Forum menu
If I'm then forced to take a job at minimum wage (which won't cover my mortgage) I will lose the insurance I've been paying for (which does cover my mortgage).
Then I'm screwed even though I've tried to take responsibility for my situation.
You would need to have been unemployed for two years or more for it to effect you.
I would have thought your Mortgage Insurance provider would have offered you a job themselves by that time just to save themselves some money paying out for your house.
Sounds like you have a slightly biased opinion to be honest.
no--just much experience of these things-- when they are public bodies they do tend to be more benign-- but in the private/semi private sector there is a whole different agenda-- and also lots of internal politics that workers seem to be on the receiving end of-- for me these are parasitical self serving in the main--
last org i had the pleasure of working for was a 'housing association ' that had managed to set up as stand alone-- when we were all part of the local authority there was a personnel dept, consisting of one person with a secretary to help, this dept oversaw 900= people--, upon privatising , we then had a HR dept of five 'looking' after 150 people--you are kidding me if you say they were there to help staff !!!
You would need to have been unemployed for two years or more for it to effect you.
Ah ok that makes sense. ASUs tend to pay out for 12 months.
deviant - MemberThere's plenty of jobs if you're not picky.
Yes, that's right, there are 2.5 million jobs currently unfilled and every single person could have one, if they were just less picky. FFS. Being less picky gets one person a job that someone else would have taken, it doesn't create any more jobs.
Hang on, isn't this the whole point of democracy? Politicians having to give people what they want?
DD the new TJ, still as argumentative but ruder. You're right on track sunshine keep up the good work.
I shall not be rushing to work for sub benefit rewards.!
Don't you think that those who do work at or near minimum wage appreciate funding your benefits?
How much better off would you need to be to start "rushing"?
Raising the income tax threshold to £12k would get most low paid to "living wage" and reduce the merry-go-round of taxing people to give it back in benefits.
Income tax is a necessary evil to fund essential parts of society, but it is still the government taking "earned" money away from the people. Taxing the low paid is pointless if you rather expensively give it back via benefits or tax credits
teamhurtmore - MemberPlus we actually have a situation where employment is going up, without a rise in in output, which is sending an interesting message on UK productivity.
The last rise was largely down to people taking part-time work who would choose to be working full-time. Underemployment is almost as big a problem as unemployment, but doesn't show up in these stats, and that gives a pretty false impression.
Northwind, it is true that here has been an increase in part time work. But, that doesn't invalidate my point. Output per hour worked (the headline figure now quoted and the ONS' favourite measure) is on a downward trend in the UK and in most of Europe. Output per hour worked has fallen 2% YoY according to this week's stats.
The strange thing is that this is happening under a Tory government here (and governments of other political persuasions elsewhere). And yet a common accusation thrown about on STW is that the bloody Tories deliberately let unemployment rise as this improves the productivity of their "pay masters." Facts show that this is complete claptrap, but it remains an interesting question. The very odd trends across Europe were neatly summarised in the FT on 3 January? Since 2007, Ireland is the only economy that has experienced rising UN and rising productivity levels. Some will no doubt be relieved (sic) that this is happening under a Centre Right government but I would doubt the strict causation between these factors myself.