poor/rich devide

[smokey]

there are so many MILLION unemployed and only so many THOUSAND job vacancies.. it's not a case of those who don't work are just being picky!

No of course its not a case of that for everyone but I think its just a kick in the teeth for anyone whos desperate to get a job and willing to do anything to have to hear of people that dont want a job purely for no other reason then they just cant be arsed or its below them.

Yes there are millions unemployed but only a percentage of them actualy WANT to work otherwise there would be NO job vacancies.
There are still thousands of jobs out there at the end of the day which proves its too easy to not have to work.

 

[PeanutBean]

I definitely agree with you smokey about blaming 'foreigners'. More right wing spin and excuses for being lazy. I wouldn't dispute that there are people who won't work when they could for various reasons we'd consider invalid but I don't believe it is anything like the number the press would have us believe.

And I'm going to say again, even if there are 250 vacancies in your immediate area, there will 1250 people applying for them. Lots of areas will have lots of jobs and few residents eg. City centre, other areas will be highly residential, perhaps with limited transportation and so have very few jobs. There are many barriers to work even if the jib vacancy numbers were equal to seekers. It's a big problem. Once people are unemployed for more than 12 months they will find it very hard to get back into work. We need to be offering support right at the start of unemployment to nip that in the bud. It's a big and difficult issue.

I have worked since I was 16. I worked making breakfasts in an old people's home during my a-levels. I then took a year out and worked full time as a receptionist. Three years of degree and I temped full time every holiday (only possible because of my experience in my gap year) and worked part time in my third year (bar and call centre). I then did a specialist contract job in the summer (only possible because of my degree) but was unemployed til the following feb, unable to even get a temp job because a big company had gone bust and the whole of Newcastle agencies were saturated. Then I did my PhD (can't work pt while doing that). After that I couldn't find a 'real' job so worked in a council doing admin for the road safety team - extremely menial for someone writing up a PhD - then was lucky enough someone left a sci com job I'd applied for and I was offered it part time. That set me up for where I am now. I'm not work shy and do feel I've worked very hard in everything in my life that is most definitely not reflected in my financial success, and that does grate. But I still feel empathy for those who are trapped at the bottom and can see how they can get institutionalised there whatever their intentions at the beginning. Just sayin'

Our interviews don't score either. You can tell it's desperate times when you advertise for a post. Maternity cover doesn't usually get many applications; with Byron we only had maybe 20 applications and got a seriously good candidate and a tough choice of two from the interviews. This time we had 80 applications some of whom had not a single qualification, bit of experience or even interest to recommend them. then half the applications came from people who had been working on vInvolved (the 16-25 year old volunteering initiative) because the government had scrapped their budget (demonstrating just how committed they are to helping young people develop skills for work), which is where we selected from in the end. We couldn't take someone who didn't have the right skills and experience but at the same time there were people applying coming from salaries £10k more than we were offering and you know they won't stay (and a mat cover needs someone who will last the year). They were overqualified and as such had too many skills in unnecessary areas and not enough in some of the areas we needed. It's hard!

 

[PeanutBean]

There are always job vacancies. People move, retire, give up to be full time parents, emigrate, get promoted etc etc. Then the vacancies get filled and more often than not that person leaves a vacancy behind them. The vacancies aren't sitting there unfilled.

 

[smokey]

I think what annoys me when you hear of the whole "that job is beneath me" type argument is basicly that person is opting out of employment so I just end up thinking why should I continue to pay for that person to be helped if they wont help themselves.

 

[PeanutBean]

Oh and often agency vacancies aren't real vacancies. It's a thing they do, advertise and get some good potential people then try to 'sell' them to companies. It's done in finance and probably other generic occupations.

 

[smokey]

Oh and often agency vacancies aren't real vacancies. It's a thing they do, advertise and get some good potential people then try to 'sell' them to companies. It's done in finance and probably other generic occupations.

Not sure if its still this way or not but a few years back agancies actualy got a government grant for how many they had on there books because it then went down as people looking for work so it looked better in the long run so agancies invented jobs just to get people in to sign up.

What pi$$es my of with agancies is they amount of times they (and the company they are working with) lie about the job itself.

I moved to take a job that was ment to be permanent only to find out 4 weeks into it it was realy to cover sick leave and they made up some bull storry to "let me go"
There was nothing I could do about it as we hadnt got the contract stage yet and there is very little rights if you have been in a job under a year plus most agancies have small print about how placments can change.
I was left unemployed living in a area in the middle of nowhere away from my family realy screwed because we took on the flat purely so I could work and was left with no way to pay for it.

Stricter laws should be put in for how employment agancies work

 

[JemimaP]

Haven't read all replies yet so apologies if someone has mentioned this.
In relation to the short term payday loans you can't judge them on the APR really. They have to legally say what it is but it's not really applicable to such short term loans as it is to a more usual year or longer loan. If they charged a more reasonable APR are eg 8% for a few hundred quid over 20 days they would make no money!
Hope that makes sense!
X

 

[PeanutBean]

^^ That is missing the point. Many people are drawn into them but cannot afford to pay it back at term as they are not even managing to live paycheck to paycheck so they end paying extraordinary amounts. I've read of people £3k in debt from a £30 loan, or something like, and in a very short space of time.

I think they are entirely unethical. Not everyone is financially wiley enough to understand what they are getting into. Bit like the endowment mortgages of the past and payment protection plans of the last decade. Another con by the big money spinners that in the end the poorest and least knowledgeable people pay for.

I agree smokey, agencies are a bit out of whack. Fortunately my dealings were only ever as a temp. When I worked at the LA a number of staff there were long term agency. Bizarre waste of money. They didn't get a great salary yet the council paid far more than just by employing them on contract. Just a way to circumvent employment law I think!

 

[Eternal]

^^ That is missing the point. Many people are drawn into them but cannot afford to pay it back at term as they are not even managing to live paycheck to paycheck so they end paying extraordinary amounts. I've read of people £3k in debt from a £30 loan, or something like, and in a very short space of time.

I think they are entirely unethical. Not everyone is financially wiley enough to understand what they are getting into. Bit like the endowment mortgages of the past and payment protection plans of the last decade. Another con by the big money spinners that in the end the poorest and least knowledgeable people pay for.

I agree smokey, agencies are a bit out of whack. Fortunately my dealings were only ever as a temp. When I worked at the LA a number of staff there were long term agency. Bizarre waste of money. They didn't get a great salary yet the council paid far more than just by employing them on contract. Just a way to circumvent employment law I think!

In a bizzare turn of events WE even agree

I think day loans are terrible, it prays in the poor who dont have access to things like credit cards, overdrafts, personal loans etc and the APR is shocking! I really does pray on those who dont have a clue about finiance, most people would surley look at it and see that the APR was terrible, but some people dont even think about how they will pay it back or how much they will end up paying back.

Yes I know these conpanies need to make a profit, but I dont really think they would be allowed to exist. Ive heard of crisis loans, no idea how they work but I am sure there isnt a huge APR with those and of course a much better choice is credit unions.

People can end up in huge amounts of debts from these companies that seem appealing from their hugly expensive advertising/marketing schemes. over needing £100 or something like that, its crazy and it shouldnt be allowed IMO.

 

[xolily]

There are always job vacancies. People move, retire, give up to be full time parents, emigrate, get promoted etc etc. Then the vacancies get filled and more often than not that person leaves a vacancy behind them. The vacancies aren't sitting there unfilled.

WSS

 

[smokey]

^^ That is missing the point. Many people are drawn into them but cannot afford to pay it back at term as they are not even managing to live paycheck to paycheck so they end paying extraordinary amounts. I've read of people £3k in debt from a £30 loan, or something like, and in a very short space of time.

I think they are entirely unethical. Not everyone is financially wiley enough to understand what they are getting into. Bit like the endowment mortgages of the past and payment protection plans of the last decade. Another con by the big money spinners that in the end the poorest and least knowledgeable people pay for.

I agree smokey, agencies are a bit out of whack. Fortunately my dealings were only ever as a temp. When I worked at the LA a number of staff there were long term agency. Bizarre waste of money. They didn't get a great salary yet the council paid far more than just by employing them on contract. Just a way to circumvent employment law I think!

In a bizzare turn of events WE even agree

I think day loans are terrible, it prays in the poor who dont have access to things like credit cards, overdrafts, personal loans etc and the APR is shocking! I really does pray on those who dont have a clue about finiance, most people would surley look at it and see that the APR was terrible, but some people dont even think about how they will pay it back or how much they will end up paying back.

Yes I know these conpanies need to make a profit, but I dont really think they would be allowed to exist. Ive heard of crisis loans, no idea how they work but I am sure there isnt a huge APR with those and of course a much better choice is credit unions.

People can end up in huge amounts of debts from these companies that seem appealing from their hugly expensive advertising/marketing schemes. over needing £100 or something like that, its crazy and it shouldnt be allowed IMO.

Sadly its not a new thing, my great aunt got conned by what I think was co-op or somthing about 20 years ago, they came to her door and talked her into taking out a £100 loan.
She was a pentioner and didnt understand about apr and stuff and it was pushed to her as just pay back £5 a week.
She had alzimers and when we looked into where her money was going it turned out there where people showing up about 3-4 times a week claiming she hadnt paid yet and they wanted the money and sometimes when she didnt have any they would push her into tasking another loan to pay the first one.
We didnt know about this for years but 8 years later she was paying a £7kdebt where she had only actualy borrowed about £300 and the rest was where they where adding fake loans on and taking 3-4 payments a week claiming it was the first time they had been and probably pocketing the money.
The last time this bloke showed up was just after my aunt died demading my mum had to pay the £7k debt there and then.

Even my neighbor had problems with them he was paying back each week for over a year before he found out the bloke collecting the money had actualy been fired 6 months beforehand and he got a letter threatening court because he hadnt paid for 6 months.
The bloke was showing up each week and still had the books to make it look like he was collecting money, god knows how many people he had done it to and how much money he stole in those 6 months.

 

[PeanutBean]

Oh smokey that's awful!

Lol eternal. I think actually we agree on quite a lot of things just differing in our opinions of process perhaps.

 

[JemimaP]

I wasn't missing the point and agree to an extent regarding them being unethical. I was simply saying they can't be judged on APR that's all.
I think they are as unethical as any loan made to someone who can't afford it. O think these lenders have a big corporate responsibility to prevent reckless lending.
Having said that I do believe people need to take responsibility for their own actions and if they took out the loan they should make sure they can afford it.
I'd like to see much tighter regulations on lending criteria for all financial institutions that lend money.
I remember years ago when a friend of mine was earning £8k a year as a trainee accountant & her bank simply chucked credit at her with cards & overdrafts. At 1 point she had access to over 10k of credit on cards but no cash for even a loaf of bread. she went to the bank explained the position and they weren't interested as she was making minimum payments so they were ok!

 

[PeanutBean]

Agreed. I think it's in a different thread but recently I said I blame financiers for personal debt problems. If they didn't lend to people in unsuitable circumstances there wouldn't be a problem. The debt consolidation companies can be added to this discussion too. The whole lot is about getting money out of people who have none. I don't know how the crisis loans work but that sort of scheme or similar that is tightly controlled should be the only thing available to sone people. Or maybe a voucher scheme or something to buy essentials. Something like that anyway.

 

[smokey]

Agreed. I think it's in a different thread but recently I said I blame financiers for personal debt problems. If they didn't lend to people in unsuitable circumstances there wouldn't be a problem. The debt consolidation companies can be added to this discussion too. The whole lot is about getting money out of people who have none. I don't know how the crisis loans work but that sort of scheme or similar that is tightly controlled should be the only thing available to sone people. Or maybe a voucher scheme or something to buy essentials. Something like that anyway.

Somtimes though even that doesnt work fairly.
My mums friend was ( I say was she passed away last week) on every benafit you could think of and still getting things like crises loans, help with things such as new matresses, carpets and other stuff.
Their local church ran this charity where you could get cheaper specalised food like glutan free bread and such and she discusted me because she got all this specalised food cheap and sold it on for twice the amount.
She had 3 disabled kids (they are technicaly adults but with the IQ of 8 year olds) and she drilled it into them so much about scamming and what to say if anyone asked and how to get more out of people.
Sometimes people who are classed as "poor" actualy end up with a hell of alot more then those that work for it all and because of a wage are not classed as poor but are worse off at the end of the day because of having to pay for everything.

Most of the stuff she never even needed but I think she had this thing in her head that if she could get it then she wanted it.

 

[Mummy2onexx]

i think its a situation of live within your means, i'm on the lower income side of things OH earns about 12grand a year i'm a SAHM until september when i start college, we get WTC CTC and CB so basically have what were entitled to i don't know if there considered a 'benefit' as such and we manage just fine with all the usuals like council tax, rent, tv license, we run 2 cars ect obviously we cant afford luxeries as such and if anything breaks in our home were screwed lol, my mum and dad on the other hand earn about 60grand a year between them but their mortgage is that high and other bills they live like a lower income family would so i don't really believe in the poorer and richer divide, everyone just lives with what they can but obviously if your a millionaire i would consider you rich x

 

[tallybee]

I've not had time to read through the whole thread, but it's a lot more complicated than just looking at income, for sure! Some areas are ludicrously expensive for housing, for instance - so people on a higher wage would be worse off after paying rent/mortgage.

On paper OH's wage would make a lot of people look at us as well off, but given how he was screwed by his ex through divorcing her and the maintenance he pays (Obviously it is not a problem to pay maintenance as they are his kids to pay for, it's the extras she's had) we often find it a struggle. In fact we are going to can TTC if I get the job I am getting interviewed for tomorrow as we have taken stock of our financial situation and it's pretty ruined. We don't generally have luxuries, I saved up for months selling bits and bobs on ebay to buy OH a Kindle for his birthday as I knew how much he wanted one.

We have 1 car between us which is often broken somehow but there's no way we could afford to replace it.
We live in an ex-council house which we have a mortgage on, it's not bad but not great either, but even this was top of our budget...

We don't get tax credits or anything else and will lose child benefit (at the moment this is the only income to my name!) when the change to that comes in next year as OH's wage is just into the top tax rate...

Sorry that turned into a mini-rant!! But yeah - income isn't the only thing to look at.

TBH though I think for me the rich/poor divide is not one of petty income differences, it's the blatant fact that people scraping by with next to nothing are expected to live alongside visibly luxurious, decadent lifestyles and the chasm between these is appalling. Many people work very hard and aren't rich, many people do diddley squat their whole lives and are kept in the lap of luxury and are famous for it

Of course that's going to rile some people up

 

[PeanutBean]

I agree tallybee. The whole system is set up so that if you have money you make money. Think of the interest rates at the moment at only 0.5%. The wealthy are crying out about it because they aren't earning interest on their savings but it's a huge benefit to the less well off as their mortgages and variable loan rates drop allowing them to borrow through the bad times. All the evidence shows that being born rich keeps you rich because of the opportunities it affords, both legitimate ones such as a top education or non-paying internships and IMO illegitimate ones through croneyism. It's admirable when people poorly off are generous enough to be satisfied with their lot because all the rich care about is making it and keeping it.

Did I post a link earlier about millionaires and their taxes? I think it was like £26bn in taxes or something from the top 100 or however many of which Janes Dyson paid £9bn alone because he doesn't believe in tax evasion but wants to contribute to the economy that has made him. You can tell he doesn't come from a privileged background. People talk about the sense of entitlement the poor apparently have towards benefits and state support yet no-one thinks about the sense of entitlement the rich are born with and taught throughout life.

 

[beccad]

I think there's a difference between being comfortable, which I would describe as not worrying from month to month about how to afford basic living costs, and being able to save a little every month, and being rich, which I would class as never having to consider what you spend and never having to save up for (or use savings) for something like a new boiler!

What sickened me about the riots was people attacking people they though were rich, purely because they had a job or owned a small business. They aren't rich, they're generally people who are either 'getting by' or comfortable.

I would say that DH and I fall into the 'comfortable' bracket. We have to save for stuff, but we can afford a holiday and such like, although it's never anything very flash - we really like camping

I do think that the rich usually stay rich, but nepotism is rife, unfortunately. I think there are opportunities for those who are less fortunate but it's much harder work.

 

[tasha41]

I think being "rich" is more a state of mind than something you can define with money and "stuff". We have a home, we have food, we have clothing, we have our health and access to free healthcare, we are able to read, write, and were educated until 18 (OH did not go to college, but I did, so over 18 for me). We have love, family, friendships. We have faith. We have the freedom to dream. We are happy. We can afford to donate time and/or money to causes we believe in, though we're not making huge donations, I always try to give to people who might need it more than I do. If that is not the definition of "rich", I don't know what else people want. We can't afford every luxury, but every single need is always met. I'd gladly take a raise at work (BTW, I work at McDonald's, and yes, I really believe in everything I just said, lol).

I don't agree with payday loans either, I think they are mainly frequented by desperate people with little money who can easily get stuck in a cycle of taking one out after another. I don't think it is ethical for people to capitalize on stuff like that. I wish we had crisis loans in our country, so that people might have an alternative. IMO they shouldn't even be legal