to wish all these filthy rich people who claim to know what it's like to live off a pittance, would just fuck the hell off?

[sickofthisshite]

AIBU?

Sarah Ferguson claims a family of 4 can easily live off £80 p/wk to cover all living costs

Boris Johnson has said the poor "should show gratitude to the mega rich"

Iain Duncan Smith says living off £53 is doable for a single person.

According to DC, customers at Waitress are "friendlier & more engaged" than those he has interacted with at other supermarkets. As if people who shop in Sains, Tesco, etc don't have opinion on politics & the state of the country, their lives. Just because someone is inarticulate or introverted does not mean there thoughts & feelings are irrelevant.

The list goes on.

Who the hell are these prats to judge those in the vicious, relentless struggle of poverty.

I hope there perfect little bubble is one day burst.

It makes me sick to my very core.

Google maps estimate a walking time of 2 hrs 40 min and more than half the route doesn't have pavements. You would think the time would be better spent job hunting but getting a job isn't the purpose of JCP. It's purpose is to punish people for having the audacity to lose their jobs.

The trouble is zero hours contracts are increasing. I can't remember how many and they are very frequently part time roles undertaken my women.

YANBU. People who don't live in the real world have no business commenting on something that they have no experience of.

seriously, useless?
THis is really worrying.

I am currently on ESA but in the wrag group. In Sept I change onto income based ESA and I suspect onto JSA. I will likely not be able to get to my nearest JobCentre. I am disabled and struggle to walk a few hundred yards. I know the successors of Norman TEbbit would like me to 'get on my bike and get a job' but I can't physically do that.

I am SCARED.

I bet the men in their £500 shoes (and the suits will cost a LOT more than that) have not felt scared like I do

I don't know enough about zero hour contracts to state an opinion.

So I was not implying they are a bad thing, not deliberately anyway. bit if the person on a zero hour contact does not want to be, then I value most people's independent thought enough to assume they'd be looking for other work. (not saying that you don't)

I think that those is prominent/influential positions in the government should have to have been working in a related industry for at least 10 years personally. Eg. secretary of education should have to have been teaching in state education etc etc.

I agree in principal with the OP; people shouldn't comment on what they don't understand. But I object to the term "filthy rich" and the rich - bashing which in some cases is just as unfair as poor - bashing.

I share the same local waitrose as DC as live in his constituency. It's customer base is 99.9% middle to upper class baby boomers and Cotswold socialites. I like to go in there with my 3yo in a 8yo maclaren buggy - the collective tutting and sighing reaches several decibels. OH is convinced that it is not actually possible to spend under £10 in this particular branch

I wouldn't be very friendly if I saw DC in a supermarket, I would find it hard to resist punching him in the face!

Rather a gulf between people wanting other work, and it being available, no?

And being available in reasonable quantity.

I agree with everything objection has said.

Customers in Waitrose friendlier and more engaged - ha! Is that while they're allowing their children to ram you in the shins with their artisanal wooden scooters and not asking them to apologise? Or when they whoosh past you with their trolleys without a thank you or an excuse me because they're the centre of the universe, don't you know?

objection many zero hours contracts contain a clause forbidding them to take on any other work. We are open 24/7 and the zero hours contract requires them to be 100% available at all times. Turning your phone off or being more than 20 minutes away can be deemed to be making yourself unavailable. A first offence guarantees no work for at least a week, second offence it's worth weeks and so on. Add to that there are some weeks when no work is available for those on zero hours.

Now I happen to know most of them job hunt in secret but they are incredibly stressed as it's a horrible way to live. They don't have enough money to live on and live in constant fear of falling foul of the "not available rule" due to their job hunting. At least in fear of it happening before they get something else. Add to that that a growing percentage of jobs advertised are very part time or also zero hour contracts they are stuck between a rock and a hard place. These are hard working people trying their best, despite what some people may think they've done nothing wrong.

uselessidiot fucking hell! well clearly THAT is not on

I'd actually walk up to him and ask him: 'given you have sadly had personal experience of disability and the effects it can have on a family, how can you justify what you have done to disabled people in this country?'

Of course there are situations where people are completely helpless, but these are the tiny minority.

You think?

Zero hours contracts are the only option available in certain types of work. There are loads if people on them.

Do you honestly think people choose them as a main and reliable source of income?

And what useless said

Useless - that is a pretty crap-sounding zero-hours contract. My daughter is on one, and whilst there are aspects of it I personally don't agree with (but can't do anything about because she's over 21 and she has to do it herself and won't) her contract is nothing like that. Doesn't sound too legal to me??

Surely they can't penalise you for job hunting?

uselessidiot Wed 30-Apr-14 18:19:29

objection many zero hours contracts contain a clause forbidding them to take on any other work. We are open 24/7 and the zero hours contract requires them to be 100% available at all times. Turning your phone off or being more than 20 minutes away can be deemed to be making yourself unavailable. A first offence guarantees no work for at least a week, second offence it's worth weeks and so on. Add to that there are some weeks when no work is available for those on zero hours

Basically wanting the employee to be "on call" but without paying them for it.

I am afraid I lost it OP when you put "all rich people" into one group which is IMO, just as bad as referring to "the poor" or "those on benefits" as if they are one group with the same characteristics, opinions and behaviour.

Some people lose touch with poverty, others don't. DB from Dragon's Den showed a very clear understanding of poverty when we was on the programme about living on benefits with other "celebs". Equally, many of those on "Secret Millionaire" are returning to places similar to where they grew up and remembering growing up poor. Many very wealthy people have no bloody clue, often those who have inherited or "come into" money (ie been born into it or married it). Lots, however, have come up the hard way, grafting, working and giving things up in order to achieve what they want.

I am not wealthy (teacher) but knew grinding poverty as a teenager. But, ours was inflicted on us by my Mum and her refusal to prioritise anything other than her smoking and drinking. I know poverty. I also know therefore that stereotyping the poor is just as bad as the rich.

Yes basically darkest.

Monica they get round it with the availability clause. So if you travel further away from work to go to an interview or other job hunting activity or if you turn your phone off to go into an interview your considered to be not available. People risk it because they have to but there's the constant fear that's when work will call.

Zero hour contracts suit many, students, second jobs or those who have a second earner in the household.

Objection is correct in that people slate the system when its actually very generous. Free education, free healthcare, housing and money for food, heat etc. It is perfectly possible to live on benefits, if it wasnt so many wouldnt choose to be on them by choice.

Some may truly be struggling to find any work but there are many that see certain jobs as beneath them, dont want to work more than a few hours or even work at all as apparently being a parent should exclude you from working. Its always the states fault, never the individuals. Far too many have children they cant afford to support, dont gain any work experience etc to use should circumstance change but its their right and the state always seems to end up to blame.

Then the rich are slated despite them paying taxes that covers the living costs of millions. Some may have life handed to them on a plate but the majority will have studied/worked hard to get where they are.

Another addition to this is the fact that if a couple are students with a child the only help available is CB, CTC and HB. It isn't enough to live off when the rent is more expensive then housing benefit, you're on meters because you aren't trusted to pay bills (eating £90 a month in winter). My DP couldn't find a job at the time and we were slowly burning through the small amount of savings I had.

If DP hadn't found a job when he did we would have been in serious trouble.

^I don't know enough about zero hour contracts to state an opinion. ^

Evidently. That hasn't stopped you though.

Also, compare this:

^ I value most people's independent thought enough to assume they'd be looking for other work. (not saying that you don't)^

to this:

^ How little do you think of peoples intelligence and abilities to suggest that they are not capable of making choices and getting themselves into a better situation?^

I lived on it and had a holiday once a year!!!!!!!! Wasn't fun but I managed!

^but there are many that see certain jobs as beneath them, dont want to work more than a few hours or even work at all as apparently being a parent should exclude you from working.^

Evidence? Do you conduct opinion polls?