To hope that some people now understand that it's not somebody's fault they're poor?

[Moomin8]

All of a sudden loads of people have had to claim UC

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/mar/24/britain-benefits-rishi-sunak-claimants-austerity?CMP=ShareiOSAppp_Other

Torsten Bell, head of the Resolution Foundation, says people on £50,000 salaries have been anxiously asking him about benefits rates. They’re in for a shock, he says.” Funny, that: before this crisis, those doing alright were adamant that benefit rates were too high. Now, they’re worried it’s the opposite.

There's a far higher proportion of workshy scroungers in middle management and the public sector than there is in the average dole queue
What an utterly cuntish thing to say. Do you mean those in the public sector who are now expected to step up and deal with this pandemic head on?
You are all in plain sight.

It isn't black and white - as usual.

Of course some people are lazy and some work hard. of course some people have five kids and some only one. Of course some people get lucky or have better chances and some are dealt really bad hands. But the myth of the helpless poor is as bad as the myth of the deserving rich.
What is interesting as always is how society structures itself to manage the population. What does it reward? What does it need? How does it manage its resources? And how does that change when circumstances change?

Wealthy people abuse the system too. I've had friends living with parents, on benefits because they don't wat to work or they're picky with jobs they want. My partner's brother lives at home (wealthy family) and when he lost his hospitality job he said he's not going to look for anything new because he doesn't want to work. And having worked in hospitality have seen many people call in sick repeatedly due to being hangover or wanting to get stoned instead of go to work.

If these people end up poor surely there's a lot of choice there?

It really depends. I'll be honest, I went through a period in my 20s where I just dossed about on jobseekers allowance. I was dirt poor. It was my fault, I just couldn't be arsed. Now I'm not poor. I worked my backside off through my undergrad and masters and I work hard; I'm an advanced nurse practitioner (so not well off by any means but a decent wage which allows me a decent quality of life).

But then there are lots of variables. Someone could be doing an essential job in society, carer, cleaner, binman. They are all very much needed however are probably on poor wages. But then there are people born into wealth. I don't think it's an easy topic to come to a definitive conclusion to.

No one in this country who works for a living should struggle, I do know that.

Well said BuckingFrolics
I couldn't agree more

I have neighbours both aged 27 who have 4 children, the youngest is 2. She doesn't work and hasn't for 6 years.

She was born 60 years too late then. In the 1950s being at home with small children was regarded as a full time job and why on earth should a woman want to go outside the home to earn money?

I am privately educated, 5 A Levels at decent grades, and yet decided to become a teacher on a basic wage.

This says it all for me. I would have a lot more respect for your opinions if you said that you had come from a sink estate, went to a sink school and was the first from that school to go to University, and that you then chose to go into teaching to show others of your background that it could be done.

Strange how even though we had low unemployment rates, there are still benefits claims and increasing use of food banks. Crap wages, tax payer subsidising the wage bills of employers who pay little to no taxes. Some people need to stop watching channel 5 and reading the daily mail.

Many, many women in the 60s worked. They cleaned houses and offices, they worked part time in shops and offices, they did factory work. If the husband didn't earn enough they had to work.

The difference no-one could live full time for years on state benefits.

This idea of the housewife at home doing nothing is a bit of a myth. The type of job that women had access to was different. They were often below the radar.

Some people do choose it. I work with 2 women who refuse to work more than 16 hrs because of their benefits. I’ve known far more in the past.

@squirrelsbizaar

I really don't see how you feel I'm bitter?

And no, she received absolutely no financial money from either my father or my brothers father towards raising him. Like I said, I moved out at 16, and which point she raised my brother by herself financially.

I really don't see how the idea that some people do choose to earn a lower wage is that difficult to comprehend?

@peregrina

Why are my opinions any less valid?

My father came from a council estate, absolutely no money with the family, and worked his way up through absolute hard graft and is now in banking.

I thoroughly appreciate the sometimes circumstances restrict people's choices in life, and I am absolutely for people receiving help when they need it, but I also believe that some people choose not to earn a lot.

Some people do choose it. I work with 2 women who refuse to work more than 16 hrs because of their benefits. I’ve known far more in the past.

The reason people do this is not laziness it's because if they work more than 16 hours the system means they can't afford to live.

In fact in those kinds of situations benefit advisers often tell people not to work more hours.

This idea of the housewife at home doing nothing is a bit of a myth. The type of job that women had access to was different.

I am not talking about the 1960s. As a child of the 1950s I am talking about that era. A significant number of women did not go out to work. The exceptions in my street were the local District Nurse and Midwife, and one who ran the local post office. All the others were 'housewives', some happier than others to be so.

It began to change in the early 60s. They began to ask married women to consider training to teach, the hours fitting in round the children. Nursing changed too - an Emergency Ward 10 programme I saw had a story line about a nurse secretly being married (shock horror!).

I worked with a woman who refused to do more that 16 hours even though her children were teenagers! She could afford to live working more hours but her tax credits would be cut if she did. That's a lifestyle choice. She lives in a nice big detached and is now moaning that she wil have to work longer because she will get less work pension because she worked part time. Her choice. No sympathy I'm afraid. Also, women who didn't work when their children were small in the 1950s were supported by a husband who worked full time. Not a husband working as few hours as possible or not at all.

Even in the 50's poor women worked. They took in ironing, cleaned, looked after other people's kids. The richer ones didn't. If the man earned enough you didn't go out to work. If he didn't you had to.

I agree thoguh ti is different now. But the reliance on - and possibility of relying on - the state to support you is what has changed.

If the man earned enough you didn't go out to work.

Indeed - there was a lot of "my wife doesn't need to work." My DM never did go back to work, and actually gave up working before she had DB. MIL by contrast, found being at home frustrating and wanted some money of her own, so did go out to work in the 1960s - not during the 1950s as far as DH remembers.

And families in the 50s when the woman didn't work had to do with much less. Even taking evolution into consideration, the average household enjoyed much fewer luxuries than their richer counterparts.

Ah but you see, we were still recovering from the War. It seemed to take until around 1960 for things to really pick up and for my parents generation to put the War to rest.

@Gingertam you do not have access to this woman's bank's statements.

If someone working more than 16 hours means they can't afford to pay council tax then they are going to work 16 hours rather than have bailiffs at the door.,

@Bojo1 they are NOT choosing claiming benefits OR having a well paid job/high salary

To get tax credits they are in low income. So they top up with tax credits, you know so they have enough for food, bills, the odd day out. With in that, there is a balance; if she works more the extra wages are cancelled by reduction in tax credits AND she has less time with her kids. It’s a small margin.

@Peregrina in the 1950's people didn't get benefits if they did not work though did they? They did not even get child benefit for the first child as it only kicked in with a second child.

No one forced my neighbours to have 4 children. To do so and then live off benefits is wrong. She is young, fit, able to drive and has a car so why not work?

Also why can he not work a proper job? He is also young, fit, able to drive and with a car.

They don't even need 2 cars when only 1 works and that is evenings. I am sure there are working couples who can't afford a car each

It's strange how so many people know all of their neighbours circumstances just by being nosy and making unsubstantiated judgements.

in the 1950's people didn't get benefits if they did not work though did they?

Well, it was a time of full male employment, so most men I knew were working. Those who weren't were sick so they did get some sort of benefits. As some of us say, we don't know other people's circumstances; we don't know why people don't or can't work always.

It was 'real work' too - not zero hours or gig economy rubbish. People knew how many hours they were going to work each week.

It's strange how so many people know all of their neighbours circumstances just by being nosy and making unsubstantiated judgements.*
*
And yet here you are OP, countering any point that someone makes against yours because clearly your opinion is fact.