Younger people and their thoughts about working

My brother worked for over 40 years in a low wage factory job and although had enough years to qualify for State Pension has had to claim Pension Credit for the last 2 or 3 years to afford rent, heating and food. Most employees now have to join company pension schemes through auto enrolment unless they opt out. Back in the day not all employers even provided a pension scheme.

I think it’s up to her really. She is only in her mid thirties and things can change for better or worse!

On a separate note, help with Council Tax is not restricted to those on Pension Credit and other means-tested benefits. It could be worth putting in a claim for those just above the PC threshold. However as it comes from local authorities, not DWP, they each have their own rules and thresholds.

Turn2us website also has information about possible grants available to those who work or have worked in certain sectors- could be worth looking into as the categories are surprisingly broad.

I didn’t propose anything regardless of a working record, are you putting words in my mouth? The post 2016 pensioners will have much less access to means tested benefits, that is part of the rationale for the new pension. Means testing will continue to be required for those who for whatever reason don’t have a full employment record, but I strongly believe they shouldn’t be required for people who have. And yes, I’m willing to pay more taxes to enable that to happen, in fact I’m expecting to.

So you would propose that everyone, rich or poor, maybe regardless of their working record (how could you define ‘hard working’?), should receive a state pension sufficient to cover all the benefits which are currently means-tested? And who are the ‘others’ who have to pay additional taxes in order to ‘give people their dignity’? How much extra tax would you be willing to pay?

Germanshepherdsmum

I was responding to Doodledog’s proposal. It might be demeaning to have to apply for means-tested benefits but what can realistically be done to prevent that? Is everyone else to pay higher taxes to avoid embarrassment by those claiming means-tested benefits?

Surely all hard working people should be rewarded adequately so they aren’t forced to apply for benefits in retirement. If that means others have to pay more tax that’s a small price to pay for giving people their dignity.

I have a lot of sympathy with this ... my OH worked his tripe out in a job he found very very stressful to the point where it made him ill. He then got Parkinsons at about age 60 and his life was a misery till he died. Live for today and enjoy yourself ... ma2kes a lot of sense.

I was responding to Doodledog’s proposal. It might be demeaning to have to apply for means-tested benefits but what can realistically be done to prevent that? Is everyone else to pay higher taxes to avoid embarrassment by those claiming means-tested benefits?

I don’t understand from what you’ve said what you think the solution is for people who work all their lives, full time, in low paid jobs with no or minimal occupational pension schemes Germanshepherdsmum. Do you think they should have to apply for means tested benefits too, don’t you think that’s demeaning for those who have worked just as hard as others do?

Doodledog

The trouble is that no decent person would want to further impoverish pensioners who have no money. But pension credit does make recipients better off than those on the margins - not the actual credit, but the gateway benefits that qualifying brings - Housing Benefit, free social care, help with council tax etc.

I don't think that people who are in this position (earning little, but working hard) are listened to at all, and this oversight is responsible for a lot of the resentment and division we see in current society. Very broadly, the left accuse them of being uncaring and (ironically) elitist, and the right see them as collateral damage in the quest for a free-market economy.

It is not unreasonable to expect to see a lifetime of work leave you better off than if you had lived a life of not working. Only the fortunate work for the fun of it - most of us do it because we get paid. If we can get the same money for not working, why bother? The problem is that as things stand there is a choice between penalising those with no money, which is (a) pointless, as they have nothing to take away, so penalties would have to involve cutting benefits, leaving them to their own devices and letting them rot, and (b) somehow forcing people to work and fetch for themselves. Jeremy Hunt talked on LK this morning about using a stick rather than a carrot on the unwaged, which sounds very like a combination of (a) and (b). Unsurprisingly, he didn't comment on the potentially exploitative nature of compelling people to work for benefits, on how the 'stick' would work in practice, or on how he would separate the deserving and undeserving poor.

Meanwhile, people on minimum wage or just above are getting up early, working long shifts that might mean seeing less of their children than they would like, spending their lives doing unrewarding jobs, and seeing their neighbours not working but having similar amounts of money coming in. To add insult to injury, there are all sorts of concessions for people on benefits - free courses, entry to visitor attractions etc, which might be out of reach for those in work. Of course that is galling for low-paid workers. Those who have worked in rewarding careers and earned enough to save for a comfortable retirement are right to want to see their work rewarded too, but I do get tired of hearing how mean-spirited it is of people to resent those on benefits getting free access to things others have to pay for. It's a privileged perspective.

The only solution I can think of is to raise the minimum wage so that all workers are better off than those who don't work. If we all paid higher taxes but means-tested benefits were replaced with universal ones, so that everyone got child benefit, decent pensions etc at different points in our lives, there might be an incentive for people to save, invest in occupational pensions, work towards promotion etc (the things the person in the OP is accused of not doing), in order to see the benefit of doing so. As things are, there is only a real incentive if you know you can afford to save enough to outstrip the financial benefits of not bothering.

I don’t understand how your solution would work, Doodledog.

To what level would the minimum wage have to be raised to ensure workers are better off than those who don’t work? Inevitability, individual circumstances would come into the equation - some are childless, others have large families. Some are buying their homes, others rent. Some are single parents with limited earning capacity. Even given universal payment of child benefit, means-tested benefits would surely still be necessary?

The raising of minimum wage to a significant extent would cause some degree of inflation - employers can’t be expected to absorb significant increases.

The raising of taxation would hit everyone paying tax. This would be felt most by those on fixed incomes - pensioners - and would detract from the benefit felt by those on (the increased) minimum wage - so I assume you expect only the highest earners to pay additional tax?

You assume that everyone who doesn’t work, or only works part time, but is capable of full time work, is willing to work full time - only means-tested benefits can, in my opinion, address those who simply don’t want to work.

Maybe she has an Only Fans account.

M0nica

Every penny I invested in an occupational pension was worthwhile. It provides me with an income well in excess of what I would get if I received full Pension Credit.

I am well aware there are problems around the margins with those with small occupational pensions. But the majoirty of those with occupational pensions would be far worse off if they relied on state pension and Pension Credit.

Anyone living on Pension Credit still has a very small income.

I found that what has made the most difference to my retirement was buying a house when I was young.. I simply wouldn't be able to live where I do nowadays if I had to pay rent..

I shortsightedly opted out of paying into my pension fund for many years,, and consequently the pension is low,, but sufficient only due to not paying the £2.000 pm it would cost to rent.
I imagine it is only going to become much more expensive in the future so my recommendation would still be to invest in property if at all possible

The trouble is that no decent person would want to further impoverish pensioners who have no money. But pension credit does make recipients better off than those on the margins - not the actual credit, but the gateway benefits that qualifying brings - Housing Benefit, free social care, help with council tax etc.

I don't think that people who are in this position (earning little, but working hard) are listened to at all, and this oversight is responsible for a lot of the resentment and division we see in current society. Very broadly, the left accuse them of being uncaring and (ironically) elitist, and the right see them as collateral damage in the quest for a free-market economy.

It is not unreasonable to expect to see a lifetime of work leave you better off than if you had lived a life of not working. Only the fortunate work for the fun of it - most of us do it because we get paid. If we can get the same money for not working, why bother? The problem is that as things stand there is a choice between penalising those with no money, which is (a) pointless, as they have nothing to take away, so penalties would have to involve cutting benefits, leaving them to their own devices and letting them rot, and (b) somehow forcing people to work and fetch for themselves. Jeremy Hunt talked on LK this morning about using a stick rather than a carrot on the unwaged, which sounds very like a combination of (a) and (b). Unsurprisingly, he didn't comment on the potentially exploitative nature of compelling people to work for benefits, on how the 'stick' would work in practice, or on how he would separate the deserving and undeserving poor.

Meanwhile, people on minimum wage or just above are getting up early, working long shifts that might mean seeing less of their children than they would like, spending their lives doing unrewarding jobs, and seeing their neighbours not working but having similar amounts of money coming in. To add insult to injury, there are all sorts of concessions for people on benefits - free courses, entry to visitor attractions etc, which might be out of reach for those in work. Of course that is galling for low-paid workers. Those who have worked in rewarding careers and earned enough to save for a comfortable retirement are right to want to see their work rewarded too, but I do get tired of hearing how mean-spirited it is of people to resent those on benefits getting free access to things others have to pay for. It's a privileged perspective.

The only solution I can think of is to raise the minimum wage so that all workers are better off than those who don't work. If we all paid higher taxes but means-tested benefits were replaced with universal ones, so that everyone got child benefit, decent pensions etc at different points in our lives, there might be an incentive for people to save, invest in occupational pensions, work towards promotion etc (the things the person in the OP is accused of not doing), in order to see the benefit of doing so. As things are, there is only a real incentive if you know you can afford to save enough to outstrip the financial benefits of not bothering.

Every penny I invested in an occupational pension was worthwhile. It provides me with an income well in excess of what I would get if I received full Pension Credit.

I am well aware there are problems around the margins with those with small occupational pensions. But the majoirty of those with occupational pensions would be far worse off if they relied on state pension and Pension Credit.

Anyone living on Pension Credit still has a very small income.

Im thinking that if you have the money you may as well spend it rather than saving it. Under todays rotten system you will be helped out by pension credit if the state pension is not sufficient for your needs. What a slap in the face for those of us who were foolish enough to invest in an occupational pension. Pi$$ your money up the wall and the taxpayer will sub you out.

There are so many variables to this post that it is impossible to comment unless we make up our own scenarios.

Unless she receives a significant inheritance or she’s earning a significant salary for her part time work she will come to rely on the state in later life.

If this lady can survive on part time work well good for her. Maybe possessions don’t mean much to her, a good attitude really so long as she is not leaning on others for support. Maybe she is right. Life is for living.

Our generation were brought up with a very different attitude to work. As a manual worker my father was proud of his status as the "breadwinner" and his ability to provide for his family. It was with great reluctance that he "allowed" my mother to take a part time job in the late 1950s. People who did not work and lived on benefit were despised in the community where I grew up. There were children we were not allowed to play with because their father did not work.

There was a social contract that you worked loyally for an employer and were rewarded for your efforts by making your way up the promotion ladder.

All that is gone and now most employers will simply screw you over no matter how well and efficiently you work. No one is indispensable.

Younger generations see the harshness of the working environment for what it is - without the sentiment. Its simply a contract that you will work X hours for £Y pay. Their sense of who they are is not invested in a job title.

One can learn a great deal about the concept of alienation from work in capitalism by reading Karl Marx. He did much of his research in the Manchester factories and even the footnotes are fascinating.

The story in the OP suggests to me that the young woman described has decided to "live for today" and not worry about the future. Isn't this what certain exceptionally famous people have always advised us to do?

Also, why is it any of the OP's business?

biglouis No experience is ever wasted. DD did a first degree in acting. Never acted but worked in the media for 20 years, , in her 40s, she did a couple of sort courses organised by the Open University, one thing led to anotherand she did a degree in STEM subjects.

That was 5 years ago. She has flown since then but her first two jobs with her new degree were gained because of her media background. The new specialist skill she obtained as a result of that has got her current job.

All three posts gained in her late 40s and early 50s, within weeks of starting to look for a new post, without her age ever being an issue.

I dont think its only young people whose attitude to work has changed. I was reading a long thread on Mumsnet where many posters aged 40+ were admitting that their attitude to work was now one of CBA.

Posters described themselves as being completely disengaged from their work, tired of office politics, corporate bovine excrement and so on. This is exactly how I felt at around that age (early 40s). These posters are bemoaning the fact that they have some years to go to retirement and feel they are just marking time. They are not skiving - they do the work they are paid to do but have given up taking on projects, working unpaid hours or seeking promotion.

Some posters also remarked upon the attitude of younger gerational as being to seek work-life balance and I will not do it unless you pay me.

This phenomenon has a name - quiet quitting.

It is indicative of a complete transformation in attitudes to work. Many people no longer derive their sense of self from their role at work but are looking elsewhere for meaning in their lives.

In my case I quit the job and went to uni and realised that I was a born academic. How sad that I did not find that out so late in my life.

On many of the forums GN only know what they are told
Who knows what the truth actually is
In many instances I am sure the poster does not know the whole truth or is only telling what they want people to know

But there's nothing we don't know!

Well it’s a bit of a risky attitude but maybe she knows something we don’t.