On 17/11/2017 12:02, Fredxxx 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?

In 1914 this article suggest it was the equivalent of 1p.

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/n...ys-Lloyds.html


It looks as if 2s 6d was quite a bit. Certainly could have bought a lot
more than 6 loaves. Positively rolling in it.

And even more in 1299 (when Henry IV acceded to the throne).

On Friday, 17 November 2017 13:17:11 UTC, Yellow wrote:
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?

They don't get out of bed in the mornings, and in the afternoons they drink value lager and watch Jeremy Kyle.

Owain

On Fri, 17 Nov 2017 15:39:21 +0000, Mark
wrote:

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

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.

Define "generous". To me, if you can live on it long term without the
need to ever work then it is "generous".

In message , Dan S. MacAbre
writes
tim... wrote:


"Dan S. MacAbre" wrote in message
news




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.

Quite simply.....
These days, you need a UK TV licence to:
(a) Watch, record or download ANY live or nearly-live TV programme (even
if it is not BBC).
(b) Watch, record or download ANY BBC TV programme whatsoever
(regardless whether it is live, nearly-live or 'catch-up').
You do NOT need a UK TV licence to:
(c) Watch any non-BBC programme that is 'catch-up'.
--
Ian

On 17/11/2017 13:21, Yellow wrote:
On Fri, 17 Nov 2017 13:00:23 +0000 (GMT), Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

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. 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?

Unemployment benefit is a small fortune of free money if you have few
expenses and a pittance if you have a family to support.

?????

The contributory rates are neither here nor there. It isthe means-tested
rates whichis where the action is.

A couple with three children get about £319 a week, plus housing costs
plus council tax paid, plus free prescriptions (if any) plus free school
meals.

Assuming housing costs and council tax to be about £600 a month in total
(no great amount these days), it comes to about £458 a week (£23816 a
year, which would be limited to £23,000 a year in London).

£23,000 a year net is the equivalent of something in excess of £29,000 a
year gross.

What were you saying? A "pittance"?

On 17/11/17 17:04, JNugent 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.

waves

2s/1d...

2s 6d here.

Living in a hostel

Hitch hiking to save train fares.


--
Canada is all right really, though not for the whole weekend.

"Saki"

On Fri, 17 Nov 2017 17:15:29 +0000, JNugent
wrote:

On 17/11/2017 13:21, Yellow wrote:
On Fri, 17 Nov 2017 13:00:23 +0000 (GMT), Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

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. 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?

Unemployment benefit is a small fortune of free money if you have few
expenses and a pittance if you have a family to support.

?????

The contributory rates are neither here nor there. It isthe means-tested
rates whichis where the action is.

A couple with three children get about £319 a week, plus housing costs
plus council tax paid, plus free prescriptions (if any) plus free school
meals.

Assuming housing costs and council tax to be about £600 a month in total
(no great amount these days), it comes to about £458 a week (£23816 a
year, which would be limited to £23,000 a year in London).

£23,000 a year net is the equivalent of something in excess of £29,000 a
year gross.

What were you saying? A "pittance"?

You have gone off on an tangent I did not intend and I was simply trying
to make the point that for people with no expenses, unemployment benefit
is a fair wack. And yes of course if you have kids, you can get a heck
of a lot more than just JSA.

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

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.

You're being very disingenuous.

Sorry! It was certainly not intentional. I just Googled the price of a
loaf in 1970 and this popped up, from the Guardian :

'With the benefit of 34 years' hindsight, life in 1970 appears to have
been ludicrously cheap. A loaf of bread cost 9p and the average weekly
wage was around £32. Today, a loaf costs 53p'

I realise 1970 plus 34 is not 2017, but given that others mentioned 50p,
53p seemed close enough.

--
Graeme

Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , Dan S. MacAbre writes
tim... wrote:


"Dan S. MacAbre" wrote in message
news




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.

Quite simply.....
These days, you need a UK TV licence to:
(a) Watch, record or download ANY live or nearly-live TV programme (even
if it is not BBC).
(b) Watch, record or download ANY BBC TV programme whatsoever
(regardless whether it is live, nearly-live or 'catch-up').
You do NOT need a UK TV licence to:
(c) Watch any non-BBC programme that is 'catch-up'.

Thanks. I'll try to remember that. The bits of TV I see at various
people's houses just tend to annoy me, though. I've completely lost
touch with it.

On 17/11/2017 17:40, Graeme wrote:
In message , Fredxxx writes
On 17/11/2017 16:50, Graeme wrote:

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

You're being very disingenuous.

Sorry!Â* It was certainly not intentional.Â* I just Googled the price of a
loaf in 1970 and this popped up, from the Guardian :

'With the benefit of 34 years' hindsight, life in 1970 appears to have
been ludicrously cheap. A loaf of bread cost 9p and the average weekly
wage was around £32. Today, a loaf costs 53p'

I realise 1970 plus 34 is not 2017, but given that others mentioned 50p,
53p seemed close enough.

Perhaps I was OTT too.

A loaf can cost 53p. Most bakeries around me charge £1.50 and most
historical price equivalences don't generally compare bargain basement
prices.

I sometimes buy bread at 8, 9 or 10p a loaf, when its reduced with hours
to go before the sell buy date expires.

"Mark" wrote in message
...
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.

only in the sense that there are always going to be people who will stay
with a company forever

but the move on after 2 -3 years had already stated in the 80s

it isn't new to today



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

was he wrong before?

tim

"Yellow" wrote in message
T...
On Fri, 17 Nov 2017 14:11:40 -0000, tim...
wrote:

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.

I think we need to tell people who add to their family whilst unemployed get
to bring the child up in a hostel if they ask the state to pay for it.

tim

"Ian Jackson" wrote in message
...
In message , Dan S. MacAbre
writes
tim... wrote:


"Dan S. MacAbre" wrote in message
news




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.

Quite simply.....
These days, you need a UK TV licence to:
(a) Watch, record or download ANY live or nearly-live TV programme (even
if it is not BBC).
(b) Watch, record or download ANY BBC TV programme whatsoever (regardless
whether it is live, nearly-live or 'catch-up').
You do NOT need a UK TV licence to:
(c) Watch any non-BBC programme that is 'catch-up'.
--


FTAOD that's when broadcast on a BBC channel

you CAN watch BBC "branded" programs via catch up when they are shown on
UKTVPlay (you just have to wait an unspecified time for it to arrive there)

tim

"Dan S. MacAbre" wrote in message
news
Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , Dan S. MacAbre
writes
tim... wrote:


"Dan S. MacAbre" wrote in message
news




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.

Quite simply.....
These days, you need a UK TV licence to:
(a) Watch, record or download ANY live or nearly-live TV programme (even
if it is not BBC).
(b) Watch, record or download ANY BBC TV programme whatsoever
(regardless whether it is live, nearly-live or 'catch-up').
You do NOT need a UK TV licence to:
(c) Watch any non-BBC programme that is 'catch-up'.

Thanks. I'll try to remember that. The bits of TV I see at various
people's houses just tend to annoy me, though. I've completely lost touch
with it.

It's difficult to know what to say to someone who finds every random TV
program that his friends might be watching annoying

I can understand it if they always watch generic soaps and reality shows,.
But if watching quality drama or documentaries you've got to have a low
tolerance to find that annoying (other than the annoyance of coming in on a
story half way through)

tim

"pamela" wrote in message
...
On 14:53 17 Nov 2017, tim... wrote:

"pamela" wrote in message
...

:::::::::


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

I suspect an employer would take the best candidate on offer....
but not so far as to take on a worker who is so useless or idle
that he doesn't earn his keep.

And work harder at it then Johnny Englander ever would.

often it isn't just about how hard they work

Maybe I should have said "do a better job".

well yes

but the point that I was trying to make is that oftentimes that happens
because they are overqualified for the particular job - because they come
her and find that taking a minimum wage job still makes them better off than
their professional job back home

tim

"Fredxxx" wrote in message
news
On 17/11/2017 17:40, Graeme wrote:
In message , Fredxxx
writes
On 17/11/2017 16:50, Graeme wrote:

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.

You're being very disingenuous.

Sorry! It was certainly not intentional. I just Googled the price of a
loaf in 1970 and this popped up, from the Guardian :

'With the benefit of 34 years' hindsight, life in 1970 appears to have
been ludicrously cheap. A loaf of bread cost 9p and the average weekly
wage was around £32. Today, a loaf costs 53p'

I realise 1970 plus 34 is not 2017, but given that others mentioned 50p,
53p seemed close enough.

Perhaps I was OTT too.

A loaf can cost 53p. Most bakeries around me charge £1.50 and most
historical price equivalences don't generally compare bargain basement
prices.

I don't think bargain basement bread existed 30 years ago

The key clue being that bakeries could make a profit selling the basic
staples, whereas now they can't (having to diversity into lunchtime snacks
to still exist at all)

tim

"pamela" wrote in message
...
On 14:34 17 Nov 2017, 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

I can't really understand your work.... you had to work in several
European countries, which you didn't like,

I liked working in Europe

I didn't like the hassle of traveling there frequently.

for less money than you
should have had

That's a relative number

the point about the career that I chose, 38 years ago, is that the rates on
offer did not keep up with inflation from about half way through my time
doing the job

when I stopped work last year, standard rates for my skill set were the same
as I was being offered in 1997 - that's in cash terms.

and you now say you couldn't work fewer hours as you
would have preferred.

I didn't say that I couldn't live on that money. I just felt that my skills
had become "undervalued".

I got to the point where I had enough money available to me (courtesy of
400% rise in house prices) and decided to give up work.

In order to achieve that I cashed out the type of house that you would
expected a moderately successful middle agreed professional to live in and
now live in a starter home (and no I have no regrets about that. I like my
new home).

It's a wonder you stuck with it through all
that!

I have already explained that, with 20 years experience in a sub set of IT
aged 40, moving to a different, better paying, subset of IT is next to
impossible - Obviously some people get a lucky break and manage it, but most
do not.

tim

tim... wrote:


"Dan S. MacAbre" wrote in message
news
Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , Dan S. MacAbre
writes
tim... wrote:


"Dan S. MacAbre" wrote in message
news



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.

Quite simply.....
These days, you need a UK TV licence to:
(a) Watch, record or download ANY live or nearly-live TV programme (even
if it is not BBC).
(b) Watch, record or download ANY BBC TV programme whatsoever
(regardless whether it is live, nearly-live or 'catch-up').
You do NOT need a UK TV licence to:
(c) Watch any non-BBC programme that is 'catch-up'.

Thanks. I'll try to remember that. The bits of TV I see at various
people's houses just tend to annoy me, though. I've completely lost
touch with it.

It's difficult to know what to say to someone who finds every random TV
program that his friends might be watching annoying

I can understand it if they always watch generic soaps and reality
shows,. But if watching quality drama or documentaries you've got to
have a low tolerance to find that annoying (other than the annoyance of
coming in on a story half way through)

tim


They are usually watching quizzes with stupid people on, soaps, things
to do with baking, things to do with dancing, and 'talent' shows. The
manufactured sense of drama annoys me, since the whole thing is almost
totally without meaning. I don't generally like drama, because I think
there are more than enough interesting stories in real history - why not
just tell us about that, instead of inventing more just to create a
vehicle for the latest up-and-coming manufactured celebrity? Everything
seems noisier and more melodramatic than it used to, although the amount
of deliberate camera wobble appears to have been toned down a bit.

I do like some documentaries. I liked the recent Vietnam thing very
much, and David Starkey did a good one about the reformation. Other
than that, I find modern presenters excessively bubbly and trendy, and
lacking in gravitas. My favourite documentaries are old ones.
Civilisation, The Ascent of Man, World at War, The Great War, The Shock
of the New, Alistair Cooke's America.

Yup, I'm a miserable old ****, and I'll get back in my box now :-)

On 17/11/2017 18:32, pamela wrote:
On 14:20 17 Nov 2017, bm wrote:
"pamela" wrote in message
...

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

They had paper bags?

That Monty Python sketch ends up with.....

"I had to get up in the morning at ten o'clock at night, half
an hour before I went to bed, drink a cup of sulphuric acid,
work twenty-nine hours a day down mill, and pay mill owner for
permission to come to work, and when we got home, our Dad and
our mother would kill us, and dance about on our graves singing
'Hallelujah'".

Actually it end up with, "And you try and tell the young people of today
that... they won't believe you" - and the rest agreeing.

--
Max Demian

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Friday, 17 November 2017 14:12:44 UTC, tim... wrote:
"Yellow" wrote in message

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

I've not know anyone that can buy a house on their own anyone that has has
also had to rent out a room.

I bought my first house (flat) in Chelmsford in 1983, 17,000 IIRC

I had just started to take contract work at 400 pound per week, but my
previous permanent salary had been 8K IIRC

tim

wrote in message
...
On Friday, 17 November 2017 13:17:11 UTC, Yellow wrote:
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?

They don't get out of bed in the mornings, and in the afternoons they
drink value lager and watch Jeremy Kyle.

they still have rent to pay or do they sleep under a bridge?

tim

On 17/11/2017 09:36, tim... wrote:
from last night, still on catch up (I guess)



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.



I think that I might possibly have have mentioned that once or twice in
some of my posts.


--
Adam

On 17/11/2017 13:36, Dan S. MacAbre wrote:



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


Why is the lack of a TV license important?


You have a computer and the show was on CH4.

https://www.gov.uk/tv-licence

for the rights to watch it

and

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/b...workers-wanted

to watch it



--
Adam

ARW wrote:
On 17/11/2017 13:36, Dan S. MacAbre wrote:



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


Why is the lack of a TV license important?


You have a computer and the show was on CH4.

https://www.gov.uk/tv-licence

for the rights to watch it

and

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/b...workers-wanted

to watch it


I didn't know that at the time I typed that, but now I do :-)

On 17/11/2017 17:06, JNugent 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?

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..

That is a David Cameron answer...

http://www.mysupermarket.co.uk/Shopp...l&so rt=Price

On 17/11/2017 16:32, Graeme wrote:
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.



And now Labour and Co call it "The Bedroom Tax" - the state subsidises
their houses that are too big for them, and they don't like the idea of
either moving to a more suitable house (still subsidised of course), or
pay a "fine" for keeping it.

In article ,
Yellow wrote:
Unemployment benefit is already far less than the OAP. Are you
suggesting that is super generous too?

Unemployment benefit is a small fortune of free money if you have few
expenses and a pittance if you have a family to support.

I feel very sorry for anyone who genuinely thinks unemployment benefit a
fortune. Didn't realise there were so many poor posting here.

--
*Middle age is when it takes longer to rest than to get tired.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Friday, 17 November 2017 20:08:18 UTC, tim... wrote:
First, how are these people living now?
They don't get out of bed in the mornings, and in the afternoons they
drink value lager and watch Jeremy Kyle.
they still have rent to pay

If they get means tested unemployment benefit they'll get housing benefit and council tax benefit.

Owain

In article om,
bm wrote:

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

In 1914 this article suggest it was the equivalent of 1p.

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/n...ys-Lloyds.html

It looks as if 2s 6d was quite a bit. Certainly could have bought a lot
more than 6 loaves. Positively rolling in it.

Didn't realise bm was about 120 years old. It certainly explains a lot.

Ohh look, it's smartarse Dave again.
hahahah
Dear oh dear.
No, i'm of 1948 vintage.

And you started work at 2/6 an hour? Didn't your parents tell you you
could make more by getting some qualifications?

BTW, I made more than 2/6 an hour doing a Sunday paper round while still
at school. They must have seen you coming.

--
*Proofread carefully to see if you any words out or mispeld something *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 17/11/2017 21:09, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Yellow wrote:
Unemployment benefit is already far less than the OAP. Are you
suggesting that is super generous too?

Unemployment benefit is a small fortune of free money if you have few
expenses and a pittance if you have a family to support.

I feel very sorry for anyone who genuinely thinks unemployment benefit a
fortune. Didn't realise there were so many poor posting here.

It isn't, but many of those who work are as well off as a family on
benefits.

I guess a consequence of means testing.

The only difference is you go from time rich, cash poor on benefits to
time poor as well as cash poor whilst working.

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

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

In 1914 this article suggest it was the equivalent of 1p.

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/n...ys-Lloyds.html

It looks as if 2s 6d was quite a bit. Certainly could have bought a
lot
more than 6 loaves. Positively rolling in it.

Didn't realise bm was about 120 years old. It certainly explains a lot.

Ohh look, it's smartarse Dave again.
hahahah
Dear oh dear.
No, i'm of 1948 vintage.

And you started work at 2/6 an hour? Didn't your parents tell you you
could make more by getting some qualifications?

Oh, I got my further/higher education qualifications during works time but I
tend not to divulge them.

BTW, I made more than 2/6 an hour doing a Sunday paper round while still
at school. They must have seen you coming.

Good man.

Incidentally, you were x-posting again.

On Fri, 17 Nov 2017 21:09:19 +0000 (GMT), Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
Yellow wrote:
Unemployment benefit is already far less than the OAP. Are you
suggesting that is super generous too?

Unemployment benefit is a small fortune of free money if you have few
expenses and a pittance if you have a family to support.

I feel very sorry for anyone who genuinely thinks unemployment benefit a
fortune. Didn't realise there were so many poor posting here.

I'll try again - it depends on your circumstances. How is that so hard
to understand?

"Yellow" wrote in message
T...
On Fri, 17 Nov 2017 21:09:19 +0000 (GMT), Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
Yellow wrote:
Unemployment benefit is already far less than the OAP. Are you
suggesting that is super generous too?

Unemployment benefit is a small fortune of free money if you have few
expenses and a pittance if you have a family to support.

I feel very sorry for anyone who genuinely thinks unemployment benefit a
fortune. Didn't realise there were so many poor posting here.

I'll try again - it depends on your circumstances. How is that so hard
to understand?

LOL, rest assured that he understands it ok, but hey.
Any opportunity to make others feel inferior to what he thinks he
is.................

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

a very shortsighted Union ! still lots of them about
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/...row-continues/

In article om,
bm wrote:
That kinda happened with some union leaders, promote them (to their idea
of an important job) to keep'em quiet.

You mean something like a shop steward who is also an employee of the
company? Union leader usually means someone employed by the union.

Principles have a price.

Very principled management that try to bribe one employee to the detriment
of the others.

--
*Corduroy pillows are making headlines.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
tim... wrote:
Yes - when starting out in your career.

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

Very likely on benefits after their career ended - like in so many mining
towns, etc.

--
* I like you. You remind me of when I was young and stupid

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 17/11/2017 17:04, Fredxxx wrote:
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.

True, for certain sizes of bread.

But not standard sized loaves.

On 17/11/2017 20:52, JoeJoe wrote:
On 17/11/2017 17:06, JNugent 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?

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..

That is a David Cameron answer...

http://www.mysupermarket.co.uk/Shopp...l&so rt=Price

What, historically and mathematically correct, you mean?

On 17/11/2017 17:12, Yellow wrote:
On Fri, 17 Nov 2017 15:39:21 +0000, Mark
wrote:

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

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.

Define "generous". To me, if you can live on it long term without the
need to ever work then it is "generous".

Quite so.

Pensions should be generous.

Unemployment benefit ought not to be.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article om,
bm wrote:
That kinda happened with some union leaders, promote them (to their idea
of an important job) to keep'em quiet.

You mean something like a shop steward who is also an employee of the
company? Union leader usually means someone employed by the union.

Principles have a price.

Very principled management that try to bribe one employee to the detriment
of the others.

Absolutely, the management don't want **** from stirrers, neither would you
if you had one iota of management skills.
Quite often the stirrers find some brains from somewhere.
Like I said, principles have a price.
Careful you don't fall from that high-horse, Dave.
The NHS is already overloaded with folk (your underlings) who can't open a
tin of beans without spurting blood.
Just to qualify, ASDA baked beans have a ring-pull.

Not x-posted.