"Robin" wrote in message
...
On 17/11/2017 10:48, tim... wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Friday, 17 November 2017 09:37:15 UTC, tim... wrote:
4) Why do employers waste so much money on agencies.

1. Because agency workers have even fewer rights than employees on zero
hour contracts.

not in the first years

because none of them have any rights


it is a misconception that an employer can dismiss any employee in the
first 2 years without risk.

Employees can bring a claim for unfair dismissal on grounds of
discrimination ( age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil
partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex and
sexual orientation). And other things such as exercising their rights not
to work Sundays.

yes we all know that

but in reality, if a person turns out to be useless in their first week,
what is the chance of that

And the Supreme Court struck down charges for employees taking claims to
the ET so it's a free shot for them.

It's not entirely cost free

getting a reputation for taking your employer to court on a frivolous charge
makes you "unemployable"

tim

On 17/11/2017 13:40, JoeJoe wrote:
On 17/11/2017 11:58, Fredxxx wrote:
On 17/11/2017 11:42, bm wrote:
"tim..." wrote in message
news

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Â*Â* 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".Â* 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

7.50? You don't know you're born.
I started on 2s 6d per hr.

How many loaves of bread would that have bought?

£7.50 can easily buy you at least 15 loaves nowadays.

Except you won't find the word 'bread' on the wrapper.

Ingredient including 'improvers' might be there.

"Dan S. MacAbre" wrote in message
news
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Dan S. MacAbre wrote:
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.

You must have had an odd union. And a very shortsighted one. If
management

I don't have any other union experience to compare it to, so I don't know.
In the end, I saved myself a few quid, and cancelled my membership. A few
people fell out with me, but no-one I cared about. The meetings were
pretty scary anyway - a few loudmouths dominating the proceedings, and
(since it was pre-secret ballot days) the voting. That may explain the
shortsightedness - sheer envy by a few hotheads?

offer a pay rise to one group of workers that would normally be accepted
gratefully. Then the subject of differentials brought up at the next
round
of pay talks.

LOL, I had to join our union so I could go on strike back in 77

pamela wrote:
On 13:36 17 Nov 2017, Dan S. MacAbre wrote:

Yellow wrote:
On Fri, 17 Nov 2017 12:45:12 +0000, Dan S. MacAbre
wrote:

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.

And that is an issue with the so called living wage now that
politicians want to bump up to being the sort of money a
semi-skilled person would earn.

Just watching the show Tim is talking about now and one fellow
said he wanted £12 or £15 an hour for a low skilled job or he
wasn't interested.


I don't have a TV licence, so I will have to forego the
pleasure, I'm afraid.

Get a job! Just kidding.


I have a job, which I like very much :-) Computer programming, which
isn't like real work at all; and short hours so I can pick the lad up
from school. Perfect, really.

On Fri, 17 Nov 2017 13:46:53 -0000, bm wrote:

"Yellow" wrote in message
T...
On Fri, 17 Nov 2017 12:45:12 +0000, Dan S. MacAbre wrote:

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.

And that is an issue with the so called living wage now that politicians
want to bump up to being the sort of money a semi-skilled person would
earn.

Just watching the show Tim is talking about now and one fellow said he
wanted £12 or £15 an hour for a low skilled job or he wasn't interested.

First, how are these people living now?

And second, £15 an hour!!! That is over 30 grand a year.

That must be about average or less, shirley?

Average for unskilled/low skilled work? Er.... No.

bm wrote:
"Dan S. MacAbre" wrote in message
news
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Dan S. MacAbre wrote:
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.

You must have had an odd union. And a very shortsighted one. If
management

I don't have any other union experience to compare it to, so I don't know.
In the end, I saved myself a few quid, and cancelled my membership. A few
people fell out with me, but no-one I cared about. The meetings were
pretty scary anyway - a few loudmouths dominating the proceedings, and
(since it was pre-secret ballot days) the voting. That may explain the
shortsightedness - sheer envy by a few hotheads?

offer a pay rise to one group of workers that would normally be accepted
gratefully. Then the subject of differentials brought up at the next
round
of pay talks.

LOL, I had to join our union so I could go on strike back in 77


After I'd left the union, I'd pretend to be sick on the few occasions
there was a strike. My boss didn't mind, though. He knew I just wanted
to avoid trouble.

"Yellow" wrote in message
T...
On Fri, 17 Nov 2017 09:36:11 -0000, tim...
wrote:

from last night, still on catch up (I guess)

Didn't tell me anything that I didn't already know TBH

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.

2) Employers have far too high an expectation from a minimum wage worker.
The clue is in the word "minimum". Expecting a "self starter who can
manage
themselves and produce high quality work with the highest quantity of
output", in an employee straight off the street is unreasonable. If
someone
*can* achieve all that then they are a *senior* grade worker and they
should
be paid accordingly.

But for the majority, new hires require management *effort* to train
themn
in the way to do the job that you need doing, teaching them the tips to
get
the job done better/faster that if left to their own devices they will
never
discover AND wait several weeks/months (not just a few hours) for them to
get up to speed. You cannot expect the education system to have trained
up
school leavers in every single job that might be encountered as a job
seeker, that is the task of *management*. Stop whinging about how the
available hires are lacking in these skills and do your own bloody job
properly, before complaining that someone else can't do theirs properly.

3) The problem in 2 is exacerbated by the minimum wage being too high.
This idea that any/every job should pay a "family living wage" is
political
nonsense. Employers must have the scope to pay people in training what
they
are worth to the company. And that is never going to be the living wage.
Of course you have to ensure that once they reach the expected ability
level
employers do actually reward staff for that, and not just continue to pay
them the in-training "pittance"

4) Why do employers waste so much money on agencies. I have no idea what
margins for this type of casual work are, but most people with
recruitment
"skills" wouldn't get out of bed for 50 grand (they'll just go and work
for
an employer who pays them more). I understand that genuine casual work
(such as catering at an event) requires agency staff, but if you have an
ongoing requirement for a worker why the **** are you paying the agency
margin week after week. Take the guy(/girl) on permanently and use the
money saved to increase the guy's (girl's) wage when they reach the
required
performance level.

Until we solve these (completely self inflicted) problems, things are not
going to improve

Oh and the current crop of school leavers needs to drop "the world owes
us a
living" attitude that some of them seem to have.

timmy



Thanks for the review and I will try to watch on catch up later.

It is what many of us already know but it still has to be demonstrated
sometimes, to remind people what is really going on here and I am
particularly interested in your observations about the minimum and
living wage and agree that for youngsters with no work skills in their
first employment, it is too high. As are benefits.

Where I used to work we took on apprentices as well as trainees for non-
engineering roles and to start with they take more than they contribute,
eating in to the time of the skilled people they are working with and
their output of course often required rework. And that is fine, part of
the deal, but if you have to pay them almost as much as you have to pay
skilled folk it becomes less attractive to take on the ones who need to
most initial help.

as I said to the other poster

I don't think that the comparisons with apprenticeships is valid as
apprenticeships are meant to give you training (and a certificate) in a
trade

And historically providing apprenticeships isn't just a cost on the company
as where there is a training levy imposed by HMG (as there used to be)
offering apprenticeships gets you credits against that levy.

But here we were just taking about getting you up to speed when using simple
equipment. Something that would take 1-4 weeks of a learning curve, but the
guy given the job was expect to be up to speed in 2 days with no support.

tim

On 17/11/2017 13:52, Fredxxx wrote:
On 17/11/2017 13:40, JoeJoe wrote:
On 17/11/2017 11:58, Fredxxx wrote:
On 17/11/2017 11:42, bm wrote:
"tim..." wrote in message
news

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Â*Â* 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".Â* 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

7.50? You don't know you're born.
I started on 2s 6d per hr.

How many loaves of bread would that have bought?

£7.50 can easily buy you at least 15 loaves nowadays.

Except you won't find the word 'bread' on the wrapper.

Ingredient including 'improvers' might be there.

Beggars can't be choosers. It fills you up, and is cheap.

"alan_m" wrote in message
...
On 17/11/2017 12:21, Andrew Gabriel wrote:

I have brought many new graduates into the computing industry.
Back when I started doing this in the 1980's, it took about 2 years
before they started paying back - until that point they are consuming
more management/training resources than they contribute back in work.
So unless they stay for probably 4-5 years, they were only a drain on
the company. This was within a large UK company (GEC).


But back then the GEC/Marconi way was to de-skill the graduates first by
giving them completely menial tasks and then at the end of the second year
re-train then in the inefficient corporate ways.

These days you may find that with certain ways of recruitment to weed out
the dross before employment, sponsored formal training and giving work
experience in holiday periods before full time employment gets you well
motivated graduates that give productive output in a very short time. Long
gone are the days when an engineering graduate will have (or want) the
same job for life or even possibly stay with their first company for more
than a couple of years.

Even with more highly paid skilled jobs poor management will give you an
inefficient work force.

When I worked for GEC in the early 1990s failed engineers became managers
who were then promoted to a level of incompetence.

That kinda happened with some union leaders, promote them (to their idea of
an important job) to keep'em quiet.
Principles have a price.

"Yellow" wrote in message
T...
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,

well it's a hell of a lot more than when I was in my first job

but whilst I can remember how much I earned

I haven't a clue how much my house share cost, so I couldn't put it in those
terms

But I can definitely remember that I didn't earn enough to rent a flat for
myself and had to live in a house share for the first 4 years of my career
until I had established some seniority and an enhanced salary

and I certainly couldn't have decided that I wanted to settle down with a
pregnant girlfriend on the salary from my first job - as the 19 YO in the
example did (apparently the pregnancy was planned and not an accident!).
This is just irresponsible. You cut your cloth to suit your means, not
inflate your needs unreasonably because it entitles you to take a trip to
the social for some more cloth.

tim

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
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

Yes - when starting out in your career.

people on long term benefits are starting out on their career whatever their
age

You didn't make that distinction
when referring to unemployment benefits. And the young unemployed already
get less than the older.

Unemployment benefit is already far less than the OAP. Are you suggesting
that is super generous too?

I have no idea why "7.50 is too low to get out of bed for" (we weren't told
the circumstances of the person who said it except to confirm that he was
out of work)

but I would be surprised if that was the response of someone on JSA alone

tim

On Friday, 17 November 2017 13:17:11 UTC, Yellow wrote:
On Fri, 17 Nov 2017 12:45:12 +0000, Dan S. MacAbre wrote:


And that is an issue with the so called living wage now that politicians
want to bump up to being the sort of money a semi-skilled person would
earn.

Just watching the show Tim is talking about now and one fellow said he
wanted £12 or £15 an hour for a low skilled job or he wasn't interested.

Well if he ever wants to own a home of his own, that'll need tripling at least.






First, how are these people living now?

And second, £15 an hour!!! That is over 30 grand a year.

Then explain how an MP in london gets a free house, free travel, seriously subserdised food and drink if not paid for can't afford to live on their saleries of £65k+ so need a pay rise 5x that of inflation ?

"Graeme" wrote in message
...
In message , tim...
writes

and yes it IS what I did

As did I Tim, and probably most who are reading this, and are of our age
group. I started in a shared furnished flat, then bought my first house,
not in the best part of town. Moved in with nothing new. Everything, from
cutlery and crockery to bedding and towels to furniture and carpets was
scrounged from friends and family. The spare bedroom was bare floorboards
and no furniture, but I didn't care. It was home. An ancient B&W TV.
Later, a twin tub.#

a washing machine!

luxury

2 hours down the laundry each week for most of us

tim

On 17/11/2017 14:06, bm wrote:
"alan_m" wrote in message
...
On 17/11/2017 12:21, Andrew Gabriel wrote:

I have brought many new graduates into the computing industry.
Back when I started doing this in the 1980's, it took about 2 years
before they started paying back - until that point they are consuming
more management/training resources than they contribute back in work.
So unless they stay for probably 4-5 years, they were only a drain on
the company. This was within a large UK company (GEC).


But back then the GEC/Marconi way was to de-skill the graduates first by
giving them completely menial tasks and then at the end of the second year
re-train then in the inefficient corporate ways.

These days you may find that with certain ways of recruitment to weed out
the dross before employment, sponsored formal training and giving work
experience in holiday periods before full time employment gets you well
motivated graduates that give productive output in a very short time. Long
gone are the days when an engineering graduate will have (or want) the
same job for life or even possibly stay with their first company for more
than a couple of years.

Even with more highly paid skilled jobs poor management will give you an
inefficient work force.

When I worked for GEC in the early 1990s failed engineers became managers
who were then promoted to a level of incompetence.

That kinda happened with some union leaders, promote them (to their idea of
an important job) to keep'em quiet.
Principles have a price.

With a bit of luck on their side the whole cabinet next time around will
be made up of union leaders.

"pamela" wrote in message
...
On 13:31 17 Nov 2017, alan_m wrote:

On 17/11/2017 12:32, Yellow wrote:


Instead we all have 10th hand cars that we'd help each other to
keep running, we had holidays in Blackpool if at all and would
only go to the pub on pay day. And we *all* lived at home with
our parents while we saved for a house deposit rather than
wasting it on rent!

+1 And most of my friends at the time were doing the same.

Blackpool? Black-pool? That's pure luxury. We took out holidays
in a paper bag, if we were lucky. Etc.

They had paper bags?

"Dan S. MacAbre" wrote in message
news
Yellow wrote:
On Fri, 17 Nov 2017 12:45:12 +0000, Dan S. MacAbre wrote:

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.

And that is an issue with the so called living wage now that politicians
want to bump up to being the sort of money a semi-skilled person would
earn.

Just watching the show Tim is talking about now and one fellow said he
wanted £12 or £15 an hour for a low skilled job or he wasn't interested.


I don't have a TV licence, so I will have to forego the pleasure, I'm
afraid.


It's on C4

you're allowed to watch catch up without a license

tim

"Yellow" wrote in message
T...
On Fri, 17 Nov 2017 13:46:53 -0000, bm wrote:

That must be about average or less, shirley?

Average for unskilled/low skilled work? Er.... No.

no

it's an above average salary for the group of everybody

tim

"pamela" wrote in message
...


Computer programming sounds like a breeze.

Not like real work and short hours. Great!

Despite several years of trying before I gave up completely, I could never
find anybody prepared to let me work short hours

It was like I had asked then to get me a slice of cheese from the moon

tim

"alan_m" wrote in message
...
On 17/11/2017 12:21, Andrew Gabriel wrote:

I have brought many new graduates into the computing industry.
Back when I started doing this in the 1980's, it took about 2 years
before they started paying back - until that point they are consuming
more management/training resources than they contribute back in work.
So unless they stay for probably 4-5 years, they were only a drain on
the company. This was within a large UK company (GEC).


But back then the GEC/Marconi way was to de-skill the graduates first by
giving them completely menial tasks and then at the end of the second year
re-train then in the inefficient corporate ways.

These days you may find that with certain ways of recruitment to weed out
the dross before employment, sponsored formal training and giving work
experience in holiday periods before full time employment gets you well
motivated graduates that give productive output in a very short time. Long
gone are the days when an engineering graduate will have (or want) the
same job for life or even possibly stay with their first company for more
than a couple of years.

That didn't happen in the 80s

tim

On Fri, 17 Nov 2017 14:02:52 -0000, tim...
wrote:

"Yellow" wrote in message
T...

Thanks for the review and I will try to watch on catch up later.

It is what many of us already know but it still has to be demonstrated
sometimes, to remind people what is really going on here and I am
particularly interested in your observations about the minimum and
living wage and agree that for youngsters with no work skills in their
first employment, it is too high. As are benefits.

Where I used to work we took on apprentices as well as trainees for non-
engineering roles and to start with they take more than they contribute,
eating in to the time of the skilled people they are working with and
their output of course often required rework. And that is fine, part of
the deal, but if you have to pay them almost as much as you have to pay
skilled folk it becomes less attractive to take on the ones who need to
most initial help.

as I said to the other poster

I don't think that the comparisons with apprenticeships is valid as
apprenticeships are meant to give you training (and a certificate) in a
trade

And historically providing apprenticeships isn't just a cost on the company
as where there is a training levy imposed by HMG (as there used to be)
offering apprenticeships gets you credits against that levy.

But here we were just taking about getting you up to speed when using simple
equipment. Something that would take 1-4 weeks of a learning curve, but the
guy given the job was expect to be up to speed in 2 days with no support.

I agree, and as I said we didn't just take on apprentices but for roles
that just required people to get up to speed too. And I also agree this
can take a good month or even more depending on the role.

But anyway, I have just been watching the show and the lad the
employment agency took on would not have been more typical situation, to
the point that it almost seemed set up.

They did not train him properly or convey to him exactly what was
expected of him while he took every opportunity not to be doing the job
and was not at all pro-active. Quite a sad thing to watch.

And the "wine and cheese party" - how ridicules was that as it simply
attracted people who did not want a job but did want a free drink and I
am unclear what point it was trying to prove.

On Fri, 17 Nov 2017 14:11:40 -0000, tim...
wrote:

"Yellow" wrote in message
T...
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,

well it's a hell of a lot more than when I was in my first job

but whilst I can remember how much I earned

I haven't a clue how much my house share cost, so I couldn't put it in those
terms

But I can definitely remember that I didn't earn enough to rent a flat for
myself and had to live in a house share for the first 4 years of my career
until I had established some seniority and an enhanced salary

and I certainly couldn't have decided that I wanted to settle down with a
pregnant girlfriend on the salary from my first job - as the 19 YO in the
example did (apparently the pregnancy was planned and not an accident!).
This is just irresponsible. You cut your cloth to suit your means, not
inflate your needs unreasonably because it entitles you to take a trip to
the social for some more cloth.


I don't pretend to know the answer but I find it quite depressing that
people can afford to live on benefits (and because I get someone screams
at me - you can!) by making the career choice of having children.

On Fri, 17 Nov 2017 14:15:24 -0000, tim...
wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
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

Yes - when starting out in your career.

people on long term benefits are starting out on their career whatever their
age

You didn't make that distinction
when referring to unemployment benefits. And the young unemployed already
get less than the older.

Unemployment benefit is already far less than the OAP. Are you suggesting
that is super generous too?

I have no idea why "7.50 is too low to get out of bed for" (we weren't told
the circumstances of the person who said it except to confirm that he was
out of work)

but I would be surprised if that was the response of someone on JSA alone


What is JSA now £60 or £70 a week perhaps, for a single person? Let's
say it is £75 for arguments sake and let's say a job is 40 hours a week
- that means on benefits (but of course you can stay in bed) you are
getting the equivalent of £1.87 an hour.

How therefore is £7.50 not "enough"? Enough for what?

"JoeJoe" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 17/11/2017 11:15, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
tim... presented the following explanation :
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

As did I, but these days they expect and get everything now.

I think Corbyn and Co and their fairy money stories got the snowflakes all
frothing around the mouth and believing his tales.

It was long before Corbyn that the idea of having to live in a shared house
was unacceptably "slumming it" for benefits claimants.

that started with A B Liar.

tim

tim... wrote:


"pamela" wrote in message
...


Computer programming sounds like a breeze.

Not like real work and short hours. Great!

Despite several years of trying before I gave up completely, I could
never find anybody prepared to let me work short hours

It was like I had asked then to get me a slice of cheese from the moon

tim


In my case, I'd handed my notice in because I made more money doing
programming 'on the side'. He asked if I'd be happy working half days.
It seemed too good to pass up.

tim... wrote:


"Dan S. MacAbre" wrote in message
news
Yellow wrote:
On Fri, 17 Nov 2017 12:45:12 +0000, Dan S. MacAbre wrote:

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.

And that is an issue with the so called living wage now that politicians
want to bump up to being the sort of money a semi-skilled person would
earn.

Just watching the show Tim is talking about now and one fellow said he
wanted £12 or £15 an hour for a low skilled job or he wasn't interested.


I don't have a TV licence, so I will have to forego the pleasure, I'm
afraid.


It's on C4

you're allowed to watch catch up without a license

tim


Interesting - I didn't know that.

I feel your idea though good in part is a little one size fits
all. This has
always been the problem. In some places unless wages are raised then there
is no way in hell anyone will be motivated to work and you cannot let them
starve in a high cost area.


In the old days we used to have top up benefits so you always had enough to
live on but what used to happen was employers took the **** and used the
benefit to subsidise their miserly wages and coin in the dosh.
Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"tim..." wrote in message
news
from last night, still on catch up (I guess)

Didn't tell me anything that I didn't already know TBH

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.

2) Employers have far too high an expectation from a minimum wage worker.
The clue is in the word "minimum". Expecting a "self starter who can
manage themselves and produce high quality work with the highest quantity
of output", in an employee straight off the street is unreasonable. If
someone *can* achieve all that then they are a *senior* grade worker and
they should be paid accordingly.

But for the majority, new hires require management *effort* to train themn
in the way to do the job that you need doing, teaching them the tips to
get the job done better/faster that if left to their own devices they will
never discover AND wait several weeks/months (not just a few hours) for
them to get up to speed. You cannot expect the education system to have
trained up school leavers in every single job that might be encountered as
a job seeker, that is the task of *management*. Stop whinging about how
the available hires are lacking in these skills and do your own bloody job
properly, before complaining that someone else can't do theirs properly.

3) The problem in 2 is exacerbated by the minimum wage being too high.
This idea that any/every job should pay a "family living wage" is
political nonsense. Employers must have the scope to pay people in
training what they are worth to the company. And that is never going to
be the living wage. Of course you have to ensure that once they reach the
expected ability level employers do actually reward staff for that, and
not just continue to pay them the in-training "pittance"

4) Why do employers waste so much money on agencies. I have no idea what
margins for this type of casual work are, but most people with recruitment
"skills" wouldn't get out of bed for 50 grand (they'll just go and work
for an employer who pays them more). I understand that genuine casual
work (such as catering at an event) requires agency staff, but if you have
an ongoing requirement for a worker why the **** are you paying the agency
margin week after week. Take the guy(/girl) on permanently and use the
money saved to increase the guy's (girl's) wage when they reach the
required performance level.

Until we solve these (completely self inflicted) problems, things are not
going to improve

Oh and the current crop of school leavers needs to drop "the world owes us
a living" attitude that some of them seem to have.

timmy

"pamela" wrote in message
...
On 13:17 17 Nov 2017, Yellow wrote:



Thank goodness for those immigrants who are willing to do the job
for a normal rate.

except that they are giving employers the false impress that their
expectation of the perfect worker at minimum wage are reasonable

And work harder at it then Johnny Englander ever would.

often it isn't just about how hard they work

tim

In message , tim...
writes
"Graeme" wrote in message
...

Later, a twin tub.#

a washing machine!

luxury

2 hours down the laundry each week for most of us

Note the *later* :-)

Yes, I started out doing the launderette thing, combined with taking
stuff back to Mum whenever I visited. The twin tub was lucky - someone
I knew was upgrading, so I got the cast off. Did treat myself to a pair
of those huge wooden tongs though.
--
Graeme

On Fri, 17 Nov 2017 14:36:49 -0000, "tim..."
wrote:



"alan_m" wrote in message
...
On 17/11/2017 12:21, Andrew Gabriel wrote:

I have brought many new graduates into the computing industry.
Back when I started doing this in the 1980's, it took about 2 years
before they started paying back - until that point they are consuming
more management/training resources than they contribute back in work.
So unless they stay for probably 4-5 years, they were only a drain on
the company. This was within a large UK company (GEC).


But back then the GEC/Marconi way was to de-skill the graduates first by
giving them completely menial tasks and then at the end of the second year
re-train then in the inefficient corporate ways.

These days you may find that with certain ways of recruitment to weed out
the dross before employment, sponsored formal training and giving work
experience in holiday periods before full time employment gets you well
motivated graduates that give productive output in a very short time. Long
gone are the days when an engineering graduate will have (or want) the
same job for life or even possibly stay with their first company for more
than a couple of years.

That didn't happen in the 80s

It certainly did.

--
If a man stands in a forest and no woman is around to hear him, is he still wrong?

On Fri, 17 Nov 2017 13:56:49 GMT, pamela wrote:

On 13:26 17 Nov 2017, alan_m wrote:

On 17/11/2017 12:21, Andrew Gabriel wrote:

I have brought many new graduates into the computing industry.
Back when I started doing this in the 1980's, it took about 2
years before they started paying back - until that point they
are consuming more management/training resources than they
contribute back in work. So unless they stay for probably 4-5
years, they were only a drain on the company. This was within a
large UK company (GEC).


But back then the GEC/Marconi way was to de-skill the graduates
first by giving them completely menial tasks and then at the end
of the second year re-train then in the inefficient corporate
ways.

Sounds like joining a religious cult! Your old values are wiped
out and then new ones installed.

These days you may find that with certain ways of recruitment to
weed out the dross before employment, sponsored formal training
and giving work experience in holiday periods before full time
employment gets you well motivated graduates that give
productive output in a very short time. Long gone are the days
when an engineering graduate will have (or want) the same job
for life or even possibly stay with their first company for more
than a couple of years.

Companies have partly brought that upon themselves by mass firings
of loyal workers who, rightly or worngly can no longer rely onthe
company rtaining them through thick and thin.

Even with more highly paid skilled jobs poor management will
give you an inefficient work force.

When I worked for GEC in the early 1990s failed engineers became
managers who were then promoted to a level of incompetence.

I've seen that too many times: promote someone out of the way so
they don't mess things up any more.

Same here. Often the people who were good at their job were kept
there and not promoted. Therefore there was a kind on incentive to be
bad at the job.

--
If a man stands in a forest and no woman is around to hear him, is he still wrong?

On Fri, 17 Nov 2017 14:01:32 GMT, pamela wrote:

On 13:43 17 Nov 2017, JoeJoe wrote:

On 17/11/2017 12:21, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article ,
"tim..." writes:
from last night, still on catch up (I guess)

Didn't tell me anything that I didn't already know TBH

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'm not up-to-date with what's on offer, but I thought benefits
for those who are in theory able to work are only available if
they can show they are actively looking for work.

They know how to play the system - at that stage they are
already on the sick.

Being disabled with a minor condition can be a key to the benefits
system. So can having lots of kids. Also, being retired is now more
comfy than it used to be.

The triple lock helps the retired.

Some of the most over-generous situations seem to be getting ironed
out but unfortunately, when it's done wrongly, truly deserving cases
get squeezed too.

True. All I know is, on the rare occasions I was unemployed, I was
inelligble for any benefits.

--
If a man stands in a forest and no woman is around to hear him, is he still wrong?

On Fri, 17 Nov 2017 12:32:13 -0000, Yellow
wrote:

On Fri, 17 Nov 2017 09:36:11 -0000, tim...
wrote:

from last night, still on catch up (I guess)

Didn't tell me anything that I didn't already know TBH

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.

2) Employers have far too high an expectation from a minimum wage worker.
The clue is in the word "minimum". Expecting a "self starter who can manage
themselves and produce high quality work with the highest quantity of
output", in an employee straight off the street is unreasonable. If someone
*can* achieve all that then they are a *senior* grade worker and they should
be paid accordingly.

But for the majority, new hires require management *effort* to train themn
in the way to do the job that you need doing, teaching them the tips to get
the job done better/faster that if left to their own devices they will never
discover AND wait several weeks/months (not just a few hours) for them to
get up to speed. You cannot expect the education system to have trained up
school leavers in every single job that might be encountered as a job
seeker, that is the task of *management*. Stop whinging about how the
available hires are lacking in these skills and do your own bloody job
properly, before complaining that someone else can't do theirs properly.

3) The problem in 2 is exacerbated by the minimum wage being too high.
This idea that any/every job should pay a "family living wage" is political
nonsense. Employers must have the scope to pay people in training what they
are worth to the company. And that is never going to be the living wage.
Of course you have to ensure that once they reach the expected ability level
employers do actually reward staff for that, and not just continue to pay
them the in-training "pittance"

4) Why do employers waste so much money on agencies. I have no idea what
margins for this type of casual work are, but most people with recruitment
"skills" wouldn't get out of bed for 50 grand (they'll just go and work for
an employer who pays them more). I understand that genuine casual work
(such as catering at an event) requires agency staff, but if you have an
ongoing requirement for a worker why the **** are you paying the agency
margin week after week. Take the guy(/girl) on permanently and use the
money saved to increase the guy's (girl's) wage when they reach the required
performance level.

Until we solve these (completely self inflicted) problems, things are not
going to improve

Oh and the current crop of school leavers needs to drop "the world owes us a
living" attitude that some of them seem to have.

timmy



Thanks for the review and I will try to watch on catch up later.

It is what many of us already know but it still has to be demonstrated
sometimes, to remind people what is really going on here and I am
particularly interested in your observations about the minimum and
living wage and agree that for youngsters with no work skills in their
first employment, it is too high. As are benefits.

Or maybe the pay rates for skilled people is too low? If benefits are
really too high this creates a poverty trap if wages are low. However
I very much doubt that benefits are 'generous' now, if they ever were.

Where I used to work we took on apprentices as well as trainees for non-
engineering roles and to start with they take more than they contribute,
eating in to the time of the skilled people they are working with and
their output of course often required rework. And that is fine, part of
the deal, but if you have to pay them almost as much as you have to pay
skilled folk it becomes less attractive to take on the ones who need to
most initial help.

But you don't need to pay them as much as skilled folk.

And of course there is your final comment which is in part of product of
both some politician and most of the media telling young people how hard
done by they are and how good everyone over the age of 30 had it before
them - free running jobs, cheap housing and free education - except it
wasn't like that at all for so many of us.

Of course not. But does anyone really say this?

The problems and issues were not the same, that is for sure, but times
are always tough for some and good for others and to keep being fed this
idea that you are being stolen from when in fact you simply have to make
the most of the opportunities that are there for the taking - the same
as every other generation in the past.

Up to a point. But the gap between the 'haves' and the 'have nots'
has widened, making it more difficult for many. Accomodation costs
now are vastly higher than they were a few decades ago, for example.

I get particularly ****ed off at the young ones who think that they
should be able to leave home and fall into a job that will pay for a
whole house to themselves, fully furnished, together with new cars,
holidays and nights out.

Do they think that? (Maybe the ones from obscenely rich families).

We NEVER had that.

Some did.

Instead we all have 10th hand cars that we'd help each other to keep
running, we had holidays in Blackpool if at all and would only go to the
pub on pay day.

Holiday in Blackpool -- *Luxury* ;-)

And we *all* lived at home with our parents while we
saved for a house deposit rather than wasting it on rent!

No. Not if you had to work/study a long way from your parents
location.

And I haven't even watched the show yet. :-)

We don't need to ;-)

--
If a man stands in a forest and no woman is around to hear him, is he still wrong?

On 17/11/2017 14:05, JoeJoe wrote:
On 17/11/2017 13:52, Fredxxx wrote:
On 17/11/2017 13:40, JoeJoe wrote:
On 17/11/2017 11:58, Fredxxx wrote:
On 17/11/2017 11:42, bm wrote:
"tim..." wrote in message
news

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Â*Â* 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".Â* 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

7.50? You don't know you're born.
I started on 2s 6d per hr.

How many loaves of bread would that have bought?

£7.50 can easily buy you at least 15 loaves nowadays.

Except you won't find the word 'bread' on the wrapper.

Ingredient including 'improvers' might be there.

Beggars can't be choosers. It fills you up, and is cheap.

Quite, but the article quoted prices for average prices.

The question I raised was a simple one, "How many loaves of bread would
that have bought?"

I put to you it is a number of times more than £7.50 will buy now, even
if as you claim, that would be 15 loaves.

In message ,
whisky-dave writes

I got a mortgage in the late 80s adn my salery paid for about 50% of
that moretgage so I took in a flat mate in the spare room.

Yes, I had a series of flat mates over several years, one I'm still in
touch with, although haven't seen him face to face since, em, 1979!

It was a good way to help with the costs and whilst not ideal, certainly
got me on the housing ladder.

--
Graeme

On 17/11/2017 14:34, tim... wrote:


"pamela" wrote in message
...


Computer programming sounds like a breeze.

Not like real work and short hours.Â* Great!

Despite several years of trying before I gave up completely, I could
never find anybody prepared to let me work short hours

It was like I had asked then to get me a slice of cheese from the moon

It depends on how you are valued. If they value your contribution such
the cost of losing you is more than your cost + overhead etc they will
accept the change.

Management seem to like brinkmanship, something I detest, but if you're
prepared to leave you do have the upper hand.

On Friday, 17 November 2017 09:37:15 UTC, tim... wrote:
from last night, still on catch up (I guess)

Didn't tell me anything that I didn't already know TBH

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.

2) Employers have far too high an expectation from a minimum wage worker.
The clue is in the word "minimum". Expecting a "self starter who can manage
themselves and produce high quality work with the highest quantity of
output", in an employee straight off the street is unreasonable. If someone
*can* achieve all that then they are a *senior* grade worker and they should
be paid accordingly.

But for the majority, new hires require management *effort* to train themn
in the way to do the job that you need doing, teaching them the tips to get
the job done better/faster that if left to their own devices they will never
discover AND wait several weeks/months (not just a few hours) for them to
get up to speed. You cannot expect the education system to have trained up
school leavers in every single job that might be encountered as a job
seeker, that is the task of *management*. Stop whinging about how the
available hires are lacking in these skills and do your own bloody job
properly, before complaining that someone else can't do theirs properly.

3) The problem in 2 is exacerbated by the minimum wage being too high.
This idea that any/every job should pay a "family living wage" is political
nonsense. Employers must have the scope to pay people in training what they
are worth to the company. And that is never going to be the living wage.
Of course you have to ensure that once they reach the expected ability level
employers do actually reward staff for that, and not just continue to pay
them the in-training "pittance"

4) Why do employers waste so much money on agencies. I have no idea what
margins for this type of casual work are, but most people with recruitment
"skills" wouldn't get out of bed for 50 grand (they'll just go and work for
an employer who pays them more). I understand that genuine casual work
(such as catering at an event) requires agency staff, but if you have an
ongoing requirement for a worker why the **** are you paying the agency
margin week after week. Take the guy(/girl) on permanently and use the
money saved to increase the guy's (girl's) wage when they reach the required
performance level.

Until we solve these (completely self inflicted) problems, things are not
going to improve

Oh and the current crop of school leavers needs to drop "the world owes us a
living" attitude that some of them seem to have.

timmy

They are people who never learnt about consequences.

In message , Fredxxx
writes

The question I raised was a simple one, "How many loaves of bread would
that have bought?"

A quick Google suggests a loaf of bread was 9p (decimal) in 1970, and
53p now. I was earning roughly 650pa, including London weighting, call
that £13pw or 32.5p per hour. One hour bought almost four loaves.
Today, minimum wage of £7.50ph would buy fourteen loaves.

--
Graeme

On 17/11/2017 11:42, bm wrote:
"tim..." wrote in message
news


"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

7.50? You don't know you're born.
I started on 2s 6d per hr.

waves

2s/1d...

On 17/11/2017 16:50, Graeme wrote:
In message , Fredxxx writes

The question I raised was a simple one, "How many loaves of bread
would that have bought?"

A quick Google suggests a loaf of bread was 9p (decimal) in 1970, and
53p now.Â* I was earning roughly 650pa, including London weighting, call
that £13pw or 32.5p per hour.Â* One hour bought almost four loaves.
Today, minimum wage of £7.50ph would buy fourteen loaves.

You're being very disingenuous.

If you're not going to quote the article it is immensely unhelpful and
does you little service, where I presume the same article also quoted a
loaf of bread in 2007 as being 97p.

I can assure you bread has increased in price since. In 2007 I was
buying loaves at 30p. I have no reason to believe I would not have been
able to buy loaves at 3p or less in 1970.

The 2s 6d also refers to a time before 1970.

You're not doing very well on the honesty stakes.

On 17/11/2017 11:58, Fredxxx wrote:
On 17/11/2017 11:42, bm wrote:
"tim..." wrote in message
news


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Â*Â* 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".Â* 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

7.50? You don't know you're born.
I started on 2s 6d per hr.

How many loaves of bread would that have bought?

Assuming it was in the very late sixtes, about two (maybe two and a half).

And two loaves today at standard supermarket prices would cost about
£2.00 - £2.50..

Perhaps school-leavers with no skills should get £2.50 or £3 an hour in
their first jobs?