Benefits payments

CiB

TheBigBean wrote:

Most teams that win the premier league are lucky enough to have minimal injuries throughout the season. That they don't win the following season is further evidence of the luck involved.

Well no. The most famous recent one is Leicester winning it a couple of years ago, and a big part of that was the lack of injuries that allowed a settled consistent team that played such a huge part of the success. It wasn't luck; Leicester have state of the art facilities including the famous ice chamber that speeds up post-match recovery esp for niggly injuries, and they didn't train as often. Most prem teams are training Monday or even Sunday to Friday tailing off as the week progresses. Leicester's players had Monday and one other day off per week, and were trusted to look after themselves. They were also not involved in any other competitions (League Cup exit early doors, FA Cup 3rd rd replay v Spurs, no European football). It wasn't luck that led to a lack of injuries, it was part planning and reacting to the evolving situation, and partly because they weren't good enough (or didn't want to) compete in the other competitions. It helped that other big teams weren't firing on all cylinders that season.

It's good that a bloke wanting advice on the costs of having a family gives me a chance to mention Leicester winning the title FWIW I reckon that if everyone waited till they could afford it before having kids, the population of the UK would be a lot less than it is now. Good or bad thing? Who knows, but the clear consistent message from the government over the decades is that population growth is a good thing, and that population growth that falls below replacement levels is bad therefore it's reasonable for govts to encourage it. If you think you can afford it OP, go for it, it's such a basic driver and you don't want to be deeply regretting not having kids just for financial purposes in 25 years' time.

Stevo_666

PBlakeney wrote:

Is brown nosing and who you know considered to be work? I suppose networking could be so why not? Appears to be the best way to get ahead in my experience.

If you're putting in enough effort then it could be considered to be work. That said, I often hear the view expressed that brown nosing is the best way to get ahead from people who haven't got ahead as much as they would like to. Arguably that could be as much a factor of their work performance as any lack of brown nosing.

Btw are you talking about it from the point of view of the 'noser' or the 'nosee'?

robert88

'Networking' covers many things.

One reason for sending your sprogs to Eton is that they can get to meet people who can help them. People you don't get to meet at the local academy.

I'd suggest the OP puts the expected arrival's name down now and spends more on the lottery.

rick_chasey

Robert88 wrote:

'Networking' covers many things.

One reason for sending your sprogs to Eton is that they can get to meet people who can help them. People you don't get to meet at the local academy.

It isn't up to the kids whether they get into Eton or not though, is it?

It's about their parents, and who their parents are is entirely down to chance, is it not?

shortfall

CiB wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Most teams that win the premier league are lucky enough to have minimal injuries throughout the season. That they don't win the following season is further evidence of the luck involved.

Well no. The most famous recent one is Leicester winning it a couple of years ago, and a big part of that was the lack of injuries that allowed a settled consistent team that played such a huge part of the success. It wasn't luck; Leicester have state of the art facilities including the famous ice chamber that speeds up post-match recovery esp for niggly injuries, and they didn't train as often. Most prem teams are training Monday or even Sunday to Friday tailing off as the week progresses. Leicester's players had Monday and one other day off per week, and were trusted to look after themselves. They were also not involved in any other competitions (League Cup exit early doors, FA Cup 3rd rd replay v Spurs, no European football). It wasn't luck that led to a lack of injuries, it was part planning and reacting to the evolving situation, and partly because they weren't good enough (or didn't want to) compete in the other competitions. It helped that other big teams weren't firing on all cylinders that season.

It's good that a bloke wanting advice on the costs of having a family gives me a chance to mention Leicester winning the title FWIW I reckon that if everyone waited till they could afford it before having kids, the population of the UK would be a lot less than it is now. Good or bad thing? Who knows, but the clear consistent message from the government over the decades is that population growth is a good thing, and that population growth that falls below replacement levels is bad therefore it's reasonable for govts to encourage it. If you think you can afford it OP, go for it, it's such a basic driver and you don't want to be deeply regretting not having kids just for financial purposes in 25 years' time.

This is all fair comment but equally he doesn't want to find himself in a situation where he has kids but can't provide for them because of the weight of his existing debts and the future liabilities he'll incur raising a family. His past history of racking up credit card debt and then taking out a consolidation loan would suggest that he's not big on making the kind of personal sacrifices required of a parent. We're not talking about a young kid here who might be expected to struggle budgeting money, the guy's nearly 40. I still say his best bet is to pay down the debt first.

kingstongraham

Shortfall wrote:

This is all fair comment but equally he doesn't want to find himself in a situation where he has kids but can't provide for them because of the weight of his existing debts and the future liabilities he'll incur raising a family. His past history of racking up credit card debt and then taking out a consolidation loan would suggest that he's not big on making the kind of personal sacrifices required of a parent. We're not talking about a young kid here who might be expected to struggle budgeting money, the guys nearly 40. I still say his best bet is to pay down the debt first.

Nah - clock's ticking. Pop them out now and worry about money later. Only one of these things can wait.

And also, I need the economy strong so my (personal) pension gets paid. I'm willing to pay for benefits/education to make this happen.

TheBigBean

CiB wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Most teams that win the premier league are lucky enough to have minimal injuries throughout the season. That they don't win the following season is further evidence of the luck involved.

Well no. The most famous recent one is Leicester winning it a couple of years ago, and a big part of that was the lack of injuries that allowed a settled consistent team that played such a huge part of the success. It wasn't luck; Leicester have state of the art facilities including the famous ice chamber that speeds up post-match recovery esp for niggly injuries, and they didn't train as often. Most prem teams are training Monday or even Sunday to Friday tailing off as the week progresses. Leicester's players had Monday and one other day off per week, and were trusted to look after themselves. They were also not involved in any other competitions (League Cup exit early doors, FA Cup 3rd rd replay v Spurs, no European football). It wasn't luck that led to a lack of injuries, it was part planning and reacting to the evolving situation, and partly because they weren't good enough (or didn't want to) compete in the other competitions. It helped that other big teams weren't firing on all cylinders that season.

Very much off topic, but last season 15 players from Chelsea played 28 or more matches including substitutions. It was 7 for Man City, 10 for Liverpool and 10 for Arsenal. It really helps not having injuries.

rjsterry

Surrey Commuter wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Believing in luck is akin to believing in an imaginary friend. It really winds me up when people refer to luck as it just feels like a way of absolving themselves of personal responsibility.

Rephrase it to events outwith your control. Good or bad.
Better?

Give me an example.

On here you will see many posts about punctures. Some people think they are lucky/unlucky and accept their fate. Many others will suggest ways to minimise punctures.

That piece of glass that you would normally see and avoid. However there is a potential near pass diverting your attention... Outwith your control but is it luck?

So you could shrug your shoulders and deem yourself unlucky or continue to seek ways of minimising punctures.

Use the word chance or uncertainty if you prefer. You seem deeply uncomfortable with the idea that you are not in complete control. There are things that you can do to improve the odds here and there, but there are some risks that you can't reasonably guard against - it's either not possible or the trade off to eliminate the risk is worse than the original risk. Just as you can wrongly assign some poor decision to 'bad luck' you can kid yourself that the beneficial outcomes are solely due to your agency.

Nope not deeply uncomfortable. First noticed it in sport with Arsene Wenger who every year says he was unlucky with injuries. If he believes he is unlucky then he will not look at other factors to solve his decade long problem. I then noticed a theme of sports people blaming luck for incidents of chance that if they acknowledged as such they could influence. I then read a book by Derren Brown in part of which he looked at “chance” and people’s perception of luck.

I don’t have some binary mantra by which I lead my life.

Neither do I, yet you seem to want to attack any suggestion that chance/uncertainty plays any part in how one's life plays out. There is better evidence than a Derren Brown book that this is the case. Football manager's excuses for ending the season at the bottom of the table are not evidence one way or the other.

my first post on the subject was that I would take a lot of persuading that luck was the primary determinant of earnings.

Of course I accept chance/uncertainty - what I don't accept is luck. I also don't believe it is possible to curse something by talking about it in advance.

The luck that all the research refers to IS chance/uncertainty; not a superstitious belief in something that can be changed by not stepping on cracks or whatever.

CiB

TheBigBean wrote:

Very much off topic, but last season 15 players from Chelsea played 28 or more matches including substitutions. It was 7 for Man City, 10 for Liverpool and 10 for Arsenal. It really helps not having injuries.

It does, and I was agreeing with that. My point was partly that Leicester weren't lucky they had the benefit of good facilities and sensible planning to allow more recovery time as as well as not being in any other competitions thus giving them even more time off whilst others were busy trying to win other competitions, but my main point was really a weak excuse to go on again about Leicester winning the league. Still makes me grin, and it's nrly 2 years ago now.

As for the job in hand, op just get on with it. You'll be amazed how finances suddenly fit around your sprogs to the detriment of most other spending. You won't feel bad about wanting an n+1 if it's that or a school trip for the child, it won't enter your head that there's an option. That's what kids do to us. They become priority #1.

shirley_basso

Do they?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-43555736

TheBigBean

Also worth noting that your social life will not be as expensive as before, so you will save money. Plus babies are fairly cheap to run.

pblakeney

Stevo 666 wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Is brown nosing and who you know considered to be work? I suppose networking could be so why not? Appears to be the best way to get ahead in my experience.

If you're putting in enough effort then it could be considered to be work. That said, I often hear the view expressed that brown nosing is the best way to get ahead from people who haven't got ahead as much as they would like to. Arguably that could be as much a factor of their work performance as any lack of brown nosing.

Btw are you talking about it from the point of view of the 'noser' or the 'nosee'?

None of the above. I've seen too many incompetent people get promoted. And before anyone says it, no jealousy. I've been there and decided the extra responsibility, basic politics, and having to select who was made redundant was in no way compensated for by money. I was happy to move on to a lower position (for not much less money), and stay at that level.

orraloon

oops posted in wrong thread blxxdy website or blxxdy finger trouble

dinyull

This will probably stoke a few fires, but...

To the OP, If it's £200 a week for child care, do as my sister-in-law has just done and pack in work.

She's now earning more than before - she get's something like £1300 a month in benefits and does the min hours to top that up a bit.

As a left leaning fellow, I didn't think the system was so broken that it can pay more to not work.

FishFish

It is not they system you see. I could easily get a job with a pay rise in excess of £1300 per month but I'm happy here and that I'm at the top of Maslow's Hierarchy. A lot of people are and the exceptions are those who are low paid or lazy and certainly those who treat their job as a transaction. Your sister in law may actually hate work. Maybe she wants to sit in front of the TV and become colossal.

dinyull

To be fair, she's had some anxiety problems in leaving her daughter. Learning she could "earn" more through benefits helped make her decision.

She worked as a hospital healthcare worker. Pretty depressing to think that she can earn more now, than before.

veronese68

CiB wrote:

[ That's what kids do to us. They become priority #1.

That what they do to most of us at least. Certainly not the harridan that lives next door. Most of what we hear her screaming at her kids is "What do you want from me?" or "Why are you doing this to me?" I've often been tempted to tell her they are only attention seeking because she is such a selfish b!tch but I'm not convinced that would help.

To answer the OP's original question if we'd waited until we could afford kids we still wouldn't have any, as it is my kids are in their late teens and I wouldn't change a thing.

pinno

Arsenal are a big enough club to warrant a big team and rotation.
There's no luck in that, it's planning.
The Big Cycling teams - QS, SKY, BMC have enough strength in depth/money that the likes of Froome and Thomas can avoid the classics.
But, not all stagiere's can get a spot in a top team. Take Van Arnie Vermeulenpushenembicyclemuphillendevoort who lands himself a domestique role in a small team who get a place here and there in the slightly bigger races. However, VAV spends most of his time hanging off the back of the bunch for grim death and minimum pesos protecting his one legged, arthritic, 42 year old, wrinkly, 'has been team leader (under strict team orders) and in the process gets involved or held up in all the spills and gets injured regularly. Is that luck or should he have turned down a pro contract because this was always going to happen in the lower tiers*?

*Personally, I think all newbies should be taught to do big bunny hops.

surrey_commuter

Pinno wrote:

Arsenal are a big enough club to warrant a big team and rotation.
There's no luck in that, it's planning.

But the point being that they had worse injuries than most other clubs and a manager who bemoaned his luck every autumn for a decade.

My point is that if he did not believe in luck he would have been looking at the players he was buying, the training regime, style of play, rotation, and recovery procedures.

Instead he shrugged his Gallic shoulders and blamed it on luck.

rick_chasey

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Pinno wrote:

Arsenal are a big enough club to warrant a big team and rotation.
There's no luck in that, it's planning.

But the point being that they had worse injuries than most other clubs and a manager who bemoaned his luck every autumn for a decade.

My point is that if he did not believe in luck he would have been looking at the players he was buying, the training regime, style of play, rotation, and recovery procedures.

Instead he shrugged his Gallic shoulders and blamed it on luck.

You never answered my questions.

What hard work did you put in to choose your parents and where you were born?

Or was that just plain luck?

surrey_commuter

Rick Chasey wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Pinno wrote:

Arsenal are a big enough club to warrant a big team and rotation.
There's no luck in that, it's planning.

But the point being that they had worse injuries than most other clubs and a manager who bemoaned his luck every autumn for a decade.

My point is that if he did not believe in luck he would have been looking at the players he was buying, the training regime, style of play, rotation, and recovery procedures.

Instead he shrugged his Gallic shoulders and blamed it on luck.

You never answered my questions.

What hard work did you put in to choose your parents and where you were born?

Or was that just plain luck?

I did answer your question- after you rammed my misfortune down my throat I have been sat in a darkened room contemplating suicide after not being son and heir of Warren Buffett

rick_chasey

Because presumably you’re familiar with the correlation of your parents status and your subsequent status?

And in the context of the world, where your born is even more important with regards to your wealth and likelihood of a certain quality life.

And again, that’s before we look at the mental and physical attributes we are born with.

In your context of football; there are an awful lot of footballers and only a few are good enough to be playing in the premier league/top level international football.

Now, I reckon the pool is deep enough that there will be many more players who train and work as hard as the elite footballers, so the determining factor is their born with ability and traits.

I’m not going to be the next heavyweight boxer, now matter how hard I could have trained.

But nah, no luck at all. :roll:.

surrey_commuter

Rick Chasey wrote:

Because presumably you’re familiar with the correlation of your parents status and your subsequent status?

And in the context of the world, where your born is even more important with regards to your wealth and likelihood of a certain quality life.

And again, that’s before we look at the mental and physical attributes we are born with.

In your context of football; there are an awful lot of footballers and only a few are good enough to be playing in the premier league/top level international football.

Now, I reckon the pool is deep enough that there will be many more players who train and work as hard as the elite footballers, so the determining factor is their born with ability and traits.

I’m not going to be the next heavyweight boxer, now matter how hard I could have trained.

But nah, no luck at all. :roll:.

So your looking on a very macro level and that from there the amount that you can deviate through your own efforts is minimal.

I am looking on a micro level and seeing the over achievers do so by hard work. Not sitting on their butts or looking for four leafed clover.

The world is full of players who did not train on and failed to fulfill their potential

rjsterry

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Pinno wrote:

Arsenal are a big enough club to warrant a big team and rotation.
There's no luck in that, it's planning.

But the point being that they had worse injuries than most other clubs and a manager who bemoaned his luck every autumn for a decade.

My point is that if he did not believe in luck he would have been looking at the players he was buying, the training regime, style of play, rotation, and recovery procedures.

Instead he shrugged his Gallic shoulders and blamed it on luck.

Without looking in depth at the statistics there is no way to determine whether the quantity of injuries suffered by Arsenal players was significantly different from other clubs or within the natural variation you'd expect to see from chance alone. That's before we look at whether any of those mitigating strategies that you mentioned would have an effect large enough to make a difference to the number of players out of action at any one time. In other words you have no way of establishing whether you or Arsene were right. It's your gut feeling versus a number of academic studies.

First.Aspect

Rick Chasey wrote:

Because presumably you’re familiar with the correlation of your parents status and your subsequent status?

And in the context of the world, where your born is even more important with regards to your wealth and likelihood of a certain quality life.

And again, that’s before we look at the mental and physical attributes we are born with.

In your context of football; there are an awful lot of footballers and only a few are good enough to be playing in the premier league/top level international football.

Now, I reckon the pool is deep enough that there will be many more players who train and work as hard as the elite footballers, so the determining factor is their born with ability and traits.

I’m not going to be the next heavyweight boxer, now matter how hard I could have trained.

But nah, no luck at all. :roll:.

Yeah but I bet you didn't even try basketball. If you don't work hard, Rick, you only have yourself to blame.

pblakeney

Shrugged his Gallic shoulders, pocketed £8.3 million and asked, what’s the problem?

surrey_commuter

rjsterry wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Pinno wrote:

Arsenal are a big enough club to warrant a big team and rotation.
There's no luck in that, it's planning.

But the point being that they had worse injuries than most other clubs and a manager who bemoaned his luck every autumn for a decade.

My point is that if he did not believe in luck he would have been looking at the players he was buying, the training regime, style of play, rotation, and recovery procedures.

Instead he shrugged his Gallic shoulders and blamed it on luck.

Without looking in depth at the statistics there is no way to determine whether the quantity of injuries suffered by Arsenal players was significantly different from other clubs or within the natural variation you'd expect to see from chance alone. That's before we look at whether any of those mitigating strategies that you mentioned would have an effect large enough to make a difference to the number of players out of action at any one time. In other words you have no way of establishing whether you or Arsene were right. It's your gut feeling versus a number of academic studies.

Arsenal injury issues is a commonly held fact, if you want to dismiss it you have come out with stats.

In my world Arsene is wrong because luck does not exist. Imagine how insane it looks to me.

robert88

Surrey Commuter wrote:

.. luck does not exist. Imagine how insane it looks to me.

Luck exists. Maybe not in the context of Arsenal but if luck does not exist then what makes a national lottery winner - buying all the lottery tickets?

In the context of sport I would suggest that Roger Federer's success is more interesting than a bunch of footie players. His key opponents have all fallen by the wayside through injury or other issues. On the court he wins because he is more skilful than his opponents who are consequently forced to work much harder than he does.

surrey_commuter

Robert88 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

.. luck does not exist. Imagine how insane it looks to me.

Luck exists. Maybe not in the context of Arsenal but if luck does not exist then what makes a national lottery winner - buying all the lottery tickets?

In the context of sport I would suggest that Roger Federer's success is more interesting than a bunch of footie players. His key opponents have all fallen by the wayside through injury or other issues. On the court he wins because he is more skilful than his opponents who are consequently forced to work much harder than he does.[/quote

So you agree that Arsene Wenger is mad to blame luck for an annual injury crisis? Why do you think most people are happy to attribute it to bad luck?

They sell seven million tickets and one person wins. Are you telling me he is lucky and everybody else is unlucky?

I think my perception of luck is different to everybody else’s

Lucky old Roger. Maybe the others get injured and have other issues because they are flogging themselves into the ground to keep up with him?

rjsterry

Surrey Commuter wrote:

I think my perception of luck is different to everybody else’s

I think it must be.

Arsenal haven't even suffered the most from injuries.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/footb ... uries.html

In fact they are below average in that regard. So you would seem to be correct that Arsene is making excuses, but incorrect in blaming his relative lack of success on some failure to take responsibility for a high number of injuries. Maybe there was some other reason for Arsenal's lack of success and maybe that was something that Arsene could influence, but we don't know.