To be irritated by this £100k a year whiner

[Viviennemary]

On Question Time tonight they were talking about subsidised childcare and the new benefits for younger children. Then a woman came on with a boo hoo sad face and said she wouldn't be getting it. So I think Fiona Bruce said because your income is £100k a year plus Then she said that it wasnt fair as there was only one wage. And their household only had one earner.

Well tough. Folk on just over £12k a year are paying tax and this cheeky woman thinks her child care should be subsidised. It made me mad.

Political will can’t turn water into wine.

How do people who don’t understand “revenue neutral” manage to hold down £100k jobs?

I wonder about the future as well. The behaviour is very bad.

May be set the minimum wage to include pensions....?

Parenting has changed. In years gone by parents actively taught their children how to do things - sleep, eat, talk, play - now they seem to assume the children will pick it all up by themselves, or ‘do it when they’re ready’.

We were queuing for the soft play this morning and a boy of about 3 ran to the front of the queue and physically forced the barrier open before disappearing off into the play area. The mum just gave a tinkly little laugh and seemed to expect us all to find her ‘spirited’ child hilarious. I would’ve been mortified and told them off (although if they’d made a run for it I would’ve grabbed them) but then apparently I’m awful and strict 🤷🏼‍♀️

It's not even that difficult, a private plane is about £100k and fuel is cheap in the channel Islands. It's about £40 and 50 mins each way in fuel to biggin hill.

What are you going to trade for it. What sectors and societal impacts are you willing to endure?

At £15-20/ HR you are looking at almost all checkouts being automated and most fast food prep being automated. I know from my job that the break even for a new automated CNC would be under £20/HR this would cut around 12 well paid average around £16-17/hr working class manufacturing jobs and replace it will one likely rather middle class university educated robotics engineer on £30-35/HR and an expensive machine from Germany.

Be careful what you wish for.

Why should it be on "employers" can't these people set up there own businesses?

Nail on the head!!

What are you going to trade for it. What sectors and societal impacts are you willing to endure?

None. Say you have a pot of combined wages and benefits for low paid public sector workers. Hypothetically three quarters of the pot is currently wages and a quarter is benefits. Raise wages and get rid of benefits so 100% of the same size pot is wages. It’s revenue neutral. It’s hardly advanced economics.

Of course. You make sense

This. You can already see it happening. In certain sectors AI will be having a big impact and already is. Most of the reason you can’t speak to a rep nowadays is it is AI bots. First the jobs were sent out of the country and then done away with completely. People are replaceable. Many jobs will be outsourced or removed. It’s not a simple answer.

And that’s going to happen anyway. It has absolutely nothing to do with stopping subsidising employers through in work benefits.

Not all the low paid will be on benefits. Some will have higher earning partners so will be ineligible for UC for example. What about pensions?? Increasing wages will increase occupational pension costs in 2/3 decades time! Your ideas are far too simplistic. Perhaps you need an "advanced economics" course to start to understand the bigger picture and the consequences of your "simple" solutions??

Yep I don’t think the suggestions make economic sense advanced or otherwise

Raising labour costs will accelerate that process and automation/AI will expand into areas that have, so far, remained manually done by people.

Given that you had such difficulty understanding a relatively simple idea, recommending an advanced economics course to someone else is a bit rich. Presumably you like your taxes subsidising employers?

Yep it’s simple. If you have 20 employees on £12 an hour and increase to £20 an hour but profit is the same you’ll have to get rid of some

Or in some cases at risk of going bust

Not sure why there’s a difficulty from anyone on it

Is it never having worked in the private sector?

Those jobs that can be shed, are and will be eventually. Which is why it's increasingly looking like the way forward will be the introduction of universal basic income and shorter working weeks.

https://www.4dayweek.co.uk/pilot-programme

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/jun/04/universal-basic-income-of-1600-pounds-a-month-to-be-trialled-in-england

Well if it’s in the Guardian it must be true 🤣🤦🏻‍♀️

I watched this after your post OP. The lady, pregnant with her second child did not have a "boo boo sad face". She was logical and has done her bit, used to work in the RAF etc. She only brought up the £100k point when the conservative MP assumed she'd receive child benefits.
Just pointing this out as you've made the lady out to be someone she wasn't, and you don't even know if she might be on MN so a bit uncalled for esp since her initial point about m childcare costs and the impact on women as they had to drop out of the work force was a good one and inclusive of women regardless of how much they're earning.

And before anyone suggests an ‘advanced economics’ course. I actually have a degree in it.

Is it never having worked in the private sector?

No.

See, that’s what makes nurseries so unique and so expensive. You can’t get rid of your employees. You need nearly as many adults as you do children.

No, I’m not moaning at all far from it. I was protesting the poster who assumed I wasn’t working enough and happy claiming state benefits that higher tax payers paid for.

I also never claimed to be living on 12k. I stated I earned 12k and didn’t claim benefits.

What a terrific contribution. Well done you.