra factories here?

    You'd have to create an exception to, or wholly abolish, the minimum wage, then. Even at that, could wages realistically exist in Britain that would be competitive with Chinese industrial wages and be anything other than slavery, the relative cost of living being so different? Someone on that wage would still be requiring assistance to keep a home,and would have a wage too small to be taxed directly. The benefits seem to be that we can then have more people in the same trap if/when the company deign to open more factories, for the irresitible extra demand created by Britishpeople exercising the huge spending power of Third-World competitive wages.
    For example - the government want to throw a load of cash at building a high-speed rail network. What would be the cost/benefit of taking on extra people to build both the North and South bits of it simultaneously?

    What would be the cost/benefit of employing a large number of people to restore as much as possible of the UK's canal network, thus providing lots of towpaths to ride on?

    These indeed would be beneficial if they carried a decent wage and provided some kind of training. How many of the unemployed have the ability to drive a digger/tipper/low-loader, take a level off a theodolite, build walls, sink shoring &c, ad nauseum. What would the cost be, in terms of time and money of getting enough folk up to speed to make a significant impact on unemployment numbers or the work? Less or more than hiring some of the abundance of sub-contractors and independents already out there? Turning the unemployed into a brigade of public works navvies is an attractive enough notion only if there's sufficient readily available unskilled work.
  • the playing mantis
    the playing mantis Posts: 2,129
    what have i missed? wow, dont u chaps have nothing better to do on a thursday evening than come on here, wow even some posts in the middle of the night, must be some insomniacs here.

    getting the long term unemplyoed to do a bit of community work is not an issue, some have claimed what about the council workers who are paid to do things like litter pick or clear graffiti, well around my way they are thin ont he ground and always claiming underresourcement so would appreciate the help. if people think councils would use it as an excuse to get rid of them, well i dont.

    i disagree with people working in tesco etc free, thast is purely for the comapnies benefit
  • MisterMuncher
    MisterMuncher Posts: 1,302
    the playing mantis wrote:
    what have i missed? wow, dont u chaps have nothing better to do on a thursday evening than come on here, wow even some posts in the middle of the night, must be some insomniacs here.

    Or, heaven forbid, people who work, but not 9-5 hours. We do exist.
    getting the long term unemplyoed to do a bit of community work is not an issue, some have claimed what about the council workers who are paid to do things like litter pick or clear graffiti, well around my way they are thin ont he ground and always claiming underresourcement so would appreciate the help. if people think councils would use it as an excuse to get rid of them, well i dont.
    That's charmingly naive of you. If you honestly think any council in the country wouldn't use the decreased labour cost to offset a populist cut in council tax to maintain their position you're living in a dreamland. Also, there's more to resources in this instance than simply bodies on the ground. A big squad of dolies, no matter how well or otherwise paid, can't steam-clean the gum off the streets by sheer force of will. They can't fill in potholes magically. Without sufficient quantity of plant and correct training, the work can't and won't get done.

    As stated before, these schemes only work if there's an unending pool of unskilled labour to be undertaken, and frankly there isn't.
  • VTech
    VTech Posts: 4,736
    laurentian wrote:
    VTech wrote:
    How can we ever expect people to work when in many cases they are better off unemployed ?

    Name two cases


    It wouldn't be right to name names but I do know of someone who picks up more than people who I know that work a full 38 hour week.
    As mentioned earlier, it's not about just the money, the benefits also MUST be counted into the equation. Free dental, prescriptions, school meals etc etc etc.

    People have different views on morals and at the same time as I would like to think that I would want to work, I could also imagine being unemployed and having to feed 3 kids but I can assure you that if I were in that position and relied on handouts and support I would definitely be willing to give my time for work in exchange for benefits.

    As with all things "Great Britain" though, we never really get things done, we talk about it like in this thread and due to so many people supporting a free way of life, calling those who want to make a change Stalinists etc we really end up doing nothing. IMO we should have changed the system years back but didnt and look where we are now, imaging 20 years time and how things will be then. !

    Whilst many here and around the UK are happy to moan at those wanting change to better society on the whole, saying that they have no sympathy for those on lower incomes, who do you think will be worse off in older age and retirement ?

    I would guess it will be those people who needed support and not the ones who tried to make a change.

    Of course, that's just my opinion.
    Living MY dream.
  • MisterMuncher
    MisterMuncher Posts: 1,302
    Be specific, Vtech. How much better off, and than people on what kind of wage?

    And better than that, you state this is one example. How prevalent is this? You do know the difference between anecdote and data, don't you?
  • the playing mantis
    the playing mantis Posts: 2,129
    thay can pick litter without any plant cant they?

    any 'squad of dolies' would be transient by its very nature and not necessarilly be formalised in such a way as to enable councils to rely on them. call it naive if u will i can fling insults about having some mighty big chip on your shoulder and take everything ever so seriously on a lighthearted forum.

    your views are very strong and articulated, why not run for local council and push the hated right out?
  • MisterMuncher
    MisterMuncher Posts: 1,302
    Flinging insults? You'd need to be pretty thin-skinned to call that an insult.

    And why would the squad be transient? I thought the core of the argument was the apparently vast numbers of non-workers who've never worked? Seems to me you've got a fairly large paradox in there. I don't expect you to agree with me, but you could at least agree with yourself.

    Yes, perhaps indeed people could pick litter without plant. How many, exactly? Is there enough litter out there for 2.5 million people to be lifting?
  • VTech
    VTech Posts: 4,736
    MisterMuncher wrote:
    Be specific, Vtech. How much better off, and than people on what kind of wage?

    And better than that, you state this is one example. How prevalent is this? You do know the difference between anecdote and data, don't you?


    I know the difference between getting up and staying in bed and that's what matters to me.

    Ill turn that one round if you don't mind as I've taken a few insults in this thread and similar so here goes.

    If you were unemployed and in order to get benefits and rent paid you had to do free work in anything the government saw fit, so this could be shelf stacking, cleaning roads or helping out as a teaching assistant, would you do it ?
    Would you happily get up every day (well, maybe 2 or 3 days so you had time to search for a job) and do that work ?
    Living MY dream.
  • MisterMuncher
    MisterMuncher Posts: 1,302
    I've been out of work for a very short while, and there was genuinely nothing resembling a decent job for miles around. I ended up taking a job washing dishes for all of £4 an hour after three weeks on the dole. The job was horrific, blatant exploitation of people in a vulnerable position, and was illegally paying far below the minimum wage. So excuse me if I wouldn't wish the same on others, much less endorse a Government scheme to do so.

    And honestly, if you think teaching assistant is a job suitable for any man in the street you need your bumps felt.

    Now, it's been ten or so posts since we've heard how you got £27.50 a week on YTS (no year, I'd love to see that adjusted for inflation) and how no-one ever has worked harder or for longer than you, so you'd probably want to reiterate that round about now.
  • VTech
    VTech Posts: 4,736
    MisterMuncher wrote:
    I've been out of work for a very short while, and there was genuinely nothing resembling a decent job for miles around. I ended up taking a job washing dishes for all of £4 an hour after three weeks on the dole. The job was horrific, blatant exploitation of people in a vulnerable position, and was illegally paying far below the minimum wage. So excuse me if I wouldn't wish the same on others, much less endorse a Government scheme to do so.

    And honestly, if you think teaching assistant is a job suitable for any man in the street you need your bumps felt.

    Now, it's been ten or so posts since we've heard how you got £27.50 a week on YTS (no year, I'd love to see that adjusted for inflation) and how no-one ever has worked harder or for longer than you, so you'd probably want to reiterate that round about now.


    It was around 1992 so not that long ago my friend.
    I also never I insinuated that I worked harder than anyone else, I simply worked hard for me and my boss. That's all that mattered.
    As for illegal wages as you suffered, I can assure you that I dont promote illegal wages, I'm not sure where I posted that this was the case but if I did please accept my apologies as I prefer to be on the legal side of the line.

    Can you answer my question please, if you were now unemployed and the only job on offer was one that you hated but it meant you could earn your own living would you do it ?
    Living MY dream.
  • MisterMuncher
    MisterMuncher Posts: 1,302
    I believe I already have answered that, given I already told you I took a bloody awful job rather than the dole. Bit rich to demand an answer when you refuse to answer my questions though.

    The point re: illegal wages is that working for benefits would leave many others below the minimum wage line. This to me is wholly unacceptable.

    And YTS was abolished and replaced by Youth Training in 1989. Just saying.
  • VTech
    VTech Posts: 4,736
    MisterMuncher wrote:
    I believe I already have answered that, given I already told you I took a bloody awful job rather than the dole. Bit rich to demand an answer when you refuse to answer my questions though.

    The point re: illegal wages is that working for benefits would leave many others below the minimum wage line. This to me is wholly unacceptable.

    And YTS was abolished and replaced by Youth Training in 1989. Just saying.


    So if you would do it, I would do it as others do it why is it bad ?
    It's not just wages on offer !!
    Also youth training scheme was refered too as YTS. Just saying.
    Living MY dream.
  • the playing mantis
    the playing mantis Posts: 2,129
    MisterMuncher wrote:
    Flinging insults? You'd need to be pretty thin-skinned to call that an insult.

    And why would the squad be transient? I thought the core of the argument was the apparently vast numbers of non-workers who've never worked? Seems to me you've got a fairly large paradox in there. I don't expect you to agree with me, but you could at least agree with yourself.

    Yes, perhaps indeed people could pick litter without plant. How many, exactly? Is there enough litter out there for 2.5 million people to be lifting?

    sorry i was feeling sensitive. they had run out of caviar at smollenskys. i dont see where ive said people have never worked or given figures, sounds like you are putting words in peoples mouths to justify yourself

    it would be transient as these people would be moving into jobs ideally, the numbers would fluctuate and ideally there should be a constant reduction of numbers as those finding work outweighs those that dont.

    ok so 2.5m can't pick up litter, but im sure if we had a think we could come upwith other task that dont involve lots of equipment and wont threaten council jobs. charities are always after people for example.

    what the whole issue boils down toin base terms is that i think it would be good for those that are longterm unemployed to do a bit of volunteer work and contribute to society in whatever way, if they are unable or unwilling to find a job. you seemingly think its perfectly fine for people to give nothing back.
  • MisterMuncher
    MisterMuncher Posts: 1,302
    Well, if it's not merely the wages on offer, will you start taking account of the added value you got with your "YTS", instead of simply the wages? After all, it wasn't merely £27.50 you got, you also got the training. Care to put a price on that? (Oh, stat minimum training allowance was 29.50 from 1989. So you got diddled)

    Also: A great number of people in minimum wage jobs and part time work still receive benefits for housing, tax credits &c. Making people work for the dole basically places them in the same position as the first group, but on less money for equivalent work. You'd be creating a two-tiered society, and the determining factor would be completely arbitrary. If you can't see the inherent and foul unfairness in that, I doubt I can convince you of it.
  • MisterMuncher
    MisterMuncher Posts: 1,302

    what the whole issue boils down toin base terms is that i think it would be good for those that are longterm unemployed to do a bit of volunteer work and contribute to society in whatever way, if they are unable or unwilling to find a job. you seemingly think its perfectly fine for people to give nothing back.

    It's not volunteer work if it isn't voluntary. Nice but of strawman building though. If you can't meet the actual argument being made, just make some nonsense up and fight that instead.

    And, once more: If the scheme is for longterm unemployed, how can you reasonably assert that those participating will be transient? It's a paradox.
  • MisterMuncher
    MisterMuncher Posts: 1,302
    MisterMuncher wrote:

    what the whole issue boils down toin base terms is that i think it would be good for those that are longterm unemployed to do a bit of volunteer work and contribute to society in whatever way, if they are unable or unwilling to find a job. you seemingly think its perfectly fine for people to give nothing back.

    It's not volunteer work if it isn't voluntary. Nice but of strawman building though. If you can't meet the actual argument being made, just make some nonsense up and fight that instead.

    And, once more: If the scheme is for longterm unemployed, how can you reasonably assert that those participating will be transient? It's a paradox.

    And moving into jobs? Beg pardon sir, what jobs? And if there are so many jobs out there, instead of forcing people into some ill-considered populist boondoggle, perhaps force them into decently paid work, if we must force anyone anywhere?
  • VTech
    VTech Posts: 4,736
    MisterMuncher wrote:
    Well, if it's not merely the wages on offer, will you start taking account of the added value you got with your "YTS", instead of simply the wages? After all, it wasn't merely £27.50 you got, you also got the training. Care to put a price on that? (Oh, stat minimum training allowance was 29.50 from 1989. So you got diddled)

    Also: A great number of people in minimum wage jobs and part time work still receive benefits for housing, tax credits &c. Making people work for the dole basically places them in the same position as the first group, but on less money for equivalent work. You'd be creating a two-tiered society, and the determining factor would be completely arbitrary. If you can't see the inherent and foul unfairness in that, I doubt I can convince you of it.

    I can't put a value on my training, that's the point.
    Through that low waged training I've been able to build a carear that I could have only dreamed of as a boy.whilst my friends earned £75-£100 a week I was on peanuts but that choice of working means I can now reap the rewards. I have the ability to help others and give them a chance which I'm truly thankful of.
    Living MY dream.

Categories