Professor Green, living in poverty.

[cqueen]

sidicks said:

So a two income household would have £36k, which is significantly more than average earnings.

And, as explained above, these people may also be entitled to additional state support.

The point I'm trying to make is not that lazy people should be given stuff for free, but that people shouldn't have to rely on state support. Wages from a working class job should be enough to support a basic living standard, but it doesnt.

[anonymous-user]

sidicks said:

As a starting salary for unskilled work, what do you expect?

A quick google suggests the average postman earns 18,200. So on a fag packet that would around 300 quid a week after tax, maybe a touch more, maybe a touch less.

For that I would expect them to be really unhappy in their work, strike at inconvenient times and nick loads of stuff.

Who can blame them?

[TooMany2cvs]

cqueen said:

Amateurish said:

Source: IFS https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/9552

That might be what the experts publish, but it's sure as hell not what I see with my own eyes.

Who needs properly researched facts, when they can go with knee-jerk anecdote?

[sidicks]

cqueen said:

The point I'm trying to make is not that lazy people should be given stuff for free, but that people shouldn't have to rely on state support. Wages from a working class job should be enough to support a basic living standard, but it doesnt.

I believe that you can support a basic standard of living on £18k per annum, particularly when the state provides additional support.
A two-parent family would have more than £36k per annum on the same basis.

[sidicks]

desolate said:

A quick google suggests the average postman earns 18,200. So on a fag packet that would around 300 quid a week after tax, maybe a touch more, maybe a touch less.

For that I would expect them to be really unhappy in their work, strike at inconvenient times and nick loads of stuff.

Who can blame them?

Plenty of people manage to survive on less without resorting to theft.

[SystemParanoia]

desolate said:

sidicks said:

desolate said:

Not sure I agree that it's "none too shabby"

300 quid a week doesn't seem a lot to bring up a family.

Why would you expect to be able to bring up a family with one unskilled wage earner?
Would such a family not be entitled to any other benefits?

300 quid a week doesn't seem much for doing anything really.
Don't you agree?

especially if you're spunking £40 p/w on fuel just to get to work
You could half the figure with a new car.. but you'll never save that money up as you're spending everything keeping the old P.O.S running and you dont want to risk a loan as you have a Zero hour contract, or you're through an agency that could bin you at any moment.

[cqueen]

Would also like to point out that a full time minimum wage job is circa £14k.

[Smiler.]

desolate said:

sidicks said:

As a starting salary for unskilled work, what do you expect?

A quick google suggests the average postman earns 18,200. So on a fag packet that would around 300 quid a week after tax, maybe a touch more, maybe a touch less.

For that I would expect them to be really unhappy in their work, strike at inconvenient times and nick loads of stuff.

Who can blame them?

WTF?

Thats the sense of entitlement in action right there.

Surely, not serious?

[sidicks]

cqueen said:

Would also like to point out that a full time minimum wage job is circa £14k.

I'd also point out that one person on a minimum wage job shouldn't expect to be able to support a family.

Once again, you also ignore the additional support available to those on minimum wage etc.

[anonymous-user]

sidicks said:

I'd also point out that one person on a minimum wage job shouldn't expect to be able to support a family.

Once again, you also ignore the additional support available to those on minimum wage etc.

If they were 18 then I can see the sense in this argument. However if they are 30, putting a full week's work in and still needing benefits to top up to a minimum standard then fk that.

[anonymous-user]

Smiler. said:

WTF?

Thats the sense of entitlement in action right there.

Surely, not serious?

Yes, serious.

If my employer was taking the piss out of me, I'd be be giving it back, both barrels.

[sidicks]

desolate said:

Yes, serious.

If my employer was taking the piss out of me, I'd be be giving it back, both barrels.

I think that speaks volume about you.

The people I know on low paid jobs seek to better themselves, rather than resort to theft.

[TooMany2cvs]

desolate said:

If they were 18 then I can see the sense in this argument. However if they are 30, putting a full week's work in and still needing benefits to top up to a minimum standard then fk that.

Sticking with the postman... How much do you want to pay for a stamp, before you'll stop using the post to send things? Or before RM will introduce more automation to reduce the staffing levels further?

[pc.iow]

Its a bit of a catch 22 situation i think. On one hand everyone gets food, a roof over their heads and the opportunity of a free education, what they do with that is no one else fault.
On the other hand i think dole money(showing my age there) seems too high. Some people would need about £300 take home a week to cover what they get in monies and benefits with rent, pole tax ect.
I'm 53 and remember when leaving school the older boys saying 'just go the the dole office and sign on, they'll give you a cheque every two weeks'.
Too easy.

[anonymous-user]

TooMany2cvs said:

Sticking with the postman... How much do you want to pay for a stamp, before you'll stop using the post to send things? Or before RM will introduce more automation to reduce the staffing levels further?

I'd like to pay nothing, but let's say I'd pay a quid if I had to.

Anyway - there's someone earning 1.5 million to sort this st out so you should be asking her.

[cqueen]

sidicks said:

I'd also point out that one person on a minimum wage job shouldn't expect to be able to support a family.

Once again, you also ignore the additional support available to those on minimum wage etc.

The woman in the video gets state support, clearly it's not enough. Yup, she's fk'd her life up, but hey, at least if she could get a 'decent' paying job she could as least give her kids some hope which would probably give herself a little moral boost.

I also agree that I personally wouldn't dream of starting a family in this scenario. But life has a habit of not always turning out the way you hoped.

To summarise, If you're poor - sorry but you can't have kids. Not really fair is it? I'm not claiming to have the answers, but..

As an alternative... how about wages reflect basic living standards (including having children without state support). The compromise? You could start by taxing the top tier of earners a lot more Boo hoo my heart bleeds for you.

You probably think I'm some labour lovey Corbyn hugger - Nope! I can't stand all that sh*t, I'm even a Trump supporter

It's the wealth imbalance I have a problem with.

[sidicks]

cqueen said:

The woman in the video gets state support, clearly it's not enough. Yup, she's fk'd her life up, but hey, at least if she could get a 'decent' paying job she could as least give her kids some hope which would probably give herself a little moral boost.

I also agree that I personally wouldn't dream of starting a family in this scenario. But life has a habit of not always turning out the way you hoped.

To summarise, If you're poor - sorry but you can't have kids. Not really fair is it? I'm not claiming to have the answers, but..

As an alternative... how about wages reflect basic living standards (including having children without state support). The compromise? You could start by taxing the top tier of earners a lot more Boo hoo my heart bleeds for you.

You probably think I'm some labour lovey Corbyn hugger - Nope! I can't stand all that sh*t, I'm even a Trump supporter

It's the wealth imbalance I have a problem with.

The politics of envy?

These people are paying cirac 50% income tax, plus numerous other taxes on top. Why is that 'fair'?

[TooMany2cvs]

desolate said:

Anyway - there's someone earning 1.5 million to sort this st out so you should be asking her.

I don't think that Royal Mail's chief exec's responsibilities extend to making sure every postman's single salary can buy a house and car and look after four kids...

[Smiler.]

desolate said:

Smiler. said:

WTF?

Thats the sense of entitlement in action right there.

Surely, not serious?

Yes, serious.

If my employer was taking the piss out of me, I'd be be giving it back, both barrels.

So any employee who deems their employer is "taking the piss" has carte blanche to take whatever they want.

Righto. I've always wondered how it works.

This might be the explanation for a lot of the ills in the world.

What an outlook, you absolute catch you.

[anonymous-user]

TooMany2cvs said:

I don't think that Royal Mail's chief exec's responsibilities extend to making sure every postman's single salary can buy a house and car and look after four kids...

For 1.5 million maybe they should. That's a lot of cheddar.

Do you think 300 quid is OK for a full time job for, say, a 30 year old?