Workers on the breadline.

[firemanbob]

They did, and it's backfiring spectacularly, there are now not enough young people to pay taxes. And old people are suffering with no one to pay or care for them.

 

Solving the long term problem will inevitably lead to short term problems, but that is also solvable. The population bubble is causing problems now and needs deflating before it explodes which will lead to even greater suffering.

 

I suppose what you are looking for is painless way of solving the poverty problem, sadly that doesn't exist.

 

---------- Post added 08-10-2014 at 07:00 ----------

 

Reduce children to 2 per couple and the population stays stable.

It would actually decline.

 

You can encourage this with things like taxation and child allowance only for the first 2 children.

Now you are starting to get the idea.

 

 

 

The markets are being artificially manipulated as Chem says. The money men piled into property and caused an enormous bubble that caused the 2008 crash. Now that that golden goose is shot, the same money men are now putting the money into the commodities market and artificially inflating prices for everyone.

 

That was actually very average people that piled into property and caused the property bubble, ordinary middle income people looking for an easy way to make money, there were even people with no money piling into property by using the availability of easy credit.

[aliceBB]

I was disappointed by the sheer vagueness of the programme. The issue is serious and important, and we are increasingly being told that in-work poverty is rising in the UK. But with the families/people featured (who were being presented as 'on the breadline' despite being in work), we were only given a small part of the picture. To know whether the programme's premise was correct, we surely needed to know exactly how many hours the individuals/couples actually worked, what they received in benefits/taxcredits (including housing benefit if applicable) and what their essential outgoings were. The whole spreadsheet.

 

Two of the families featured were earning over £20k per year between them, and that was topped up with tax credits of £5k or £7k. It seems to me that it should be possible to rent a three bedroom house in somewhere other than London (say £700 pcm), pay your energy bills (say £150 pcm) (and feed a family of five (£150 per week), clothe everyone (£2000) (have a UK holiday (£1000) and generally 'live' for £27k per year.

 

You may not be able to afford to smoke, have a wild social life, a foreign holiday or run a car, but are those things 'essentials'? Our son (admittedly single with no kids to support), is a student lives on less than £10k per year, including housing, and manages, even paying £95 pw rent and bills. It's cheaper to live and cook with others, so how does £27,000 mean a family is 'on the breadline'?

 

What is the definition of 'poverty' underlying the official figures?

 

Am I missing something?

Edited October 8, 2014 by aliceBB

[nikki-red]

Threads merged.

 

Please use the search facility before starting new threads.

 

Thank you.

[Anna B]

I was disappointed by the sheer vagueness of the programme. The issue is serious and important, and we are increasingly being told that in-work poverty is rising in the UK. But with the families/people featured (who were being presented as 'on the breadline' despite being in work), we were only given a small part of the picture. To know whether the programme's premise was correct, we surely needed to know exactly how many hours the individuals/couples actually worked, what they received in benefits/taxcredits (including housing benefit if applicable) and what their essential outgoings were. The whole spreadsheet.

 

Two of the families featured were earning over £20k per year between them, and that was topped up with tax credits of £5k or £7k. It seems to me that it should be possible to rent a three bedroom house in somewhere other than London (say £700 pcm), pay your energy bills (say £150 pcm) (and feed a family of five (£150 per week), clothe everyone (£2000) (have a UK holiday (£1000) and generally 'live' for £27k per year.

 

You may not be able to afford to smoke, have a wild social life, a foreign holiday or run a car, but are those things 'essentials'? Our son (admittedly single with no kids to support), is a student lives on less than £10k per year, including housing, and manages, even paying £95 pw rent and bills. It's cheaper to live and cook with others, so how does £27,000 mean a family is 'on the breadline'?

 

What is the definition of 'poverty' underlying the official figures?

 

Am I missing something?

 

I think we should remember these people are working hard just to stand still.

 

Perhaps it's fair to assume unemployed people on benefits should be able to afford just the essentials, but should the same apply to people who work? Where is the incentive?

When they are starting out maybe - but forever?

 

Everyone may remember times when they were broke, just managing to scrape a living, but hopefully things improve eventually, and they can look forward to better times in the future, progress up the greasy pole etc. But these people were trapped in low pay, with no way out, and not much hope of things improving - arguably, only going to get worse...

 

A bit soul destroying don't you think?

[Cyclone]

How do they get trapped in low pay? It's not like low pay means you can never be promoted or change jobs, it's not a vicious cycle.

Yes, we'd all like it if our situations improved, over time, or just right now. But it's not some sort of universal right that we be able to afford foreign holidays and sky TV.

Edited October 9, 2014 by Cyclone

[ronthenekred]

How do they get trapped in low pay? It's not like low pay means you can never be promoted or change jobs, it's not a viscous cycle.

Yes, we'd all like it if our situations improved, over time, or just right now. But it's not some sort of universal right that we be able to afford foreign holidays and sky TV.

 

Not aspiring to Sky could possibly give you a holiday anyhow...if you budgeted right.

[firemanbob]

How do they get trapped in low pay? It's not like low pay means you can never be promoted or change jobs, it's not a viscous cycle.

Yes, we'd all like it if our situations improved, over time, or just right now. But it's not some sort of universal right that we be able to afford foreign holidays and sky TV.

 

Possibly because they are below average intelligence, or maybe keep getting made redundant so are never with one company long enough to get promotion, and its not always possible to be promoted, miners for instance started their working life as miners and usually finished as miners, just a few would be promoted to deputy.

[Cyclone]

Miners were always well paid though, and there were areas of speciality within the industry.

[aliceBB]

I think we should remember these people are working hard just to stand still.

 

Perhaps it's fair to assume unemployed people on benefits should be able to afford just the essentials, but should the same apply to people who work? Where is the incentive?

When they are starting out maybe - but forever?

 

Everyone may remember times when they were broke, just managing to scrape a living, but hopefully things improve eventually, and they can look forward to better times in the future, progress up the greasy pole etc. But these people were trapped in low pay, with no way out, and not much hope of things improving - arguably, only going to get worse...

 

A bit soul destroying don't you think?

 

I do not dispute that it must be demoralising for them, but what nobody seems to have examined is whether £27,000 p.a. is sufficient to live off for a family with 3 children, or not.

 

Without wishing to sound harsh, how hard were they working, exactly? Of the six adults featured, one was a full time driver for Tesco on about £10 per hour. The presenter referred to all the others as being 'in work' but some were on zero-hours contracts and some said the cost of childcare was so high that they couldn't afford to work - they would be worse off. So I think the impression given (that they were all slogging their guts out working full time yet still failing to cope) was erroneous.

 

What is certainly true is that Britain has much less of an industrial base these days - semi-skilled jobs which paid quite well are few and far between. The jobs which exist are all in the service or catering industry and don't pay very well. To get a high paid job you need to be well-educated, very self-confident, lucky or all 3. So perhaps people just have to learn to 'cut their coats'?

 

I am all for the state supporting parents of over-3s who want to work, but in the end, if you have 3 children you must have realised before you made the decision to have them that as a couple, someone was going to have to look after them until they were 3 at least. There is bound to be a cost implication there. It is unlikely that you will be able to continue spending money at the same rate if one parent stops work. Some of the hardship seemed to have arisen from 'old' debts (£20k+ in one case), so that clouds the picture, too.

 

The other thing which needs to happen if people on low incomes aren't managing to feed their kids is to put on free cooking classes. The family with the three children seemed to have the right idea, cooking proper meals from scratch, but the other family featured were filling their trolley with expensive convenience food with little nutritive value. They cannot afford to do that.

Edited October 8, 2014 by aliceBB

[firemanbob]

Miners were always well paid though, and there were areas of speciality within the industry.

 

I didn't use miners as an example of how well paid they are, I used them to show that it isn't always possible for workers to be promoted, some inevitably start their working life at the bottom and finish at the bottom, not everyone is cut out to be a manager.