We can’t go on pretending that poverty is solved by getting a job

[I'm Brian]

Just now, ICTChris said:

I really don't think that having a degree is a a requirement for starting a successful business.

In the world according to Oaksoft it is

[Gordon EF]

Haven't 'self-employment' figures gone up significantly recently? Mostly down to companies who want people to work for them but don't want the responsibility of 'employing' them I'd imagine.

[Ayrshire-SFC]

Not read through the whole thread but in 2010 the DWP announced that 59% of children in poverty have working parents. Certainly proof that having a job doesn't necessarily guarantee a leap put of poverty.

[Gordon EF]

2 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

So what is the alternative?

You dont like employment.

You dont like self employment.

Apart from the dole, what are the other options?

You will never get your hands on the cash of the rich. The quicker you accept that the better.

What is your grand idea then?

The alternative to everybody running their own business would be a mix of employment and self-employment in the labour market. I'm not sure what possible other alternative there could be?

I've never given any opinion on the relative or absolute merits of being employed or self-employed so I'm not particularly sure where your latest breakdown is coming from.

The solutions to complex issues are always a series of nuanced and, usually, step-wise changes in multiple areas. Rather than seriously suggesting everybody (or nobody) should run their own business, I was actually poking fun at your seething, child-like, simple answers to everything.

[Gordon EF]

5 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

You have nothing of value to say bud that is your problem.

Thats why you sit on the sidelines carping at others. Its easier than coming up with ideas of your own and risking ridicule eh?

Are you seriously deluded enough to imagine that sane person places "value" in what you post here?

[Ayrshire-SFC]

Those children are not living in families where the parents are in full time work.
This is a problem with casual, part time, zero hours contracts. Particularly where the hours arent enough for tax credits but with earnings too much for benefits. This is the 21st century work problem which needs solving.

Agreed. Part time work is great for students and mother returning from maternity leave. But zero hour contracts are a major issues, but seem to be suited to companies who want staff but don't want to pay them. Sadly the welfare available to support those isn't enough either.

Another issue with employment is, even for minimum wage work, experience. Alot of companies now want experience for these jobs which weans out job seekers who are looking for any sort of employment which also plays a part in this continous cycle.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

Agreed. Part time work is great for students and mother returning from maternity leave. But zero hour contracts are a major issues, but seem to be suited to companies who want staff but don't want to pay them. Sadly the welfare available to support those isn't enough either.

Another issue with employment is, even for minimum wage work, experience. Alot of companies now want experience for these jobs which weans out job seekers who are looking for any sort of employment which also plays a part in this continous cycle.

That's the whole nub of the problem - it's job security, terms and conditions that mean that many who do get jobs are still not financially secure. We've seen a gradual erosion of employment rights over the past 30-40 years not to mention the complete demise of manufacturing and growth of services. Governments of all colours have paid lip service to workers rights - given the choice of protecting workers or bending over for big business they have, with few exceptions, chosen the latter course.

[Tommy Nooka]

2 hours ago, oaksoft said:

I love that second paragraph. In other words if you dont agree with me then your opinion is worthless. 

Wages and conditions are clearly not shite on the whole. The average salary in Scotland is around 25k. You reckon this is shite?

I moved away from the sort of idealistic left wing claptrap you want to call socialism because it didnt stand up to a modicum of argument. It is unsustainable. Punishes successful people. Breeds and encourages dependency. Feeds on hatred of success and is financially ruinous. It holds people back. Encourages chip on shoulder mentality. Thrives on control of people and is downright fucking nasty. My politics are in the centre ground and a very strong advocate of personal responsibility.

Yes, because averages mean f**k all.

If we use Celtic as an example their annual wage bill is approx. £50m with approx. 500 employees so the average annual salary for a Celtic FC employee is somewhere in the region of £100k. I'm sure the folk working in the pie stall are over the moon to hear that.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

Given that most of the companies in Scotland are small and medium sized I think we need to get away from this idea that big bad business is causing this.

Some of the biggest abuse of zero hours contracts are in pubs, takeaways and restaurants. As for erosion of workers rights, this in general is simply is not true.

There is also nothing inherently wrong with a move to a service based economy.

TBH it sounds like you are fighting the battles of the 1950s.

There have been fundamental chsnges, for example, extending the period from one to two years before an employee gets full employment rights is clearly heading in the direction of firing without reason.

If you have worked less than two years your employer can simply say your face doesn't fit, you do not meet the expectations of the business, or simply that your position is redundant – all with the minimum of process being followed. And there is little you can do other than enforcing your contractual entitlements such as the right to be paid your outstanding notice and holidays. It has also been open to manipulation with employees being laid off after 23 months only to be replaced by another recruit the day after. There have been cases of individuals fired and then having to reapply for their jobs on lower wages - all because they haven't met the 2 year mark.

I understand that businesses need to be flexible during a year but over two years? This is not about flexibility but about being able to shed and replace staff at will.

The comment about the move from manufacturing to services was not a criticism but a point made that in a services based economy jobs tend to be insecure primarily because of the very nature of these types of business. Governments have to recognise that they need to do more to make those in the service sector feel secure about their jobs - what we have instead is the abuse of zero-hour, fixed term and self-employed contracts.

Also you, not surprisingly, are wrong regards the structure of the economy. You say that "most of the companies in Scotland are small and medium sized" whilst forgetting that large business, only 0.7% of businesses, still employee over 40% of the workforce. The reality is that it is big business that drives the agenda with small business following suit.

[Granny Danger]

The idea that we can have an economy based on huge numbers of small businesses employing the overwhelming majority of workers is nonsensical.  

A small amount of large businesses do and will continue to employ a substantial percentage of those in employment as will the public sector.  Many SMEs could also hardly be accurately described as "small" businesses.  We can lump them together under the SME banner but a company that is highly capitalised with a workforce of a couple of hundred and a turnover of £30 million or £40 million is totally different from a small business employing a handful of folk.

 

[Baxter Parp]

7 hours ago, oaksoft said:

Hmmmmm. The percentage of very high earnings at Celtic is huge. That is not the case with Scotland on the whole. We can talk about median salaries if you prefer?

In a thread about poverty?

[Suspect Device]

I thought that the definition of relative poverty was 60% of the median salary so I would assume that would be the measure you'd use.

Apparently we're 3rd best paid in the UK after London and the SE England. Surprising.

http://www.parliament.scot/ResearchBriefingsAndFactsheets/S4/SB_15-82_Earnings_in_Scotland_2015.pdf

The median wage was £27,710 so 60% of that is £16,626. (2015 figures).

 

 

[Baxter Parp]

6 minutes ago, Suspect Device said:

I thought that the definition of relative poverty was 60% of the median salary

It's median household income "The 2013/14 HBAI report gave median household income (2 adults) as £23,556"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_in_the_United_Kingdom

[DeeTillEhDeh]

So I was right. Most employment is by SMEs. Why couldnt you just acknowledge that? We are not talking about whether large business employs large numbers of staff anyway. We are talking about where the abuse comes from. You seem to have this view that big business is simply bad whilst casually ignoring the abuse caused by SMEs. In other words you are blindly fighting the battles of decades ago and ignoring the inconvenient truth that the abuse isnt coming from a rich Oxbridge elite clique but from mainstream Joe and Betty. The enemy is within bud.

60% now equals most.You really are taking the piss.

You clearly meant that the vast majority of employees were in SMEs.

Number of businesses does not mean the same as number of employees.

Also, where did I say that SMEs were exempt from being bad employers?

The point I was making is that employment law is not dictated by SMEs but by politicians who predominantly have a background and links not to SMEs but to big business.

[AUFC90]

3 hours ago, oaksoft said:

Yep. That why I am surprised he questioned my use of it.

BTW, £16,626 is not a poverty wage by any stretch of the imagination and I think it completely devalues the problems people in real trouble through underemployment face when lefties argue this sort of thing.

I'm pretty sure there will be loads of people on 16K below the poverty line. 

[Baxter Parp]

5 hours ago, oaksoft said:

If you are talking about poverty then I would have thought it would be reasonable to expect those arguing for eradication of it to have the decency to tell us what sort of income they are classing as poverty wages. You can hardly expect to solve a problem you are having trouble describing.

The definition of poverty in the UK is well documented.  I'm not sure what your problem is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_Kingdom#Poverty_as_60_percent_of_median_income

[DublinMagyar]

The definition of poverty in the UK is well documented.  I'm not sure what your problem is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_Kingdom#Poverty_as_60_percent_of_median_income

Reliably informed, a bitch ain't one.

[Baxter Parp]

Am I allowed to disagree with the definition of poverty as applied to the UK?

No, it's literally the law.

[WaffenThinMint]

13 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

Am I allowed to disagree with the definition of poverty as applied to the UK?

Baxter try something for me. Stop quoting other people's opinions and data and think for yourself.

What do YOU think about where the poverty line should reasonably be taking affordability into account?

For me it's about £600 per month for a single person, and adding £100 per month for every person in the household above that.

By poverty I personally mean the amount of income below which you are not able to do anything very much more than feed, clothe and heat yourself. I think a reasonable society should ensure all of those basics can be met with help such as council tax waivers, access to free job seeking help (including access to computers) and help with interview and travelling expenses etc. Anything else IMO is unaffordable and is counterproductive because it breeds dependency. No household should be left unable to meet these basic requirements.

Where is your line and how do you justify it?

 

10 minutes ago, Baxter Parp said:

No, it's literally the law.

I have to confess this raised a smile. All that effort by Oaksoft to give a good, coherent definition, only for the rhetorical question at the end to be demolished in five words flat. Baxter, you should have been a politician.

[Granny Danger]

17 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

Am I allowed to disagree with the definition of poverty as applied to the UK?

Baxter try something for me. Stop quoting other people's opinions and data and think for yourself.

What do YOU think about where the poverty line should reasonably be taking affordability into account?

For me it's about £600 per month for a single person, and adding £100 per month for every person in the household above that.

By poverty I personally mean the amount of income below which you are not able to do anything very much more than feed, clothe and heat yourself. I think a reasonable society should ensure all of those basics can be met with help such as council tax waivers, access to free job seeking help (including access to computers) and help with interview and travelling expenses etc. Anything else IMO is unaffordable and is counterproductive because it breeds dependency. No household should be left unable to meet these basic requirements.

Where is your line and how do you justify it?

£600 per month for a single person?  "Breeds dependency".  What an absolute bawbag topped off by asking anyone else to justify their views.