Opinions you have that aren't popular on mumsnet(2)

[Lockdowner35]

As the last thread reached 1000 posts

I will start

Jo Swinson would have do a better job than Boris on Coronavirus

Because if they are 'personal' commitments then we are back to my point that if you want to earn well often you need to put work before personal stuff.

There is also a degree of arrogance and privilege is presuming you will never get laid off, as many people in seemingly secure jobs have lately found themselves. That your industry will never be decimated by something like a pandemic. That you will never be forced to care for an elderly relative due to lack of social care provision. That you will never have to give up work due to you or a family member becoming disabled, critically ill, or developing a long term condition requiring care. That you'll never have your relationship breakdown or your partner suddenly die.

@MaddieElla "Being a SAHM is not a full time job. It is a life of reilly. Expecting your working partner to get up in the night with kids is taking the piss."

🖕🏼

All of that @FoxyTheFox, as well as the complete dismissal of raising the next generation as worthless because it doesn’t generate money.

This is going to be a WILDLY unpopular opinion.

But.

I don't believe we should have a benefits system, except for people who really truly are unable to work due to disabilities. How we would police that, I've no idea.

But don't have children if you can't afford not to work.

Long term JSA is the biggest load of bollocks ever introduced.

As regards earnings:

(1) Often the person who chooses to work fewer hours due to 'personal' commitments is in fact saving the state a significant amount of money indirectly. The person who works part time in order to be able to be at home with the kids outside of school hours, or to have time to care for their elderly parent, may be saving the state significant amounts in childcare or social care. (I'm not saying that they SHOULD make these choices in order to save the state money; just that you need to count such factors against the cost of benefits.)

(2) It's not just a matter of how many hours you work: some jobs pay better than others. Some of the differential in pay is due to the value of the jobs; but I don't think it's a strong relationship. Just look at who are and aren't classed as key workers right now: many of those classed as 'essential' are quite low-paid. Rather more of the differential is due to the level of qualifications that you need; and while I think this does need to count toward pay, not everyone is capable of getting a degree, for example. They don't have to be disabled for that; just not to have talents that lie in that direction. I'm not saying that everyone should be paid the same; just that people should not be expected to go without necessities because they don't earn enough to live on: either their employers should pay them a more decent wage, or it needs to be topped up with benefits.

(3) I think it's VERY dangerous to regard people as deserving or undeserving because of whether their illness is due to lifestyle factors ('obesity due to greed') or not. For one thing, most illnesses can be a mixture, and one cannot know in an individual whether their diabetes,for example, is due to obesity 'caused by greed', or to obesity caused by necessary medication, or just to bad luck. Are you going to differentiate between someone who has permanent lung damage from smoking, and one who has it because they spent their childhood in a polluted area, and one who has it because of Covid caught through essential work, and one who has it because of Covid caught through breaking the rules? Are you even ever going to know which it is, in most cases? Anyway, judging and punishing people for their illnesses, whatever the cause, is just cruel.

There is also a degree of arrogance and privilege is presuming you will never get laid off, as many people in seemingly secure jobs have lately found themselves. That your industry will never be decimated by something like a pandemic. That you will never be forced to care for an elderly relative due to lack of social care provision. That you will never have to give up work due to you or a family member becoming disabled, critically ill, or developing a long term condition requiring care. That you'll never have your relationship breakdown or your partner suddenly die.

Exactly.

Of course we need cleaners, shop assistants, street sweepers, etc. and there will always be those because some people, as you point out, are only able to take on those jobs for a number of reasons.

My issue is with people who could do more but choose not to. You need to be accountable for your choices. Choices have consequences. Like the PP who said if you can't afford to have children, you shouldn't have them. I agree. Same with dogs. Same with a phone contract for example.

My 'privilege' was a scholarship. I had no other way to go to university. So I found out how I could finance that and learnt that I could apply for a scholarship (grade based, so I had to study very hard to get the necessary grades). Then while at university I worked two jobs. After uni, initially I worked four jobs. I wasn't an automaton - I was a self-reliant human being. Very different. And there are many, many people who've done similar things to ensure they could be financially independent.

I give to a number of charities because I want to help their causes - but I don't want to be forced to subsidise those I believe could do without my money but choose not to.

But someone still needs to do the basic, low end jobs like waitressing and cleaning. Not everyone can just move up the ladder because there aren't as many managerial/highly paid jobs as there are candidates. So someone will always be at the bottom rung. The problem is these jobs often don't pay enough to live on, so wages need to be topped up with benefits. That's why low earners cost the state more. Maybe these entrepreneurial people with serious money (who are often the owners/CEOs/high up managers at companies) should actually pay people a decent wage, then they wouldn't have to subsidise them via benefits.

As for children and benefits...a huge barrier to parents (especially single parents, mostly women) working is the extortionate cost of childcare for under 3s. It costs around £1000 for a full time nursery place and not much less for full time childminder.
Even after the age of 3 subsidised hours are only for term time.
The average UK salary is £28k or so. That's around £1800 after tax. So even someone on an average salary would struggle to afford this childcare plus all their other bills, let alone people on minimum wage.
If the government/society were serious about getting people into work they would subsidise childcare from birth, all year round, for working parents.

As for high earners...even after 40% tax you still have a lot of money compared to the vast majority of people. Be grateful for that rather than moaning that your tax is too high. You're only able to do your high paid job because the low earning workers that you look down on care for your children and elderly parents, farm, package and sell your food, clean your streets and offices and keep all the admin of society going.

@VinylDetective, I’m curious to know what your profession is, if you don’t mind sharing?

[quote Cattenberg]@VinylDetective, I’m curious to know what your profession is, if you don’t mind sharing?[/quote]
Director of Communications.

Was anyway, now comfortably retired and still happily paying tax.

I sometimes think we could do with another General Strike. Although not at the moment, obviously.

When people can’t buy their luxuries because there’s no one to serve them (or deliver the parcels), when the buses and taxis stay parked at the depot, when nothing gets cleaned, and when the rubbish starts piling up in the streets, then maybe people might start to value this essential work a bit more.

That’s interesting, VinylDetective. I’ve heard that some people starting out in digital marketing can rocket up the pay scale these days.

@FestiveFruitloop then they should try to get a better job. Or get a second job (I'm talking from experience - at one point I had four jobs simultaneously). Say you're in retail. How many people complain about working in retail rather than trying to do well, and move up the ladder? Or try to get a sales job where you can get 'extra' money via commissions? Same with hospitality - start with a waiting job, work hard, show willingness, and move up the ladder. Once you're in management you can move across to other industries. Yes it might not work around other commitments but if you want to earn well often that's what you need to do.

That's all very well and good for someone who is healthy and doesn't have commitments such as childcare or eldercare. Are those who don't fall into that category just being lazy/under-committed?

My unpopular opinion- I'm an evangelical Christian. Frequently you won't hear comments from us because we will be dismissed. This makes Mumsnet seem more like there are no evangelical Christians so ideas are reinforced.
Also, nappy companies want you to believe you can't toilet train children with no additional needs before 3.5 as it makes them more money. Many children are ready well before this, just because you don't know any doesn't make it wrong. ( Mine were 13 months and 21 months)

@theantsgomarchin

This is going to be a WILDLY unpopular opinion.

But.

I don't believe we should have a benefits system, except for people who really truly are unable to work due to disabilities. How we would police that, I've no idea.

But don't have children if you can't afford not to work.

Long term JSA is the biggest load of bollocks ever introduced.

OK then @theantsgomarchin, let's hear your brilliant proposals for how those who are trying desperately to find work and failing are supposed to survive. Fresh air on toast?

Is there somehow a Mumsnet requirement that theantsgomarchin should provide an alternative proposal?

@Orlania

Is there somehow a Mumsnet requirement that theantsgomarchin should provide an alternative proposal?

They made a very contentious remark without backing it up in any way. It's not unreasonable to interrogate a remark like that. Unless the pp is a mere keyboard warrior (perish the thought!), they presumably have a viewpoint on this.

If you're going to post something goady and/or inflammatory, you should at least possess the courage to justify your convictions.

@Orlania

Is there somehow a Mumsnet requirement that theantsgomarchin should provide an alternative proposal?

No one can force them to but people can inquire regardless.

I'm always interested to know what people proposing getting rid of the welfare state have planned.

Let's say a child is born into a family who couldn't afford to provide for it without the support of benefits. Do we just say fuck 'em and let them go without? Do we have the child removed and given to a nice middle class family who can look after it (and where, in that case, are they going to find all those potential adopters and foster parents? Is there a magic social worker tree somewhere to provide people to carry out this righteous task?)?
Sterilisation? Forced abortions?

Come on, if the benefits system is so shite then we must be able to think of something else that sounds halfway humane. It'll all be worth it when you've successfully further disadvantaged the poorest sections of society!

They made a very contentious remark without backing it up in any way

They don't need to on this thread. It's unpopular opinions. You don't have to like or agree with it.

If you're going to post something goady and/or inflammatory, you should at least possess the courage to justify your convictions.

Why. They are entitled to their opinion. And they don't have to justify it to you. They may choose to. But there's certainly no requirement to do so. And it's nothing to do with courage. Sometimes people just can't be bothered to get into a debate about it.

@Orlania

They made a very contentious remark without backing it up in any way

They don't need to on this thread. It's unpopular opinions. You don't have to like or agree with it.

If you're going to post something goady and/or inflammatory, you should at least possess the courage to justify your convictions.

Why. They are entitled to their opinion. And they don't have to justify it to you. They may choose to. But there's certainly no requirement to do so. And it's nothing to do with courage. Sometimes people just can't be bothered to get into a debate about it.

OK, here's an opinion then, which by your logic I don't have to justify, so won't:

It's pointless, childish and frankly sad to post 'contentious' opinions on a forum if one isn't prepared to enlarge on them or back them up if questioned.

It's pointless, childish and frankly sad to post 'contentious' opinions on a forum if one isn't prepared to enlarge on them or back them up if questioned.

That's ok. You're welcome to your opinion 👍

@FestiveFruitloop That's all very well and good for someone who is healthy and doesn't have commitments such as childcare or eldercare. Are those who don't fall into that category just being lazy/under-committed?

Again - you shouldn't have children if you can't afford them. Having children is not a right. As for care of elder relatives, in the future the problem could be addressed with, going back to my earlier point, people getting better jobs and making more money, as they could pay for care later on in their lives. However right now it would be a case of going for better-paid jobs in order to pay for care for relatives. I always knew I wanted to do well for myself; but I also knew I had to because having lost both parents relatively young, I didn't have a safety net. And I hated the idea of having to rely on someone else (partner or state) to support me. Many people are driven to do well for similar reasons - many however don't look beyond the next pay date.

I agree that the number of people needing better paid jobs is greater than that of management positions: however the number of people who could try and aim for those jobs is certainly not equivalent to the number of people who could, but don't. I have it in my family (stepkids): they don't want the stress of having to manage people so would rather stick to the jobs they have than try and get promoted. Or they don't want a longer drive to work so they stay put where they are.

@praepondero pain-free until the anaesthetic wears off you mean!