Low Pay Britain

Eloethan I wonder if you realise I was the OP on this thread. Of course I may have done that in an uncaring way. I am sure you can read that into my original post if you try.

This feels like quite vindictive misquoting Eloethan. You say:

"... moaning minnies ... as you had previously said, should "count their blessings"."

At no point did I tell anyone else what to do or call anyone a "moaning minnie" - although you appear to think it is OK to tell me how to write and what to think.

As for the Tim Minchin quote, it speaks to me and it may speak to others, if it doesn't that's fine.

Personally I think putting ones views forward is fine; telling people how they should think is not. Perhaps the reason you are reading the very short post I wrote in the way that you are is because you personally believe that you are right and everyone else is wrong and should be corrected but actually I thought we are all allowed our views. If you put forward a different opinion I will read it and may or may not agree. Surely that is everyone's right without having browbeating posts directed at them.

Gracesgran You did say "We are lucky in so many ways".

You quoted an extract from Tim Minchin's speech in which he refers to those who spend more time criticising/finding fault than praising/being appreciative. Your use of it was in effect intimating that those who are critical of austerity policies are moaning minnies who, as you had previously said, should "count their blessings".

I certainly do count my blessings - probably because I have many to count - but I would not expect others who are living in poverty to feel so inclined.

You also suggest that those who criticise policies that cause low pay and poverty are not "pro" this country. I am very "pro" this country but that doesn't mean I have to be "pro" this government's policies.

To post on a thread is to enter into a debate. You made some comments to which I responded. Why do you see my responding as an effort to stop you expressing what you feel?

I did not speak for or suggest I spoke for anyone other than me Eloethan. Why would seeing the world from the positive as well as the negative mean I don't do anything for those who face the challenges you highlight. Are we not allowed to see the positive in anything without being seen as ... what?, ogres who put down the poor and infirm.

You and Jen between you have now dissected every word I put in that post. Why are you both so right? Why am I not allowed to express what I feel even if it is in a way that "doesn't cut it" with you?

By saying "we" are lucky in so many ways in this country, Gracesgran, that seems to me to speak for so many people who probably don't feel very lucky at all, and perhaps for good reason.

I agree that it is probably better to focus on what is good in life rather than what is bad. However, I should think for many people who are struggling with a lot of difficult issues like ill health, inadequate money to keep themselves and their families properly housed, fed and clothed, etc., that is quite a challenge.

For me, "spreading the luck rather more evenly" really doesn't cut it. It needs to be spread a lot more evenly.

Whoops, never read this page before I responded to Gracesgran.
Because I was so incensed by her comment, obviously.

Nothing new there then Jen. You seem to enjoy being incensed by anything anyone says that does not fit your particular mindset.

The "Spirit Level" is a very interesting view on inequality Eloethan but I did say "We are lucky in so many ways in this country; we just need to spread the luck rather more evenly."

A little counting of the blessings we have does not mean I am suggesting we do nothing for those, in our country or in other countries, who are more disadvantaged. It is just a reminder that it is not all bad.

To quote the amazing Tim Minchin

"Define yourself by what you love ... I see it all the time online, people who's idea of being part of a subculture is to hate Coldplay or football or feminists or the Liberal Party, we have a tendency to define ourselves in opposition to stuff ... but try to also express your passion for things you love, be demonstrative and generous in your praise of those you admire; send thank you cards and give standing ovations. Be pro stuff not just anti stuff."*

I was being pro this country instead of always knocking it but, of course, the knockers see that as a political statement that is "absolutely ridiculous" not just someone else's valid point of view.

*This is from "Tim Minchin UWA Address 2013".

That's good to know, Eloethan

I wasn't really referring to your comments MamaCaz since you qualified what you meant in later paragraphs.

(My last post was in response to Eloethan's post)
BTW, Eloethan, I agree totally with your statement that "The wealth/poverty of individuals in a country does not necessarily correlate with the wealth/poverty of the country itself."

Whoops, never read this page before I responded to Gracesgran.
Because I was so incensed by her comment, obviously.

I don't think any of us were bickering about which country was worst off, or about someone in poverty in one country being more or less deserving than someone in poverty in another country, were we?
That certainly wasn't my intention. The point I was trying to make (clumsily maybe, as usual) was how misleading some supposed comparisons can be.

How is it hypocritical?

They started off at £3000 maximum. Last time they wanted to raise it to £6000. The coalition said £9000. Now Labour want it to be what they wanted in 2010.

Gracesgran, that is absolutely ridiculous. We are the sixth richest country worldwide. We also have some of the highest prices.
I do not think the million going to foodbanks will be feeling grateful when they see what the millionaires award themselves in bonuses. Do you really expect them to feel grateful for having clean water, when they cannot afford to feed their kids?

I really think it's pointless to have a "competition" as to which country is better or worse off.

It is and it isnt really. It isnt exactly. It puts things into some perspective, which is always helpful.
And it means we should be looking at how far the minimum wage goes towards managing to get by on a weekly basis.
I am all for the minimum wage being raised by say 10%.

I really think it's pointless to have a "competition" as to which country is better or worse off.

The wealth/poverty of individuals in a country does not necessarily correlate with the wealth/poverty of the country itself. There are huge numbers of people living in poverty in the US but, although there is a small number of extremely wealthy people in poor countries, poverty in those countries is usually vaster and more life-threatening. This is demonstrated by the much higher level of infant mortality and the much lower life expectancy rates. For instance the infant mortality rate in Niger is 109.98 per 1,000 whereas in Singapore it is 2.65 per thousand. WHO statistics show that "a boy born in 2012 in a high income country can expect to live to the age of around 76 - 16 years longer than a boy born in a low income country - and the gap is even wider for girls.

In the book "The Spirit Level" the writers demonstrate how there is only a relatively small group of companies, mainly banks, that wield disproportionate power over the global economy. There is a core of 1,318 companies with interlocking ownership, out of which only 147 (roughly 1%) are "super entities" that control 40% of the total wealth in the network.

These are the figures that I believe we ought to be looking at - not bickering about whether someone in poverty in one country is more or less deserving that someone in poverty in another country.

You would think that some account would be taken of cost of living, Soontobe, wouldn't you, but I don't see how it can by. Here, you would literally starve to death on the incomes that are usually given for people's incomes in developing countries, so we can't be comparing like for like, can we?

to not too

I was going to say good point Gracesgran. Until MamaCaz posted.
Is that right?
So if the minimum wage is in the top 10%, that takes no account whatsoever of the cost of living in that country?

But I suppose, it does also mean, that if a person wanted to leave say a £3 a week wage, they cannot leave there unless someone paid for them too?

I'm very wary of comparisons with what people earn in other countries. For instance, in reference to people in developing countries, you regularly hear comments such as "this person only earns * - the equivalent of (for example) £3 a week". The person in question is shown to have a roof over their head, albeit basic, is dressed in sound, clean clothing, and clearly has access to enough food to at least survive.
£3 a week here wouldn't even get you enough food to keep you alive, let alone have a roof over your head.

Yes, the life of people here on a minimum wage is infinitely better than that of many people in the world, but in most cases, only because others are supporting them. Young people depend on their family to house them, older people and families rely on benefits to top up their income to a level that enables them to keep a roof over their head.
That is just another of the appalling aspects of benefit changes that most people are unaware of or choose to ignore: that the poorest "hard working people", those on low wages, are badly hit. I can't see how the pledges to raise the minimum wage will help many of these, either, as presumably benefits will be reduced by a similar amount to the wage increase, leaving those receiving benefit no better off.

Take away the support, either family support or benefit support, and homelessness is almost inevitable (is that why there has been a huge increase in homelessness in the last year or two?). With homelessness probably comes unemployment, and suddenly that person is a much worse situation than the one earning the £3 in a developing country.

IMHO, it's a very fine line between getting by ok with just a little help, and losing everything if the safety net is removed.

Sorry - I seem to have written an essay there. I might have got a bit carried away!

Wasn't it a Labour government who introduced student fees in the first place though durhamjen?

I am sure you will correct me if I am wrong, but it seems a bit hypocritical of them to pledge a reduction in the very fees that they brought about in the firt place.

One thing we should remember in all this is that if you are on the minimum wage, not easy I know, you are among the top 10% of earners globally. We are lucky in so many ways in this country; we just need to spread the luck rather more evenly.

Thanks for that link, durhamjen. It is a very good description of the current Government and its tactics.

Why Cameron will not debate on television.

www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2015/03/05/cameron-won-t-debate-because-he-has-no-record-to-defend

How can reducing student fees be headline grabbing?
I thought the Labour party wanted the maximum to be £6000 last time, so he hasn't actually changed, has he?
In fact the level was supposed to be £6000, but all the universities decided they should have £9000.

Like quite a few on here, I suspect, I really dont know how to cast my vote, and this is the first time in my life that I have felt this way. As I have mentioned before, I am in a staunch Tory seat and we never see him until he crawls out of the woodwork when an election is due, but despite this safe seat and inevitability of the result I still vote as my mind and conscience dictate. Would rather take my own liver out with a pen knife than vote for the incumbent tory who would appear to support all the punitive welfare cuts/low taxation stance of central office. I am unsure of Labour as our local party are quite honestly, wild eyed and scary, the candidate is a self serving prat and on a wider level, I feel that Milliband is grabbing at headline stuff like reducing student fees, attempting to stop MPs earning anything outside the Commons, etc., both of which seem to me to be unthought out knee jerk reactions to try and please the electorate, I also dont trust Ed Balls. Always voted LibDem, but feel they have sold out their principles just to stay in some kind of power, Greens are a bit too extreme in some of their policies.......obviously not UKIP.......maybe too much information, but I dont think I can be the only one feeling the same despair. A friend and I have joked that there should be a 'None of the above' party,.......

62 days until the election.
I dont know about anyone else, but it all feels a bit lacklustre this time around?

Our LibDem leaflet came yesterday. Well, I wasnt actually sure it was LibDem at first. Or for a while. It seemed to avoid mention of the LibDems as much as possible. Even the colour of it only bore a passing resemblance to LibDem colours.
I got the distint impression, he was trying to distance himself, and the leaflet, as much as he could away from LibDems!