Yellow wrote:
On Fri, 17 Nov 2017 10:37:57 -0000, tim...
wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tim... wrote:
1) Benefits on offer to the "wont work" are far too generous if an
unemployed person can say "I wouldn't get out of bed for 7.50 an hour"
and/or "I rather spend the time at home with my girlfriend". We need to
systematically reduce benefits for the fit and healthy the longer they
are on benefits.

I'd love to see the likes of you live on 7.50 an hour. But it will be the
usual 'don't do as I do, but do as I say'.

1200 per month, perhaps 1000 after taxes

3-400 on a room in a shared house

6-700 for other expenses

seems perfectly adequate to me

When starting out in your career that's what you have to do

and yes it IS what I did


It is a hell of a lot more than I earned when I was an apprentice, where
we had enough for travel, food, one evening out with just a couple of
beers and to pay at bit of 'rent' to Mum and Dad.

And we accepted that because rather than contribute, we initially cost
the company money to train us.

Looking back, perhaps we should have got a bit more, but at the end of
it we came out trained and with skills enough to command a decent wage
in the future and was because the company was prepared to take the hit
on us initially rather than employ folks who already had more skills.


When I started work in the stores of a factory, we were like the lowest
of the low. The company wanted to give us a slightly bigger pay rise
than everyone else. A quid a week, something like that. The union
kicked up a fuss about 'differentials', so it never happened.