Is it actually worth working..............

[cayo]

well in her case she needs to make an effort certainley but if she cannot afford the rent ect off the new salery and if she cannot claim any top ups to a lower salery via tax credits ect then who can blame her for sitting it out and hopeing she can get a better offer ,situations are different for everyone ,if she can pay rent and bills on lower salery then she should take the job offered for now but dosent this just go to show it isnt just the never worked and young layabouts who milk the system we need the welfare state but we also need it to be fraud proof .

[sometime]

Jun 27, 2012 6:34:39 GMT cayo said:

Jun 26, 2012 17:48:56 GMT sometime said:

Well just heard on the news that the government borrowing has gone up this may compared to last may by 2.5 billion pounds due to decreased tax revenue and increased benefit payments do you think that might have something to do with the million more people out of work due to this governments policies

this is in no way due to increased benefit payments at all and if it were then maybe that would be because of all the public sector workers they put out of work and onto benefits

Yes that was the point I was making it is the governments policies that have put a million more people out of work so they are bound to be paying more benefits out. even taking into account the ones they have bullied off benefit in the first place

[cayo]

Problem is sometime ,that people are happy to believe anything the government tells them if it was you or i constantley harping on about how it was all the fault of the immigrants or gays or what ever other group we chose to blame and so stirring up hatred for a minority group we would be branded evil bigots .
They came into power blaming the labour party and have trie dto blame it on everything and everyone but themselves for their austerity measures not working it hasnt worked for any other country so why should it work for ours ,it wont we need jobs we needs people spending not high unemployment and more and more cuts even with all this austerity they havent actually saved a penny yet and are in fact borrowing more more people working more people paying tax on earnings and vat ect th emor ein the pot to pay our debt you dont pay the bills at home by going to work part time you do over time to make ends meet ,they should reemploy everyone they have put on benefits for a start that will lower the dole bill

[sageandonion]

I agree, everyone on job seekers allowance with housing benefit and the other perks should do some public community work, there are loads of things that need doing and individuals will gain work experience. I don't care if its sweeping the roads, that is a respectable thing to do.

[Erinx]

Jun 27, 2012 18:32:54 GMT said:

I agree, everyone on job seekers allowance with housing benefit and the other perks should do some public community work, there are loads of things that need doing and individuals will gain work experience. I don't care if its sweeping the roads, that is a respectable thing to do.

But road sweepers get paid, so you would make them unemployed by giving their job to somebody on benefits!

[sageandonion]

Very few side roads are swept, in any case I was just loosely using this as an example.

[Erinx]

But if employers can have people working for free then why would they pay people...?

[amumwithapony]

There are lots of servic es being cut because of the recession and national debt.

Why the unemployed can't 'step into the breech' like tax payers are supposed to do I don't know. It was only a couple of months ago we were discussing strike action for the public sector and how much pressure was being placed on them to do 2 peoples job etc etc.

So why the working have to take a pay cut and work longer and harder to get their pensions, whilst the non working continue to recieve the same handouts I don't know.

We have a local libary, open 2 days a week. It faces closure due to a lack of funding.

So if young people or long term umployed are so desperate for work why aren't they coming forward to offer to man the libary, in exchange for the benefits they are on?

The council has already said there will be no job losses as they are being absorbed into the main libary so they aren't doing anyone out of a job? And surely the experiance will look good on their CVs if they are serious about getting a job.

Me and OH been sat watching the neighbours from a few doors up tonight. They have a house that is similar in rent to ours. Sky dish went up a few weeks ago. Take aways delivered every other night. Taxi's for the mother when her partner still in bed. Car parked on front same age as OH's work car. 1 child, bit older than ours. They have everything we do, yet neither works? More than us in fact. A take away is a weekend treat, not a wednesday night regular.

My OH was chatting to him a few months ago. The eneighbour was complaining that there are no jobs about due to recession. OH offered him a labourers job for £8 an hour. Neighbour agreed to start the following Monday, subject to him finding his health and safety card.

Note in the door over the weekend. Can't do it, back playing up. OH went round and said if its a problem with your card don't worry about it. Just book in for your test and let me know when you've done it.

Note in the door 2 days later. Back gone altogether, can't move, find someone else.

The day after I watched him mow the grass, then heave an old wardrobe out and a new one, and a new matress were delivered. Bet I know who set them up!

So it doesn't matter to some of them what you offer them. They do not and will not work. The 'workhouse' used to be something to be feared and prevented people from declaring themselves as poverty striken. I'm not saying bring it back but some kind of half way would be nice I think

[kayjayem]

Jun 27, 2012 19:15:41 GMT @Erinx said:

But if employers can have people working for free then why would they pay people...?

I don't know about your area but where I live the council do not have enough people to do general maintenance etc, despite being one of the highest council tax areas. Therefore they would be able to give people on benefits a "job" in order that they would gain work experience and put something back into the community. This would be in addition to, not instead of, the workers already employed. The general public(taxpayers) are funding the benefits so it would seem very fair that the claimants repaid in a small way.

[Erinx]

But it still wouldn't work, these people wouldn't be employed 'in addition' to those already doing that job because once the council wants to make more cut backs why would they employ somebody they have to pay for when the can have people on benefits for free?? They would take on more people on benefits making the people who used to get paid for that job to have to go on benefits so it's only adding to the problem.

[sageandonion]

It isn't just council jobs, look at all the environmental things that need sorting. In any case people would not stay in one job, they would be moved around so they gain experience in all sorts of positions.

I recall my father being out of work due to his company being on strike (this in the days when they were always going on strike). It went on for weeks and in the end he was forced to go seek benefits up the labour exchange because basically his family would not eat otherwise. I cannot begin to tell you the shame he felt.

[kayjayem]

You don't know that you are surmising! It could easily be made a condition that they were matched one for one.

MTA my comment is in response to erin

[sometime]

It would be nice it it was that simple the unemployed to fill the posts the council cant afford to pay for but yes they would claim they couldnt afford the paid workers and would employ the unemployed in their place,
Sadly the long term unemployed are unemployable they dont know how to work dont know how to organise their lives to work and certainly dont have the motivation to work for what the get for staying at home. Self discipline and self worth are no longer important to those people and they are selfishly creaming in all they can in an "Im all right Jack" attitude. Not their fault goes a long way back in history now probably to Maggie Thatcher and get on your bike and find a job in yet another time of austerity It wasnt possible then and certainly isnt now. We need to reduce retirement age not increase it and get some of the young people into work and maybe pay pensioners to train them on a voluntary basis. I am now going to be over 65 when I get my pension so would have to work 5 and a half more years than I signed up for if I hadnt already retired thanks to my wonderful OH who pays all our bills from his wages.
It is the young that need training to work and if necessary forced to work to break the cycle not those that sadly are already on a very difficult to get off scrap heap

[Erinx]

The idea in theory seems good but it really wouldn't work. Look at it this way......

You run a business and employ 10 staff with salaries between £15-£20k a year, you are given the opportunity to take on people on benefits which won't cost anything to the business. So somebody retires and somebody else leaves for a new job, who would you choose to replace these people, two people that would cost our business £40k a year or two people that didn't cost you anything??

And how would it be fair to allocate it like for like, you could have somebody with a degree whose spent years trying to find work, having interview after interview but never being successful or somebody who just gets placed there to work just so they can collect their jsa??

[sometime]

Dont get me wrong I would love to see full employment and ten jobs per person instead of one per 100 people but you need to stop the rot at a young age and get the under 20s into work not just full time education but proper, fully paid live on your own and support yourself work. They should be the ones the government should start with even if they have to force them to do it by stopping all benefit if they dont do it and not reinstating it until they have been in work for at least one year but it would have to be proper wages for proper jobs not underpaid slave schemes. They should also stop payment for children over 16 that are not working but again they cant do that until the youngsters have proper jobs to go to

[nia2311]

But the entry level work available to most under-20s has NEVER been "fully paid, live on your own" work. I mentioned my stepdad before. He did an apprenticeship in the 1960s in engineering. It lasted 6 yrs. He finished it when he was 22 years old and he lived with his parents the entire time. He also moved in his pregnant girlfriend part way through, and this is 1960- odd. They lived with his parents until he was about 25/26, by which time they were both working and had enough to move out.

I can't think of a single era in time where entry level jobs have paid enough to allow young people under 20 to live totally independently. I couldn't have lived independently on my first wage, aged 16 (£2.80 an hour at Matalan - pre-min wage for under 18s!) No way.

And my previous post on apprenticeships - they have never, and will never, pay a living wage to apprentices. It just is not economically viable. No-one would take on apprentices if you had to pay them the bottom pay scale salary. It is £96 a week now, £90 a week when I was that age. It was tuppence-hapenny when my stepdad did his apprenticeship. The whole system is not geared up to young people leaving home before age 18 - and that is the age you are legally, totally an adult under British law....

Parents are going to have to take responsibility for their teenage offspring. You can't just kick em out at 16 and expect them to fend for themselves, because NO-ONE at 16 will ever earn enough to live totally independently. They never have, and they never will.

[kayjayem]

Jun 27, 2012 20:29:34 GMT @Erinx said:

The idea in theory seems good but it really wouldn't work. Look at it this way......

You run a business and employ 10 staff with salaries between £15-£20k a year, you are given the opportunity to take on people on benefits which won't cost anything to the business. So somebody retires and somebody else leaves for a new job, who would you choose to replace these people, two people that would cost our business £40k a year or two people that didn't cost you anything??

And how would it be fair to allocate it like for like, you could have somebody with a degree whose spent years trying to find work, having interview after interview but never being successful or somebody who just gets placed there to work just so they can collect their jsa??

If you had to employ one paid person per person on benefits you would have no choice as to who to replace them with. As for the person with a degree as opposed to someone just working for their benefits then I don't see a difference to be honest. They would be doing the same job for the same money(benefit). The person with the degree would obviously be applying for better jobs and it would not hinder them in that effect, but they would be doing something constructive in the meantime and the one just doing it to claim the benefit would at least be having to get of their @rse to get it and if they didn't like it they could be applying for something better or do without!

[nia2311]

And to add - young people just leaving school or college need to get it out of their heads that they should be earning £15K plus immediately. No. They are taking entry level, low level jobs that attract the lowest scale wages. I am (hopefully) about to start as a teacher. I will start at the bottom of the scale, as does every single newly qualified teacher, whether they are 22 or 42 when they start. My first salary after Uni was not substantial, and it was for a job that required a Biology degree, but it is what I expected.

Young people seem to think entry level, low level work is beneath them. Sorry, but that is where everyone has to start. At the bottom.

[sometime]

Jun 27, 2012 21:03:09 GMT nia2311 said:

But the entry level work available to most under-20s has NEVER been "fully paid, live on your own" work. I mentioned my stepdad before. He did an apprenticeship in the 1960s in engineering. It lasted 6 yrs. He finished it when he was 22 years old and he lived with his parents the entire time. He also moved in his pregnant girlfriend part way through, and this is 1960- odd. They lived with his parents until he was about 25/26, by which time they were both working and had enough to move out.

I can't think of a single era in time where entry level jobs have paid enough to allow young people under 20 to live totally
independently. I couldn't have lived independently on my first wage, aged 16 (£2.80 an hour at Matalan - pre-min wage for under 18s!) No way.
Then you will never get the benefit system to work to get the people off the long term claimant because you will never break the cycle it take initiative and doing something different to make something work not the same old same old

And my previous post on apprenticeships - they have never, and will never, pay a living wage to apprentices. It just is not economically viable. No-one would take on apprentices if you had to pay them the bottom pay scale salary. It is £96 a week now, £90 a week when I was that age. It was tuppence-hapenny when my stepdad did his apprenticeship. The whole system is not geared up to young people leaving home before age 18 - and that is the age you are legally, totally an adult under British law....

Parents are going to have to take responsibility for their teenage offspring. You can't just kick em out at 16 and expect them to fend for themselves, because NO-ONE at 16 will ever earn enough to live totally independently. They never have, and they never will.

[sometime]

Dont know where the answer went but it is lost in the annals of time
anyway if you dont change the way thing are you will never get what you want it has failed miserably to break the benefit scrounger cycle it take initiative and foresight to make a difference so it is time to try something different. Pay these people a living wage create proper jobs for them with proper wages and give them a chance to break away from the cycle. Not just benefit kids but all kids should get an equal chance in life

[nia2311]

I know what you are saying, but even in the "good times", entry level jobs have always been bottom of the salary scale and for older teenagers into early twenties, not many jobs have provided a sufficient salary to live independently. I don't know why people think they have to kick their kids out at 16 - it never used to happen.

Unless a LOT of money (like several billion) is pumped into apprenticeships etc, the wages will not change. They haven't changed in 50 years, relative to the times, and there is a reason for that. When a company takes on an unqualified 16 year old person with no prior work experience, they have to provide extensive training, now more so than ever. They have to allow at least one day a week off for college, sometimes more if they are sitting the literacy and numeracy exams. They have to also pay the timeserved staff who are taking time off their own tasks to train this apprentice. There simply is not the money to pay £150-200 a week to an untrained 16 year old. And I cannot see a time when there will.

The wages for apprenticeships are clearly advertised prior to the course starting, so why apply if this is not enough? Basic level salaries in Tesco shelf stacking pay more, but the apprenticeship is more valuable long term. How much a week do you think I had to live on at Uni, with a child?! Not a lot different to an apprentice. BUT if you want the qualification you have to take the hard times at the start. What is this obsession with being handed a highly paid job from the start, with no experience, no qualifications??

[brindlerainbow]

Nia it is possible for young teenagers to earn a living wage. At 17 my daughter was taken on by a mail order company to work in the despatch department, she took home £800 a month every month, she is now 19 and is still there her wages have risen and she now takes home just under £900 a month her. Last September her boyfriend bought his own house aged 20, he had saved £22,000, from his employment as a slaughterman at an abbattoir, a job he had since he was 16. They now live together and manage all the bills, mortgages etc. Lucy is 19 and her boyfriend is 21.It's a hideous job but very well paid he is hoping to eventually own his own butchers shop. My daughter has held down a Saturday/school holiday job since she was 14 where she earn't £4.20 an hour working in an equine tourist attraction, obviously she still lived at home but saved up and paid for her own driving lessons, passed her test at 17 and bought her own car. There are opportunities for young people if they are willing to work hard but who are also polite and pleasant

[sometime]

Yup I have three children all have earned their own living since they were teenagers I used to be the proud mother of a barman a binman and a bum washer. They are all in their 30s now and earn way more than their dad. Probably twice as much. One is a manager for an insurance company (barman) One the manager of a refuse company (binman) and the last is the Sister in charge of a secure unit for people with Autism (bum washer). She worked 100 of hours a week to do her degree and pay her way without loans through uni we helped a little as did her brothers now they share the money when needed If she has extra and the boys need it she will help and vice versa. She left home at 17 had a job a flat and a car which she paid for
Her choice before anyone thinks she was kicked out
Modified to add they all worked from 14 too so had a good work ethic and enjoyed the money they earned

[kayjayem]

Brindle, it's a pity more young people can't be like your daughter. It does show that it is possible for young people to make their own way in life IF they have the positive mental attitude and drive to do so. Sadly so many have been spoilt and expect everything handing to them on a plate. I'm sure with her attitude and drive the world is her oyster! Sounds as though she has a treasure of a boyfriend too who is prepared to work hard at an unpleasant job but has aspirations. Best of luck to them but it sounds as though luck won't be needed.

PS you must be very proud!!

[brindlerainbow]

Yes I think if kids are willing and able to get a job at 14 then they have experience and also they have those all important references. It also teaches them to manage thier money and their time which is all valuable life skills. Kids that just want to spend all day on the X box with games provided for by parents wages instead of getting out and earning thier own money havent got much hope of getting a job over a teenager who has got off their arse and worked

[nia2311]

From my experience of working in the apprenticeships department of an FE College, those types of opportunities are few and far between for school leavers. The overwhelming majority of school leavers who do not continue with academic education either go to apprenticeships (£96 a week), or into entry level, generally unskilled employment. Nowadays there is a min wage for this age group of around £3.50 an hour. So, working a 40hr week on £3.50 gives you a net take home pay of £140 a week. Now take off tax and NI and you haven't got a lot more than the apprentice on £96 a week.

I have worked with these young people and even those who have worked Saturday jobs from age 14, come from good homes and are motivated cannot get jobs paying more than min wage, which is not a living wage at all.

As always, there are exceptions to the rule, but I would say in 90% of cases, school leavers age 16-18 cannot expect to earn enough money to live independently of their parents, without benefits. Therefore, parents must keep looking after their teenage children, and the children must work their way up from the bottom.....

[kayjayem]

Sometime - just read your post too. It does show how a strong work ethic and being prepared to start at the bottom(no pun intended - bum washer) is what is necessary to get on in the world. High qualifications mean nothing if the work ethic and drive aren't there! Congratulations to you too for obviously providing a balanced and sensible rationale to your children.

[nia2311]

Jun 27, 2012 21:49:49 GMT sometime said:

Yup I have three children all have earned their own living since they were teenagers I used to be the proud mother of a barman a binman and a bum washer. They are all in their 30s now and earn way more than their dad. Probably twice as much. One is a manager for an insurance company (barman) One the manager of a refuse company (binman) and the last is the Sister in charge of a secure unit for people with Autism (bum washer). She worked 100 of hours a week to do her degree and pay her way without loans through uni we helped a little as did her brothers now they share the money when needed If she has extra and the boys need it she will help and vice versa. She left home at 17 had a job a flat and a car which she paid for
Her choice before anyone thinks she was kicked out
Modified to add they all worked from 14 too so had a good work ethic and enjoyed the money they earned

I left home at 18 and totally supported myself too, having saved up all my wages. But again, this is by far the exception. I got a good gap year job that paid more than min wage so I saved quite a bit. I am 26 and have owned my own home for almost 7 years. This is quite unusual and I am aware of it. I am speaking from the chalkface here - I am well aware of what is out there currently. There ARE jobs for school leavers, but they are poorly paid and menial/boring/dirty. But that's life.

[dazycutter]

lets face facts... the dole bluegrass don't want to work, are happy sitting on their fat lazy arses and getting every benefit they can, dossing about and nothing will change till our government cracks down.

Last year I had to have my drains re done to my septic tank,, The guy who came and dug them up and replaced them was from CZ... he was a qualified airline pilot and was desperately trying to get a job as a pilot. Apparently in his country after 6 months on job seekers, they halve the benefit, then quarter it and in 9 months stop it... so lets get real and start toughening up or we will end up like PIGS...

[brindlerainbow]

Thanks KJM I am so proud of her. Despite starting her job with no experience in that particular type of work, her company love her and she has been given more and more responsibility. She has been half heartedly looking for another job a bit closer to home as she has a half hour drive to work on a horrible road, she told her boss because she didnt want him to think she was being sneaky looking for another job without telling him!!!! He said the company will do whatever it takes to keep her as she is so motivated and switched on and they don't want to lose her