Joined: Feb 27 2002 Posts: 18067 Location: On the road
WIZEB wrote:Have you been doing your bit at the local food-bank and homeless shelters this Christmas? It may help to alleviate your concerns for the disproportionate times we are living in.
You been doing your share of volunteering then?
We even had homeless under Labour - what causes homelessness has very little to do with the economy
As for food banks given we have low unemployment and the highest minimum wage ever it seems strange the increase in the use of food banks? Universal credit yes but the number of people affected is tiny. It would be interesting to see how many of those accessing food banks have money for smoking/drinking and drugs? How many see the opportunity to get free food - yes its not palatable to suggest all is not as we would like it to be but that is the human condition. Look at the riots from a few years back - what happened, mass looting of shops - so much for social revolution.
Your job is to say to yourself on a job interview does the hiring manager likes me or not. If you aren't a particular manager's cup of tea, you haven't failed -- you've dodged a bullet.
Joined: Nov 23 2009 Posts: 12791 Location: The Hamptons of East Yorkshire
Sal Paradise wrote:You been doing your share of volunteering then?
We even had homeless under Labour - what causes homelessness has very little to do with the economy
As for food banks given we have low unemployment and the highest minimum wage ever it seems strange the increase in the use of food banks? Universal credit yes but the number of people affected is tiny. It would be interesting to see how many of those accessing food banks have money for smoking/drinking and drugs? How many see the opportunity to get free food - yes its not palatable to suggest all is not as we would like it to be but that is the human condition. Look at the riots from a few years back - what happened, mass looting of shops - so much for social revolution.
Is that the same minimum wage that the blues opposed for years saying it would decimate business?
Sal Paradise wrote: As for food banks given we have low unemployment and the highest minimum wage ever it seems strange the increase in the use of food banks? Universal credit yes but the number of people affected is tiny. It would be interesting to see how many of those accessing food banks have money for smoking/drinking and drugs? How many see the opportunity to get free food - yes its not palatable to suggest all is not as we would like it to be but that is the human condition. Look at the riots from a few years back - what happened, mass looting of shops - so much for social revolution.
Sal Paradise wrote:You been doing your share of volunteering then?
We even had homeless under Labour - what causes homelessness has very little to do with the economy
As for food banks given we have low unemployment and the highest minimum wage ever it seems strange the increase in the use of food banks? Universal credit yes but the number of people affected is tiny. It would be interesting to see how many of those accessing food banks have money for smoking/drinking and drugs? How many see the opportunity to get free food - yes its not palatable to suggest all is not as we would like it to be but that is the human condition. Look at the riots from a few years back - what happened, mass looting of shops - so much for social revolution.
Under Labour the number of people sleeping rough on the streets fell from around 2000 to around 500. Under the conservatives that figure has increased ten fold to around 5000.
The number of people homeless, without a place to call home is at a record high of 320,000.
The number of people living in poverty in the UK is also at a record high of 14 million, 4.5 million of these are children.
Yes the minimum wage may have risen, but cuts to in work benefits have more than offset this leaving people worse off.
The number of people smoking is at a record low and the amount people drink has been falling, they are certainly not the reason for the increase in homeless people or people living in poverty in this country.
The biggest cost people face is rent, rents have risen faster than wages for a long period of time. The conservatives sold off masses of council houses and stopped local authorities building new social housing, as a result we don’t have enough to home even the most vulnerable in society, never mind your average zero hour contract minimum wage joe.
Joined: Jun 01 2007 Posts: 12672 Location: Leicestershire.
Sal Paradise wrote:In a capitalist system anyone can rise to the top its about ability and the apetite for risk e.g. Bill Gates, James Dyson, Larry Ellison, Jeff Bezos etc. - none of these ultra rich individuals came from high society they achieved what they have through hard work, innovation and risk. These individuals would have never prospered and neither would society under a Socialist styled regime. A class war is a myth - anyone with the nerve and an idea can prosper - the toffs have to put their money somewhere to generate a return to run their country pile.
One thing is certain if Corbyn gets in personal taxes will rise - the idea that the wealthy who already contribute significant % of all income tax will contribute more will not happen and increases in corporation tax will see more avoidance. So the man in the street will see his/her net income diminish - the money has to come from somewhere to funds all these industries they are going to re-nationalise.
You will see a pandering to the unions - they own the Labour party and they will be expecting payback - you think your trains are bad now you haven't seen anything yet.
Its a simple choice - do you want the state to make more choices for you i.e. where you buy your gas/electricity or do you want the ability to decide for yourself? Anyone who thinks utility costs will come down when/if they are re-nationalised is delusional.
If Labour had a leader like Umanna they would walk the election the only reason they will not trounce the Tories is Corbyn.
Back to the original point will a Labour government re-distribute the national income in a fairer way - not a chance in my view because all monies they generate will be wasted on pampering to pet Socialistic ideals like state-ownership and all the negative externalities that brings.
So, I disagree. You’re using exceptional cases, either implying that they’re representative or ignoring their lack of relevance to the vast majority of most people, and conflating wealth distribution with spending priorities. Those are some raggedy booty arguments.
The use of ‘negative externalities’ is intriguing though. What do you mean by that in this context? Here’s the link I used to check you were just chucking jargon about, if you’d like to retcobble something together.
Sal Paradise wrote:You been doing your share of volunteering then?
We even had homeless under Labour - what causes homelessness has very little to do with the economy
As for food banks given we have low unemployment and the highest minimum wage ever it seems strange the increase in the use of food banks? Universal credit yes but the number of people affected is tiny. It would be interesting to see how many of those accessing food banks have money for smoking/drinking and drugs? How many see the opportunity to get free food - yes its not palatable to suggest all is not as we would like it to be but that is the human condition. Look at the riots from a few years back - what happened, mass looting of shops - so much for social revolution.
Seriously? You’re going to JAQ off on ‘aren’t the poor really to blame for their poverty, because they’re feckless?’
If you have such a Panglossian view of the current system, then surely the only answer you can have to ‘what is to be done?’, is ‘everybody just needs to get over it, and accept that they’re where they are because that’s what they deserve, and them staying there is for the best.’
Sal Paradise wrote:In a capitalist system anyone can rise to the top its about ability and the apetite for risk e.g. Bill Gates, James Dyson, Larry Ellison, Jeff Bezos etc. - none of these ultra rich individuals came from high society they achieved what they have through hard work, innovation and risk. These individuals would have never prospered and neither would society under a Socialist styled regime. A class war is a myth - anyone with the nerve and an idea can prosper - the toffs have to put their money somewhere to generate a return to run their country pile.
One thing is certain if Corbyn gets in personal taxes will rise - the idea that the wealthy who already contribute significant % of all income tax will contribute more will not happen and increases in corporation tax will see more avoidance. So the man in the street will see his/her net income diminish - the money has to come from somewhere to funds all these industries they are going to re-nationalise.
You will see a pandering to the unions - they own the Labour party and they will be expecting payback - you think your trains are bad now you haven't seen anything yet.
Its a simple choice - do you want the state to make more choices for you i.e. where you buy your gas/electricity or do you want the ability to decide for yourself? Anyone who thinks utility costs will come down when/if they are re-nationalised is delusional.
If Labour had a leader like Umanna they would walk the election the only reason they will not trounce the Tories is Corbyn.
Back to the original point will a Labour government re-distribute the national income in a fairer way - not a chance in my view because all monies they generate will be wasted on pampering to pet Socialistic ideals like state-ownership and all the negative externalities that brings.
So, I disagree. You’re using exceptional cases, either implying that they’re representative or ignoring their lack of relevance to the vast majority of most people, and conflating wealth distribution with spending priorities. Those are some raggedy booty arguments.
The use of ‘negative externalities’ is intriguing though. What do you mean by that in this context? Here’s the link I used to check you were just chucking jargon about, if you’d like to retcobble something together.
Sal Paradise wrote:You been doing your share of volunteering then?
We even had homeless under Labour - what causes homelessness has very little to do with the economy
As for food banks given we have low unemployment and the highest minimum wage ever it seems strange the increase in the use of food banks? Universal credit yes but the number of people affected is tiny. It would be interesting to see how many of those accessing food banks have money for smoking/drinking and drugs? How many see the opportunity to get free food - yes its not palatable to suggest all is not as we would like it to be but that is the human condition. Look at the riots from a few years back - what happened, mass looting of shops - so much for social revolution.
Seriously? You’re going to JAQ off on ‘aren’t the poor really to blame for their poverty, because they’re feckless?’
If you have such a Panglossian view of the current system, then surely the only answer you can have to ‘what is to be done?’, is ‘everybody just needs to get over it, and accept that they’re where they are because that’s what they deserve, and them staying there is for the best.’
'Thus I am tormented by my curiosity and humbled by my ignorance.' from History of an Old Bramin, The New York Mirror (A Weekly Journal Devoted to Literature and the Fine Arts), February 16th 1833.
Sal Paradise wrote:You been doing your share of volunteering then?
We even had homeless under Labour - what causes homelessness has very little to do with the economy
As for food banks given we have low unemployment and the highest minimum wage ever it seems strange the increase in the use of food banks? Universal credit yes but the number of people affected is tiny. It would be interesting to see how many of those accessing food banks have money for smoking/drinking and drugs? How many see the opportunity to get free food - yes its not palatable to suggest all is not as we would like it to be but that is the human condition. Look at the riots from a few years back - what happened, mass looting of shops - so much for social revolution.
So, 39% of people are having to wait 6 weeks for a payment under Universal Credit and you think the numbers are tiny ?? Six weeks with ZERO income and you cant comprehend that the numbers needing foodbanks has risen so significantly, wow. You also put the "mailesque" slur in your previous post claiming that the people on UC would still be "smoking gambling and drinking", again, WOW
Just imagine if you had no savings, no income for 6 weeks and nobody that could lend you some cash to tide you over.
Any sensible person would be pointing the finger at those who implemented a system where those people with nothing, had to try and survive for six weeks on fresh air. Just be pleased that this isn't you
Joined: Mar 22 2009 Posts: 1200 Location: South Wales
I thought people could apply for an advance of up to 100% of their entitlement, paid back over 12 months. And yes it has to be paid back as they'll get the same payment at the end of the 6 week wait otherwise the problem would just have been shifted on 6 weeks. What's your suggestion as to how it could be done better, easier, fairer?
Joined: Feb 27 2002 Posts: 18067 Location: On the road
wrencat1873 wrote:So, 39% of people are having to wait 6 weeks for a payment under Universal Credit and you think the numbers are tiny ?? Six weeks with ZERO income and you cant comprehend that the numbers needing foodbanks has risen so significantly, wow. You also put the "mailesque" slur in your previous post claiming that the people on UC would still be "smoking gambling and drinking", again, WOW
Just imagine if you had no savings, no income for 6 weeks and nobody that could lend you some cash to tide you over.
Any sensible person would be pointing the finger at those who implemented a system where those people with nothing, had to try and survive for six weeks on fresh air. Just be pleased that this isn't you
Are you saying 39% of the population i.e. 24m people or 39% of those on universal credit what is the true size of the problem? Am I correct in my understanding that you can apply for emergency funding so in reality nobody should be out of pocket?
So are you suggesting that after the 6 week wait then the use of food banks should start to drop off and this is simply a temporary blip?
Having been made redundant previously when a business went into liquidation I fully understand what it is like to go six weeks with no income.
The implementation of this system has been appalling and is typical of a government that is out of touch. Its a good idea - simplify the process - just very poorly executed.
Your job is to say to yourself on a job interview does the hiring manager likes me or not. If you aren't a particular manager's cup of tea, you haven't failed -- you've dodged a bullet.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 73 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
