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.

£29,000 (gross equivalent)?

That's destitution, is it?

On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 00:30:31 +0000, JNugent
wrote:

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.

That's a good way of looking at.

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
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.

£29,000 (gross equivalent)?

That's destitution, is it?
LMFAO
Post of the month.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
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.

LMFAO.

"Harry Bloomfield" wrote in message
news
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.

Plenty of them don't, including the two I bought a house for because
they weren't physically in the town where the auction happened.

A struggle to survive,

Not a struggle for these two, they save at one hell of a rate.

until they get on a firm footing, is just not a part of their expected
deal.

It still is for plenty, including the ones I torrent movies for.

"Fredxxx" wrote in message
news
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.

How many loaves of bread would that have bought?

Thats a lousy measure of income even for low paid people.

Andrew Gabriel wrote
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'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.

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.

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.

Oh bull****. We got them productive much faster than
that and that was back in the late 60s and early 70s too.

And in my case with no formal training in computing at all.

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).

Must have been obscenely badly organised.

I imagine this is the same at whatever level you are recruiting
(grads or school leavers), although the payback period may vary.

Corse it does with school leavers. I discovered that my RSP CSR was
straight out of school and she did a very useful job with a technical
problem. The payback period for her employer was vastly less than
3-4 years. Which is just as well, it's a new startup in this country that
has chosen to have a local call center instead of one in the Philippines
etc.

The computing industry and type of graduates have changed since
then, and people who will take 4-5 years to payback won't get a job
offer in the first place now. OTOH, university training is more relevant
to the job now too, so those grads who enter the industry can become
more productive significantly faster than 30+ years ago. Summer
internships and sandwich courses are also really important for
computing grads to be someway up to speed when they look
for their first job, and things like visible opensource work -
that's a significant change from 30 years ago.

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"

This is always a difficult balance. The UK did a stunningly good
job of maintaining almost full employment through the last
recession - much better than any other country which was hit by it,

That is a bare faced lie with Australia alone. We didn't even get a
recession.

and all the parties involved (Labour, the coalition, and Conservatives)
are due
significant praise in achieving this which is, I think, a first during any
recession.

Nope.

This means the balance was about right for the economic climate.

There will always be people who can't do £7.50 worth of work in an
hour (and that applies wherever you set the limit), and a minimum
wage makes people below that level of productivity unemployable.

There will always be work they can do, like
staffing public dunnys or washing cars.

Whether there are enough jobs like that tho is another matter.

Living on the minimum wage will be a struggle whenever
it's set to avoid large amounts of unemployment,

It never is.

and being employed should always be better than
being unemployed or it generates wrong incentives.

Not even possible now. There will always be some who
don't smoke or drink or need anything other than a TV
to veg out in front of who will do fine on benefits and
who essentially volunteer to not bother to work.

The balance is in getting this right.

Not even possible. That's always been the problem with any welfare system.

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.

Same argument as why do people sell houses through estate agents.
Many companies simply don't have the time or skills or contacts to
find the candidates they need. There's also a legal reason for
engaging staff through an intermediary if you don't want them to
be classed as employees (and that might well go in the budget).

Until we solve these (completely self inflicted) problems,

Not even possible. We've been trying for millennia now.

things are not going to improve

They always do for other reasons.

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.

They don't need to while ever there is full employment.

There are some other things that need sorting
such as unpaid internships need banning,

Nope, it's a very good way of getting particularly small
business to take a chance with someone for a low cost
and see if that individual would be useful to employ.

but that will be hard on political
parties so it probably won't happen.

Certainly wont in any country with even half a clue.

"alan_m" wrote in message
...
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.

Not all of them tho. One mate of mine got a new car
while still in school. Not much of a car, Ford Anglia.

I got an ancient Fiat 500, the 4 cylinder one, from
my dad's sister. I replaced that with a Fiat 1100 some
time later while at uni and bought a new VW Beetle
when working for the uni as a demonstrator while
doing an MSc part time.

"pamela" wrote in message
...
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.

Makes a lot more sense to just sack them.

"tim..." wrote in message
news


"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,

No reason why it should.

but the guy given the job was expect to be up to speed in 2 days with no
support.

Didn't need any for that work.

"pamela" wrote in message
...
On 13:58 17 Nov 2017, Dan S. MacAbre wrote:

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.

Computer programming sounds like a breeze.

Not like real work and short hours. Great!

It is if you are any good at it.

Not great if you don’t have a clue about what you are doing tho.

"tim..." wrote in message
news


"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

I did. One room with the kitchen in the angle the bathroom
made in the 'room' that was the flat itself. Decent modern
building with 6 flats from memory. One carpark space per flat.

The job after that it was a rather bigger 2 bedroom flat again
in a decent modern block of 6 flats.

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 didn't, but I was working for the uni in a job
quite similar to Dave-the-sots with a degree.

Corse the standard of living here was much better than in Britain
at the time, which is why so many of you lot showed up here.

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.

"Yellow" wrote in message
T...
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.

Yeah, it was quite interesting to compare say someone who runs a
checkout at the supermarket and someone who chooses to have kids.
They end up with a similar real standard of living, the state minds the
kids for most of the day once they are of school age, you get to do
what you like with your time instead of your employer telling you when
to do what and you even get to enjoy the ****ing that produces the kids.

Hardly surprising that so many choose to go that route instead of working.

Some even like kids.

On Friday, 17 November 2017 19:26:37 UTC, tim... wrote:
"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.

My first house cost £400 in 1970.
I sold my last one for £400,000. (Downsized)
Should've bought a bigger/better house back in 1970!

In message ,
harry writes

My first house cost £400 in 1970.

Crikey. Where was that? My first house, 1975, was £10,250, Bristol. I
sold it for a modest profit two years later, and moved to Stoke Poges,
where I bought a maisonette for £12,500. Another two years later
(1979), I sold that for £25,000 which was a handsome profit. Moving to
Colchester, that bought me a three bed detached house.

I sold my last one for £400,000. (Downsized)

Downsizing is on our minds. Would certainly release some useful
capital.
--
Graeme

On Fri, 17 Nov 2017 17:12:08 -0000, 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".

What if you can't live off it or a job paying minimum wage?
--
If a man stands in a forest and no woman is around to hear him, is he still wrong?

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
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.

ITYF that group have mostly aged out of the system

tim

On 18/11/2017 02:02, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxxx" wrote in message
news
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?

Thats a lousy measure of income even for low paid people.

Well, we all have to eat.

Perhaps you would prefer a house price comparison? We all have to live
somewhe

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/m...-50-years.html

House prices have risen from an average of £9,767 in 1973 to £205,936
today according to figures from Nationwide.

Average salaries meanwhile have risen from £2,170 in 1973 to £28,200 in
2016, according to estimates from the Office for National Statistics.

This means that on average people needed 4.5 times their salary in the
late 1970s to buy a home while today, they need 7.3 times.

"Mark" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 17 Nov 2017 17:12:08 -0000, 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".

What if you can't live off it or a job paying minimum wage?

then (assuming an able bodied person) your expected life-style is
unrealistic

tim

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"Harry Bloomfield" wrote in message
news
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.

Plenty of them don't, including the two I bought a house for because
they weren't physically in the town where the auction happened.

A struggle to survive,

Not a struggle for these two, they save at one hell of a rate.


they're in a very small minority

for the majority of "millennials", I think we are supposed to call them,
their idea of savings is having enough money left at the end of the week to
treat themselves to an extra Starbucks coffee on Monday (Yes I know that
they probably don't budget weekly)

tim

In message , Fredxxx
writes

Average salaries meanwhile have risen from £2,170 in 1973 to £28,200 in
2016, according to estimates from the Office for National Statistics.

This means that on average people needed 4.5 times their salary in the
late 1970s to buy a home while today, they need 7.3 times.

Interesting statistics, and fairly depressing, too, for youngsters
today. Back then, the usual maximum mortgage was 2.5 times main salary,
plus once second salary. Then again, very few people would have been
able to borrow more than eighty % of valuation.

--
Graeme

In message , Mark
writes



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

Is there any chance that you can add a space after the -- , so that your
admittedly witty joke doesn't appear to be part of the actual text?
--
Ian

In article ,
JNugent wrote:
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"?

Some or all of those benefits are available to those in work too.

You really do need to compare like for like.

And you mention children. Would you rather they starved, if the parents
aren't working? Or put them in care until the parents can afford to
support them?

Go for the basics. The basic OAP for a single person (assuming full
contribution years) is £119 The basic uneployment benefit if under 25 is
£57. Both can be supplemented by means tested benefits if eligible.

Now either one is super generous or one is parsimonious.

--
*Am I ambivalent? Well, yes and no.

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

In article ,
tim... wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
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.

ITYF that group have mostly aged out of the system

Only if those towns have a new industry to replace mining. Which many
haven't.

--
*If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? *

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

On 18/11/2017 11:00, Graeme wrote:
In message , Fredxxx writes

Average salaries meanwhile have risen from £2,170 in 1973 to £28,200
in 2016, according to estimates from the Office for National Statistics.

This means that on average people needed 4.5 times their salary in the
late 1970s to buy a home while today, they need 7.3 times.

Interesting statistics, and fairly depressing, too, for youngsters
today.Â* Back then, the usual maximum mortgage was 2.5 times main salary,
plus once second salary.Â* Then again, very few people would have been
able to borrow more than eighty % of valuation.

There are some here who are in denial of the consequence of the double
whammy where immigration has increased demand and the price of housing
and at the same time an influx of workers has depressed wages.

It's probably the best indicator of why we're leaving the EU.

On 17/11/2017 14:49, Dan S. MacAbre wrote:

tim... 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.

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

Interesting - I didn't know that.

And you never know, you might just catch a glimpse of a BBC programme on
catch-up, even without a licence, when that mate of yours (you know, the
one who HAS a licence but doesn't want his details bandied about)
watches a BBC programme on catch-up round at your place (as he is
legally entitled to do).

You allow your non-connected friends to use your computer, don't you?

On Saturday, 18 November 2017 04:09:56 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
There will always be work they can do, like
staffing public dunnys or washing cars.

Public dunnys? They've mostly been closed, and where they're still open will be run by councils, who usually pay above minimum wage.

Even at minimum wage it costs the *employer* much more than that after insurances and pensions are taken into account.

Owain

On 18/11/2017 11:25, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
tim... wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
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.

ITYF that group have mostly aged out of the system

Only if those towns have a new industry to replace mining. Which many
haven't.

Towns, or villages?

There aren't all that many proper towns where the only industry was coal
mining.

But whether a town or a village, nothing prevents inhabitants from
commuting. Most of the Welsh mining settlements are within easy
commuting distance of the South Wales cities, for instance.

Merthyr to Cardiff is around less than 25 miles, for instance, and no
more than an hour by road. That is a shorter commute than the classic
Tunbridge Wells / Guildford / Woking / Slough - to London journeys (and
probably a lot cheaper).

On 18/11/2017 09:47, Mark wrote:
On Fri, 17 Nov 2017 17:12:08 -0000, 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".

What if you can't live off it or a job paying minimum wage?

Does that mean living at a higher living standard than our parents were
able to expect (still on money just handed out to you)? It isn't
credible that people cannot live on it. Maybe they cannot live the life
they would choose on it, but that's the answer to a different question.

It's important to have some perspective on this. Looking back at recent
economic and social history, there was a time, within easy living
memory, when a phone (of any sort), washing machines, refrigerators,
carpets, frequent home-redecoration, meals out, an alcohol-based "social
life" and (especially) a motor vehicle were way outside the expectations
of the majority. And that was people who were on earnings greater than
social security benefits.

On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 11:23:56 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
JNugent wrote:
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"?

Some or all of those benefits are available to those in work too.

You really do need to compare like for like.

And you mention children. Would you rather they starved, if the parents
aren't working? Or put them in care until the parents can afford to
support them?

Go for the basics. The basic OAP for a single person (assuming full
contribution years) is £119 The basic uneployment benefit if under 25 is
£57. Both can be supplemented by means tested benefits if eligible.

Now either one is super generous or one is parsimonious.

IMHO neither are generous.

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

On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 10:32:56 -0000, "tim..."
wrote:



"Mark" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 17 Nov 2017 17:12:08 -0000, 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".

What if you can't live off it or a job paying minimum wage?

then (assuming an able bodied person) your expected life-style is
unrealistic

Ah - you mean the unrealistic lifestyle of eating food and having
somewhere to live.

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

On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 11:05:40 +0000, Ian Jackson
wrote:

In message , Mark
writes



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

Is there any chance that you can add a space after the -- , so that your
admittedly witty joke doesn't appear to be part of the actual text?

Thanks for pointing that out. I had assumed my newsreader would get
it right!

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

On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 11:53:55 +0000, JNugent
wrote:

On 18/11/2017 09:47, Mark wrote:
On Fri, 17 Nov 2017 17:12:08 -0000, 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".

What if you can't live off it or a job paying minimum wage?

Does that mean living at a higher living standard than our parents were
able to expect (still on money just handed out to you)?

It may mean living on what is considered a minimum standard for
nowadays. For example, in the past, many people lived in houses with
no heating. I did. Would you expect people to do this nowadays?

It isn't
credible that people cannot live on it.

The benefits available don't sound too generous to me.
Although I cannot speak from experience, since I have never received
benefits, although I have been poor.

It's important to have some perspective on this. Looking back at recent
economic and social history, there was a time, within easy living
memory, when a phone (of any sort), washing machines, refrigerators,
carpets, frequent home-redecoration, meals out, an alcohol-based "social
life" and (especially) a motor vehicle were way outside the expectations
of the majority. And that was people who were on earnings greater than
social security benefits.

Things have changed. Nowadays you need a phone, washing machine,
fridge, and a motor vehicle. And, if you don't know why, I can
explain it to you.

Also, bear in mind that many things are much more expensive than they
were, like accomodation, food etc.

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

On 18/11/2017 10:32, Fredxxx wrote:

On 18/11/2017 02:02, Rod Speed wrote:
"Fredxxx" wrote:

[ ... ]

How many loaves of bread would that have bought?

Thats a lousy measure of income even for low paid people.

Well, we all have to eat.
Perhaps you would prefer a house price comparison? We all have to live
somewhe

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/m...-50-years.html

House prices have risen from an average of £9,767 in 1973 to £205,936
today according to figures from Nationwide.

Average salaries meanwhile have risen from £2,170 in 1973 to £28,200 in
2016, according to estimates from the Office for National Statistics.

This means that on average people needed 4.5 times their salary in the
late 1970s to buy a home while today, they need 7.3 times.

I wonder how much of that is due to the explosion of housing for sale in
London and the South East? A disproportionate increase here drags up the
national average without the effect being as big for individuals.

I bought a modern 3-bed house (four years old) in Q3 1977 for £7,000.
This was in the S Lancs plain. Today, the same house might be worth
£65,000 (but only if a subsequent owner has installed a better kitchen
plus central heating). The house is completely acceptable as a
residence, with a large corner plot and parking for several cars.

£65,000 is still only about 2.5 times the average salary for the
sub-region (according to various online sources which estimate local
earnings at between £25,000 and £26,000). Without those improvements,
you'd expect a price lower by about £10,000 and a 2.2 ratio to average
local earnings.

On 18/11/2017 11:23, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
JNugent wrote:
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"?

Some or all of those benefits are available to those in work too.

So what?

You really do need to compare like for like.

No, you don't. You simply have to decide whether £23,000 (equivalent to
over £29,000 gross) is a "pittance" or not.

And you mention children. Would you rather they starved, if the parents
aren't working? Or put them in care until the parents can afford to
support them?

No. I would just like people not to describe incomes equivalent to
£29,000 (higher than the average salary) as a "pittance".

It isn't one, yet it is an easy to reach figure in London and the SE.

Go for the basics. The basic OAP for a single person (assuming full
contribution years) is £119 The basic uneployment benefit if under 25 is
£57. Both can be supplemented by means tested benefits if eligible.

Indeed. I have said many times that single people get a raw deal from
means tested benefits compared to those with children.

Now either one is super generous or one is parsimonious.

What was that about like for like?

On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 12:22:17 +0000, JNugent
wrote:

On 18/11/2017 10:32, Fredxxx wrote:

On 18/11/2017 02:02, Rod Speed wrote:
"Fredxxx" wrote:

[ ... ]

How many loaves of bread would that have bought?

Thats a lousy measure of income even for low paid people.

Well, we all have to eat.
Perhaps you would prefer a house price comparison? We all have to live
somewhe

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/m...-50-years.html

House prices have risen from an average of £9,767 in 1973 to £205,936
today according to figures from Nationwide.

Average salaries meanwhile have risen from £2,170 in 1973 to £28,200 in
2016, according to estimates from the Office for National Statistics.

This means that on average people needed 4.5 times their salary in the
late 1970s to buy a home while today, they need 7.3 times.

I wonder how much of that is due to the explosion of housing for sale in
London and the South East? A disproportionate increase here drags up the
national average without the effect being as big for individuals.

Huh? Housing prices have risen excessively in most/all areas, not
just London and the SE. Take for example my area. The average house
price is £329,075 and the average income is about £25K, which makes it
about 13x salary. And this is nowhere near London or the SE.

I bought a modern 3-bed house (four years old) in Q3 1977 for £7,000.
This was in the S Lancs plain. Today, the same house might be worth
£65,000 (but only if a subsequent owner has installed a better kitchen
plus central heating). The house is completely acceptable as a
residence, with a large corner plot and parking for several cars.

I am very surprised that such a house could be bought for this kind of
amount, anywhere, unless it had very serious problems like subsidence.

£65,000 is still only about 2.5 times the average salary for the
sub-region (according to various online sources which estimate local
earnings at between £25,000 and £26,000). Without those improvements,
you'd expect a price lower by about £10,000 and a 2.2 ratio to average
local earnings.

Around here you couldn't get a shed for £65K and average earnings are
around the same.

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

On 18/11/2017 11:58, Mark wrote:
On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 11:23:56 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
JNugent wrote:
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"?

Some or all of those benefits are available to those in work too.

You really do need to compare like for like.

And you mention children. Would you rather they starved, if the parents
aren't working? Or put them in care until the parents can afford to
support them?

Go for the basics. The basic OAP for a single person (assuming full
contribution years) is £119 The basic uneployment benefit if under 25 is
£57. Both can be supplemented by means tested benefits if eligible.

Now either one is super generous or one is parsimonious.

IMHO neither are generous.

I don't recognise £119. My RP is £127 a week, plus odd change. I was a
bit too old to qualify for the new (higher) rate which is being introduced.

But I am not expected to live on £127 a week long-term (even with a
paid-off mortgage). If £127 were my only income and if I were single,
I'd be entitled to Pension Credit, which would bring my weekly income up
to £155.60 a week. And probably the whole of my Council Tax discounted
(worth another £30+ a week).

None of this applies to me because my circumstances are not the same as
the example given above.

The difference between a pensioner and an unemployed worker is that the
pensioner's position can confidently be expected to last for the rest of
their life (winning the Lottery excepted). It is as good as it is ever
going to get (save for that Lottery).

Unemployed workers are in a different position: they can improve their
economic position by getting a job, or working harder, or getting a
better job. Their current position is not "as good as it gets".

On 18/11/2017 12:33, Mark wrote:

JNugent wrote:
On 18/11/2017 10:32, Fredxxx wrote:
On 18/11/2017 02:02, Rod Speed wrote:
"Fredxxx" wrote:

[ ... ]

How many loaves of bread would that have bought?

Thats a lousy measure of income even for low paid people.

Well, we all have to eat.
Perhaps you would prefer a house price comparison? We all have to live
somewhe

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/m...-50-years.html
House prices have risen from an average of £9,767 in 1973 to £205,936
today according to figures from Nationwide.
Average salaries meanwhile have risen from £2,170 in 1973 to £28,200 in
2016, according to estimates from the Office for National Statistics.
This means that on average people needed 4.5 times their salary in the
late 1970s to buy a home while today, they need 7.3 times.

I wonder how much of that is due to the explosion of housing for sale in
London and the South East? A disproportionate increase here drags up the
national average without the effect being as big for individuals.

Huh? Housing prices have risen excessively in most/all areas, not
just London and the SE. Take for example my area. The average house
price is £329,075 and the average income is about £25K, which makes it
about 13x salary. And this is nowhere near London or the SE.

Your area is not the whole of England.

I bought a modern 3-bed house (four years old) in Q3 1977 for £7,000.
This was in the S Lancs plain. Today, the same house might be worth
£65,000 (but only if a subsequent owner has installed a better kitchen
plus central heating). The house is completely acceptable as a
residence, with a large corner plot and parking for several cars.

I am very surprised that such a house could be bought for this kind of
amount, anywhere, unless it had very serious problems like subsidence.

What does that mean? That you don't believe it? It's true whether
convenient or not.

Do a Rightmove or Zoople search on towns in the South Lancashire Plain
(Wigan, St Helens, Widnes, etc. and especially Skelmersdale), with an
80K maximum. A traditional 3-bed semi with land on three sides can be
bought for £75,000 or so.

Not so much in the more desirable places like Haydock, Ormskirk or
Upholland, but they're still cheaper then you might think.

£65,000 is still only about 2.5 times the average salary for the
sub-region (according to various online sources which estimate local
earnings at between £25,000 and £26,000). Without those improvements,
you'd expect a price lower by about £10,000 and a 2.2 ratio to average
local earnings.

Around here you couldn't get a shed for £65K and average earnings are
around the same.

And the moral of this story is...

....go north, young man. And get on the ladder.

On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 12:48:54 +0000, JNugent
wrote:

On 18/11/2017 12:33, Mark wrote:

JNugent wrote:
On 18/11/2017 10:32, Fredxxx wrote:
On 18/11/2017 02:02, Rod Speed wrote:
"Fredxxx" wrote:

[ ... ]

How many loaves of bread would that have bought?

Thats a lousy measure of income even for low paid people.

Well, we all have to eat.
Perhaps you would prefer a house price comparison? We all have to live
somewhe

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/m...-50-years.html
House prices have risen from an average of £9,767 in 1973 to £205,936
today according to figures from Nationwide.
Average salaries meanwhile have risen from £2,170 in 1973 to £28,200 in
2016, according to estimates from the Office for National Statistics.
This means that on average people needed 4.5 times their salary in the
late 1970s to buy a home while today, they need 7.3 times.

I wonder how much of that is due to the explosion of housing for sale in
London and the South East? A disproportionate increase here drags up the
national average without the effect being as big for individuals.

Huh? Housing prices have risen excessively in most/all areas, not
just London and the SE. Take for example my area. The average house
price is £329,075 and the average income is about £25K, which makes it
about 13x salary. And this is nowhere near London or the SE.

Your area is not the whole of England.

True. But it is an area in England. There are many comparable
places.

I bought a modern 3-bed house (four years old) in Q3 1977 for £7,000.
This was in the S Lancs plain. Today, the same house might be worth
£65,000 (but only if a subsequent owner has installed a better kitchen
plus central heating). The house is completely acceptable as a
residence, with a large corner plot and parking for several cars.

I am very surprised that such a house could be bought for this kind of
amount, anywhere, unless it had very serious problems like subsidence.

What does that mean? That you don't believe it? It's true whether
convenient or not.

It means I am suprised.

Do a Rightmove or Zoople search on towns in the South Lancashire Plain
(Wigan, St Helens, Widnes, etc. and especially Skelmersdale), with an
80K maximum. A traditional 3-bed semi with land on three sides can be
bought for £75,000 or so.

Just done a search - average prices in Lancashire is £163K, average
for a semi £156K.

Not so much in the more desirable places like Haydock, Ormskirk or
Upholland, but they're still cheaper then you might think.

Not as cheap as you might think?

£65,000 is still only about 2.5 times the average salary for the
sub-region (according to various online sources which estimate local
earnings at between £25,000 and £26,000). Without those improvements,
you'd expect a price lower by about £10,000 and a 2.2 ratio to average
local earnings.

Around here you couldn't get a shed for £65K and average earnings are
around the same.

And the moral of this story is...

...go north, young man. And get on the ladder.

Not everyone has the choice to move to Lancashire.

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

Yellow posted

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?

Because the vast majority of these jobs do not offer 40 hours a week.
Far more likely to be 16 or 20.

--
Jack