|
Post by Moose on Jul 9, 2015 16:54:32 GMT
So, the Tories have upped the minimum wage to nine quid an hour. On the surface this is a Good Thing but I have two major issues with it.
One: it will not take effect until 2020, which is quite a long time away and conveniently, as he's not going to stand again, will mean that Cameron has gone before it is absolutely implemented. Is there anything to actually stop his successor from changing his mind about it?
Two: it does not apply to under 25s. Why not, exactly? I suppose I can understand it not applying to under 18s or maybe even under 21s, but why should a 24 year old not have the right to earn as much as someone one year older? I worry that all this will mean is that younger people will be employed until they are 24 and then given the boot.
Also in the budget it has been decreed that noone under 21 will be eligible for any jobless benefits at all. Again, this seems very harsh to me. In areas like this there are very very high rates of youth unemployment and it is simply not, as the Daily Mail might have it, that young people just don't want to work ... perhaps some don't but I know that an awful lot in places like this just can't find full time work and as for apprentiships - well, that is a laugh. What are these people meant to do if they do not have a stable family environment and there is just genuinely nothing whatsoever out there for them?
|
|
|
Post by JoeP on Jul 9, 2015 17:08:45 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Jul 9, 2015 17:36:11 GMT
I suspect that the Tories know full well that they are not gonna get many votes in this demographic anyway so just think 'fuck it'
|
|
|
Post by Mari on Jul 9, 2015 18:02:36 GMT
I've been following news about the political proposals of this new cabinet and none of them managed to impress me. Except maybe for in a horribly negative way. They seem to have no regard for vulnerable people at all.
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Jul 9, 2015 20:24:18 GMT
That's the key, the Conservative Party have no regard for vulnerable people but since vulnerable people don't vote for the Tories and because the Daily Mail thinks they're scum, it hardly matters.
The national minimum wage rises by 3% immediately (or in October, I'm not quite sure which) and by 6% a year until 2020. That is to be welcomed apart from the fact that it doesn't apply to under 25s.
|
|
|
Post by kingedmund on Jul 10, 2015 3:45:29 GMT
How bizarre.
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Jul 10, 2015 17:35:52 GMT
The over 25s thing only is gonna cause a lot of problems I think. They need to add a clause making it illegal to fire people when they turn 25
|
|
|
Post by ProdigalAlan on Jul 11, 2015 7:54:44 GMT
As to the first point. It isn't Cameron who has introduced this it's Osbourne and as he will be hoping to succeed Cameron at the next election I can't see that what you are saying holds water.
As for the under/over 25 thing, was this not a concept that was introduced by Brown when he introduced the minimum wage when he was Chancellor ?
There is a land that was prepared to give massive benefits to all and sundry - no questions asked. It's called Greece. Anyone wanna live there?
For better or for worse this government got a majority at a recent election and they are doing what they said they would.
OK it's a bit of a blow that you can no longer sit at home on benefits and have as many children as you want and get the tax payer to stump up for your kids, that's a real shame
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Jul 11, 2015 11:19:29 GMT
OK it's a bit of a blow that you can no longer sit at home on benefits and have as many children as you want and get the tax payer to stump up for your kids, that's a real shame. This is Daily-Mail-speak. They find someone who sits at home on benefits and has lots of children and then whip up anti-benefits sentiment. The Daily Mail loves to write sensational headlines about such people to justify Tory policy. These Daily Mail memes do a huge amount of damage because they convince the general public that the only problem are benefits scroungers. They hide the fact that there is a huge problem with under 25-year-olds. According to Centrepoint, one in five young people have been homeless during the past 12 months. Meet the invisible group "Research by youth homelessness charity Centrepoint found that one in five 18-25-year-olds have been forced to sleep rough at least once in the last year, and one in five have been forced to sofa-surf - the key reason being family breakdown." (link) A few years ago, we gave a home to a young 18-year-old who ran away from a sexually abusive uncle and a physically abusive dad. She had nowhere to go so we took her in. But the government's response to her is to f*** off and get a job. She isn't entitled to welfare, she must go back to her abusive father or starve on the streets. She isn't a special case because proving she had been raped in court would have been impossible. "Get a job," says the government. But the under 24s are almost three times more likely to be unemployed than the general population and without a home, they have no chance of a job." ( link) I say that a government that throws people out on to the streets because they don't want to be raped at home has no moral right to govern our country.
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Jul 11, 2015 12:53:09 GMT
benefit scroungers like me Alan? I've already been called that ONCE this week so I suppose twice won't hurt.
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Jul 11, 2015 15:58:59 GMT
I was a benefit scrounger when we first had children. The government thought it was a good idea to give us child benefit and we were very grateful because it was tough on my wage.
|
|
|
Post by ProdigalAlan on Jul 11, 2015 16:22:07 GMT
Kids used to pick on my boys at school because their father was daft enough to go to work.
I grew up and lived on estates where having more children was a way of life. These people weren't from the Mail - they were my neighbours
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Jul 11, 2015 16:22:45 GMT
But not everyone on benefits is like that.
|
|
|
Post by ProdigalAlan on Jul 13, 2015 8:46:08 GMT
Of course they are not.
Nor can it be said that Mick Philpott and similar cases do not exist
|
|
|
Post by juju on Jul 13, 2015 9:48:35 GMT
Of course the Daily Mail find the most extreme cases for their headlines, to whip up outrage. Here's a different view though: www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/nick-hewer-margaret-mountford-investigate-2043331I cannot understand taking away housing benefits for under 25s though. Where are they supposed to live? With their parents? That's not practical or possible for lots of young people. For example, if my son became unemployed tomorrow, would he be forced to move from London to live with us in rural Wales where there's no jobs? It would be crazy and completely counter productive.
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Jul 13, 2015 15:27:27 GMT
Apparently yes.
What about 24 year olds with families of their own .. what do THEY do if they suddenly lose their jobs? Or are they exempt from this? It still seems impossible though. At 24 I was living with my then partner. We both had work and happily lived in an area with very high employment. But what if we'd found ourselves without work? Would the two of us have been expected to go and live with one of our parents? Or separate and live with our respective parents? What if they couldn't take us in ...or wouldn't? It's like an axe hanging over the head of everyone under 25 year old in work.. if they lose their jobs then they are not only unemployed, they will very quickly become homeless.
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Jul 13, 2015 16:44:21 GMT
I would expect a family with children to be exempt but it wouldn't surprise me if they were expected to live off their savings.
I spent this afternoon at a Job Club run by volunteers at my local church (as a technical assistant) in connection with the Stockport Job Centre. Apparently, Marple has 400 unemployed people and they are expected to use an online database to search for jobs. Most people do this at home, some travel into Stockport but the Job Club provides resources and assistance to those people who do not have a computer, cannot use one or do not know how to write a CV and apply for a job. The same five people come when the Job Club is open and they usually spend a couple of hours each time on laptops. But I was surprised to find out how low the success rate is. A group of this size (seven laptops with four volunteers meeting once a fortnight) is successful if it finds jobs for three people each year. I'm told there just aren't enough jobs in the area. So what chance do long-term unemployed young people have?
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Jul 13, 2015 17:57:52 GMT
Just to go off on a tangent, I am quite pissed off at Russell Brand too. I do not know how many people actually listened to his 'don't bother to vote it's all bollocks' crap and I'd like to hope that not many did. Undoubtedly, though, SOME people did. I wonder, is he going to provide a roof for unemployed young people who now have nowhere to go?
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Jul 13, 2015 22:15:49 GMT
He's more likely to have had an adverse reaction. People voted because he told them not to.
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Jul 13, 2015 23:29:58 GMT
The demographic that would have voted because Brand told them not to is not the one that is going to suffer now.
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Jul 14, 2015 20:55:07 GMT
Okay can someone give me reliable clarification cos I've just spent 15 mins searching and simply can't find the info - is it under 21s who will not get housing benefit or under 25s?
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Jul 14, 2015 20:56:39 GMT
21s from what I can see .. got my wires crossed
|
|
Kate
Junior lady
Posts: 381
|
Post by Kate on Jul 15, 2015 6:29:29 GMT
For my two jobs I get paid minimum wage for one and London living wage for the other although I have to travel to get to them which costs a bit
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Jul 15, 2015 14:56:48 GMT
what is it you do?
|
|
|
Post by juju on Jul 15, 2015 20:04:40 GMT
|
|
|
Post by JoeP on Jul 15, 2015 21:00:05 GMT
Part of me wishes he had stayed on in the job, instead of resigning in the first week, and disciplined and fired for not meeting that target.
|
|
Kate
Junior lady
Posts: 381
|
Post by Kate on Jul 16, 2015 7:09:44 GMT
what is it you do? The London living wage one I'm a waitress in central London. The other one I'm a barista/server/washer upper/cleaner in a cafe closer to where I live
|
|
|
Post by raspberrybullets on Jul 21, 2015 9:30:08 GMT
All I can say is your government is as shit as ours. Although, possibly not quite as shit. I think ours wanted to actually lower the minimum wage. You cannot even believe the shit our government is pulling right now. You don't even have to make a joke of it, you just say literally what they do and say and it's frigin unbelieveable!
|
|
|
Post by robert on Jul 30, 2015 0:30:07 GMT
I don't know enough about the economic structure of the UK to suggest whether this is a good thing or not. I know here in the states there has been a debate over raising our minimum wage. I am all for it here.
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Jul 30, 2015 19:30:45 GMT
The minimum wage in the UK is £6.50 ($10 per hour) and is soon to rise to £7.20 ($11 per hour) for the over 25s. But workers also have statutory paid holidays, which effectively pushes up the minimum wage by about 10% when calculated over the year. So from September, workers in the UK over 25 years of age will have an effective minimum wage of about $12 per hour compared with America's $7.25.
|
|