Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Original poster

to want to remind people who say the unemployed and sahm's are lazy and

171 replies

martini84 · 29/07/2013 13:13

Should go and get a job that on average 5 people apply for every job and this rises to 45 for entry level jobs.
Not quite that simple.

OP posts:

PeriodMath · 29/07/2013 20:12

Oh, and tax credits are benefits btw.

Wossname · 29/07/2013 20:15

I thought if only one parent worked then you couldnt claim tax credits? Or is this one of the changes coming in?

morethanpotatoprints · 29/07/2013 20:48

I have never heard of anyone receiving tax credits for not working.
I have heard of plenty of people who work receiving them, including my dh.
I personally receive no financial gain by choosing to be a sahm.
However, we live frugally and the fact my dh has his finances topped up by Tax credits allows me to sah.
This is the same for many couples and has been for some time.

breatheslowly · 29/07/2013 20:52

If there are 5 applicants per job then the average applicant is likely to get a job if they apply for 5. Similarly if there are 45 applicants per job then applying for 45 jobs is likely to get you one. Obviously that depends on there actually being 45 jobs being advertised, you being of average employability and not being restricted by things like childcare or only being available for part time hours.

So the number of applicants per job might be meaningful or pointless depending on the total number of jobs being advertised and the total number of unemployed. Even where there are more jobs available than candidates to fill them, more than 1 person is likely to apply for each job as people apply for more than 1 job at a time for various reasons including getting interview practice, wanting to find out about different organisations and playing offers off against each other.

Lots of people applied for my current job, I personally knew at least 5 of the other candidates. I also know that while they didn't get my job, they did find other jobs. Being one of the candidates who didn't get the role doesn't automatically mean you end up unemployed, you just apply for more jobs until you get one, provided there are other jobs available to apply for.

DameFanny · 29/07/2013 20:58

Loving your statistical methodology breathes

PeriodMath · 29/07/2013 21:06

Morethan, you can afford to stay at home because your DH receives benefits.

I don't see the justification for your sarcasm.

MammaTJ · 29/07/2013 21:16

I actually go to work for a rest!

xylem8 · 29/07/2013 21:42

'on average 5 people apply for every job '

yes and people don't only apply for one job!

ThingsThatMakeYouGoHmmmmmmmmm · 29/07/2013 21:45

Yes, and some don't apply for any !

breatheslowly · 29/07/2013 21:48

So do I MammaTJ!

Feminism has allowed some women to have the choice of whether to work or not, but I wonder how many women genuinely are in financial circumstances which allow them to choose. I am sure that some are stuck in the "worse off working" trap and others can't afford not to work. I think those with a genuine choice are probably in the minority.

When my grandmother got married her job as a teacher ceased, but that didn't mean that she could afford not to work. She had to find a job and ended up in one that paid less. Historically mothers often did work and many had to find work to fit around their childcare commitments, such as taking in washing and other poorly paid work from home. What feminism has done is opened up the opportunities for some women to continue with their careers, or have careers in the first place. I'm not sure it has done a great deal for the choices of less affluent families.

morethanpotatoprints · 29/07/2013 22:05

PeriodMath

My sarcasm is directed to anybody who believe that tax credits are paid to parents to sah.

MumnGran · 29/07/2013 22:18

OK - I may be opening myself to charges of idiocy, or I may just be getting too damn old to reason effectively, but I just don't get it!! ......

Mum A goes out to work - she is paid for her job.
In order to do this, she places her child in a nursery (or uses a childminder) where someone is paid to do the "job" of looking after the child through the day.
The person caring for the child is considered to be working.
Fine.

Mum B does not go out to work, but cares for her child through the day.
This is doing the same "job" as the person who is caring for Mum A's child.
Mum B is considered not to be working?

Huh? Say again, what?

Two people - same activity all day long, but one is 'working' and the other is considered to be ...."swanning about"? "lazing around"?
Whether one is paid to care for other people's children, or caring for one's own children all day....it is still working all day!!

PeriodMath · 29/07/2013 22:20

Morethan, what are the tax credits for then?

You said yourself they enable you to SAH.

janey68 · 29/07/2013 22:27

MumnGran - I think it was only the OP who put 'SAHM' and 'lazy' together.

Obviously in the two scenarios you describe, the two people may be equally busy during the day, and in that sense both may be 'working' in that they are carrying out various tasks. It would be more accurate to say that one is in paid employment and the other is a SAHM.

Personally I think the OP is just looking for a bunfight anyway

morethanpotatoprints · 29/07/2013 22:42

PeriodMath

The tax credits are to top up the low income workers, surely you know this. It isn't paid to a parent to allow them to sah.
I really don't see why you don't understand this.

ektorp · 29/07/2013 22:45

I think if you're a healthy SAHM with healthy school-age children and you're claiming benefits then you should get a job. Otherwise you are asking the rest of the working population to fund your lifestyle choice.

^ this^

morethanpotatoprints · 29/07/2013 22:51

ektorp.

Why do you think this? I have never asked anybody to fund my lifestyle choice, nor have I asked them to fund wars, pay MP's salaries. I am glad they pay for hospitals and schools for those who use them.
Unfortunately, we don't get to ask for gov money unless entitled nor do we get to say where tax is spent.

PeriodMath · 29/07/2013 23:07

Morethan, surely you know it's based on joint household income? If you were earning, your DH might not be eligible for tax credits.

morethanpotatoprints · 29/07/2013 23:20

It can only be based on joint income if two are working, I don't work and chose to be a sahm.
The money my dh receives is nowhere near equivalent to a wage that I could earn.
The fact we can afford to have a sahp is because our outgoings are low, not because of an additional wage supplied by tax credits.
We still have nowhere near the average household income coming into the household.

Joanne279 · 29/07/2013 23:21

I think the op was trying to say that people perceive a SAHM as not a 'job' as such and we're not contributing and need to get a proper job.

Well, SAHM is on-call 24 hours a day instead of 8. Not only has children to look after and teach good qualities, but endless amount of washing, drying, making phone call....(the list is endless)

Ok, so everyone else has these things to do too, but unless someone is sat on their backside all day watching Jezza , then I think a SAHM has one hell of a 'job'

I dislike people who think its the easy way out of working. Trust me, we work.

Jinsei · 29/07/2013 23:27

There might be a lot of applicants for every job, but in my experience, there are genuinely very few employable ones. I do a lot of recruitment and we typically get 50-150 applications for each post that we advertise. However, there are rarely more than four or five who bother to put together a proper application. Sometimes it can be hard to find a reasonable number of decent candidates to interview, even when the overall number of applications is quite substantial.

I guess what I'm saying is that people shouldn't be put off by the stats. I am not suggesting that anyone is lazy, I just think there are a lit of people out there who have no idea how to go about applying for a job.

PeriodMath · 29/07/2013 23:31

I used the wrong word. I meant household not joint. If you worked, your salary would be counted and you might even get off tax credits.

Anyway you spin it, your choice not to work IS being supported by the taxpayer. You are a low income household partly due to your lifestyle choice and tax credits are backing you up.

Joanne279 · 29/07/2013 23:37

I thought tax credits were tiered based on your income?

When I was with my ex (grr) we both worked and brought in a substational sum per year BUT we were STILL getting £10 a week tax credits. Go figure!

If the government makes the stupid rules that you can claim if only one of you is working, then why are people on this thread appearing to be making out people aren't entitled to claim?

The government made the claiming rules. Take you beef out on them, not the people who claim it!

PeriodMath · 29/07/2013 23:40

Nobody on here has said claimants are not entitled legally.

The system is indeed at fault. People do their sums and see they're better off not working.

breatheslowly · 29/07/2013 23:42

Jinsei - that is interesting. Why do you think the other applications are so poor? Are they genuinely trying to get the job? If so, why haven't they been taught how to apply for jobs at some point? I'm not who should bear responsibility for teaching people how to apply for jobs. Obviously it starts at school, but it must go on beyond that. I'm lucky that I have people around me who will read my CV, letters and application forms and really polish them. Plenty of people must either not have that or not realise how much time has to be spent tweaking an application.

Flip

1 2 3 4 5 6 7