Low Pay Britain

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!

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?

to not too

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?

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.

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%.

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 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.

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

(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."

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

That's good to know, Eloethan

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".

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

Did anyone else watch last Monday's Dispatches about Britain's Benefit Crackdown?
A Housing Association was going to evict a man who could not get to his course every day because he was in pain most of the time. He had two daughters who were worried at how thin he was getting and the fact that he was falling over a lot. He had been sanctioned and owed £136 to the Association. He was being given enough money to pay the council tax for the spare room that he needed for his daughters to visit him at weekends.
DWP's response was that he could have a hardship loan.

Under FOI requests the churches found out that 93,000 children live with a parent who has been sanctioned. The DWP response was that it does not recognise those figures.

I know who I believe.

Last year 3000 ESA claimants a month were being sanctioned.

I am sure all these people are really glad that they live in this country and are grateful for what they are given!

Yes, I saw that and I was appalled. The decisions on sanctioning are made by clerks on the desk. They did not have to be passed to senior management for approval. There was no system for immediate appeal and the sanctioned person has no right of reply or representation.

The only word I can use to describe the system is kangaroo courts.

I saw it and was appalled but what can we actually do about it. I feel there should be a campaign akin to the "not in my name" one. Something like the "I didn't vote for this" but I would have no idea how to go about it. It seems contra to all our views of justice but again, what can be done?

I didn't see it - in a way, I'm glad I didn't!

Gracesgran: unless we can get enough people to realize what is really happening, so that some might actually give a damn, as my children would say, then I don't know what can be done either.

People have no idea. They hear the word "sanctions" and probably assume that lazy, feckless scroungers who haven't made any effort to find a job have had their benefit reduced for a while. I doubt very much if many realize that benefit is stopped totally and for the most minor of excuses (such as being 10 minutes early for an appointment as opposed to 15 mins early), and sometimes for the most unfair or downright crazy reasons imaginable.

All we can do is keep trying to draw people's attention to reality - as opposed to the lies that the Government and DWP keep repeating. However, it's clear from the clichéd responses given over and over again by some Gransnetters every time anything relating to benefits is mentioned, that most are happy in their ignorance and will continue believing what they want to be true no matter what.

It's an uphill struggle.

gillybob It was indeed a Labour government that brought in tuition fees and it wouldn't have got the vote through had it not been for the Scottish MPs who voted in favour even though it had nothing to do with Scotland.

Is this what you want, Gracesgran?

epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/64635

This would be interesting to go to if I could.

www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2015/03/07/edinburgh-on-wednesday-see-you-there/