Re: State Sponsored Slavery : Fri Nov 18, 2011 11:33 am  

Sandra The Terrorist wrote:

Your arrogance is staggering. Actually it's not. The thought of apologising to Anakin Skywalker for completely insulting him hasn't even crossed your mind.

where did I insult him, I said there are jobs, he's found one, I'm hapy for him.
but for the record, if Annakin was insulted by me then I do apologise.

Re: State Sponsored Slavery : Fri Nov 18, 2011 11:42 am  

Standee wrote:

where did I insult him, I said there are jobs, he's found one, I'm hapy for him.
but for the record, if Annakin was insulted by me then I do apologise.

No, of course you didn't:

Standee wrote:

presumably she can spell it?

there are jobs, plenty of them, just people aren't prepared to change their wage demands and change location, much better to bleat on the internet all day.

Standee wrote:

but that is the thing, the majority of the perpetually unemployed think they should be able to get a job just around the corner from their house, on hours to suit them at a minimum of £22k a year

it's time we removed benefits for those that can work but wont, and give the money saved to those that would work but genuinelt cant.

Standee wrote:

your family doesn't have to change location YOU CAN, I've done it numerous times, go to where the work is.

actually no, you're right, far easier to sit on the PC moaning how the world owes you a living.

Standee wrote:

I dont have kids, if people were a bit more realistic when procreating we'd be a lot better off, a lot of people have kids that really can't afford them, and then expect the rest of us to bail them out.

Before throwing your hissy fit and leaving with

Standee wrote:

I'm not getting drawn into this again, I did it with Damo and copped a ban for having an opinion.

Of course you weren't being condescending and insulting

Re: State Sponsored Slavery : Fri Nov 18, 2011 11:43 am  

cod'ead wrote:

Back to the old "if you can't afford 'em, don't have 'em" argument?

You still haven't explained how to treat anyone who can afford them and then suddenly finds themselves, through absolutely no fault of their own, out of work.

The reason for 'U' turn comment was you moved pretty quickly from basically calling Anakin a feckless wastrel, who had embarked on an irresponsible breeding programme, to congratulating him in taking a minimum-waged job, all within about five pages.

Nail, head, hit.

Re: State Sponsored Slavery : Fri Nov 18, 2011 12:04 pm  

I wonder whether Standee will ever answer the question about what a person is to do if they've had a family whilst employed, then they become unemployed.

On his other, somewhat ridiculous point, I've done a few calculations:

If a person is offered a job away from his family at, say, £8 per hour, his gross income would be £320 per week. Let's say he loses about 25 percent of that to tax and NI, leaving a net income of £240.

If he can find exceptionally basic digs, he might have to pay £100 for the week, leaving £140. Then, if his wife works full time, he'll need to pay a childminder to drop off and collect his children from school. Let's say about £60 (on the low side) for that, leaving £80.

Then take into account the cost of travelling to and from wherever he will be working, and the fact that his food bill will likely increase by being away and you could easily account for another £30.

So, what you're saying is that a person should leave his home for the majority of the week, not see his children or wife except on weekends all for the princely sum of fifty quid? That's working on £8 per hour, don't forget, and probably underestimating expenses. Many jobs will probably be a lot less than that.

If you genuinely believe that is reasonable, you're either a total idiot, or a total shit.

Re: State Sponsored Slavery : Fri Nov 18, 2011 12:10 pm  

They've also got to pay for the fuel/fare to get to wherever this job is in the country and back, I reckon by this point you'd be into a negative.

Re: State Sponsored Slavery : Fri Nov 18, 2011 12:18 pm  

Sandra The Terrorist wrote:

They've also got to pay for the fuel/fare to get to wherever this job is in the country and back, I reckon by this point you'd be into a negative.

I included that, but at a very conservative estimate. Third paragraph from the end. I didn't include travel between work and the digs though, so that would be an additional expense.

Re: State Sponsored Slavery : Fri Nov 18, 2011 12:19 pm  

Standee wrote:

why do other people's families bother me? they chose to have them, they should take responsibility for them.

If everyone had your viewpoint the UK would have no population within 100 years.
Like I said you have no clue what you are on about.

Re: State Sponsored Slavery : Fri Nov 18, 2011 12:26 pm  

Rock God X wrote:

If he can find exceptionally basic digs, he might have to pay £100 for the week, leaving £140. Then, if his wife works full time, he'll need to pay a childminder to drop off and collect his children from school. Let's say about £60 (on the low side) for that, leaving £80.

My children and aged 1 and 2.
So it will be fulltime childcare so we can pretty much confirm it would actually cost me to work away.

Re: State Sponsored Slavery : Fri Nov 18, 2011 12:34 pm  

Anakin Skywalker wrote:

My children and aged 1 and 2.
So it will be fulltime childcare so we can pretty much confirm it would actually cost me to work away.

You weren't the specific example I was using, as I didn't know your circumstances. It is a good point though: is it 30 quid a day most nurseries charge these days? Per child. By the reckoning, you'd be making quite a big loss.

Re: State Sponsored Slavery : Fri Nov 18, 2011 12:35 pm  

I want to live in standee's perfect world