Confused re attitude to benefits and work experience

[catontheroof]

Your thoughts please - why has it become so politically incorrect to suggest that fit adults in this country should be expected to work for a living?

I believe that we need a safety net but cannot understand why people should not have to take jobs that they are qualified for if those jobs exist. I also cannot understand why people "deserve" tax credits etc.

If large chunks of our population do not work then our GDP is low. The only way that we can afford to have so many on benefits with a relatively high standard of living is by importing goods from other countries where the workers live and work in atrocious conditions.

Why do we think that it is right and proper that people in this country sit around being paid not to work whilst tens of thousands all over the world work in sweat shops to provide them with a lifestyle?

If our fit population all worked then we'd increase GDP and have money to help people in other countries where there is real poverty.

Cheap food is more than a desire for many people. In the current climate of redundancy, wages freezes and wage cuts all happening at the same time as rising prices a growing number of people are faced with the choice of cheap food or no food. I think that's why shops like Lidl and Aldi are growing in popularity. The Co-op markets itself by raising ethical concerns but is significantly more expensive.

For many people today in the UK freedom of choice exists in name only. Their choices are so restricted by circumstances that in practice they have no real choice at all.

Hear hear catontheroof. However, you have entered Mumsnet, a land where a £26k benefits cap is considered draconian and likened to the Gulags/Holocaust. So expect a lot of frothing and not much sense being talked. Also, expect lots of personal attacks and Margaret Thatcher being mentioned 9323987239 times along with the words "evil", "baby eating" and "Tories".

Orwellian you do realise that most people get significantly less than 26K if they are getting benefits. Also AFAIK you are the first to mention Margaret Thatcher.

Orwellian has a secret, burning desire for Margaret Thatcher's name to be mentioned (along with the words "evil," "baby eating" and "Tories"). Hence raising the subject, now.

Orwellian I am newly out of work and my salary was £14.300. I take it from your post I am in for a pay rise. Wayhay! Where do I sign?

Don't be dim, most won't get that amount in benefits. My income will go down according to the benefits advisor I saw.

We are entitled to £3822, next year it will be £2080 if we haven't found work. Yep living it up.

Cheap food was wanted during to boom years. It does not relate to the down turn.

No, cheap food doesn't relate to the boom years. It relates to people not thinking beyond comparing prices between supermarkets and going for the cheapest, because their thinking doesn't get more sophisticated than that (it does get a bit complicated if you try to think of anything else, as there are so many competing considerations), or just going for the nearest supermarket, or in many cases genuinely thinking that they can only afford the cheapest that is on offer if they are to feed their families adequately (even in the boom years...). Nobody went on strike and stopped buying from the supermarkets when food was more expensive, because people still had to eat. It was the supermarkets that pushed prices down by competing with each other for greater market share, not consumers marching on stores and insisting that they would go on hunger strike unless something was done about prices.

People don't expect their food to be the product of slave labour - most think someone else has ensured fair competition and limited exploitation, so it's not their responsibility to think further on the matter. A lot of people think "Fair Trade" is just a bit of an expensive gimmick, because the big companies whose products they buy are sufficiently ethical and well regulated, otherwise how would they have gotten so big and been allowed to do what they do? Wouldn't the powers that be have stopped them? Surely any negative publicity against a much loved brand is just sour grapes from political activists and nutters? Or limited only to one type of that company's product? The brand owners always claim so.

Sorry, I mean cheap food doesn't relate to the downturn!

whenever I see comments like the one in the OP, I'M amazed at how unworldly some people are. They should try living in a country that doesn't provide decent benefits for the unemployed. It's grim. Obviously women and children are hit hardest in those countries etc etc.

it's also very interesting how little certain people, such as catontheroof, understand what poverty actually is

Poverty is defined as an inability to participate in the social norms of a given culture/society.

So for example if you live in a tribe in the Amazon, you could well consider yourself wealthy if you have more vegetables than the family next door.

On the other hand if you live in a country where owning a laptop is the only way you can interact with the world beyond the four walls of your home, and the majority of people in your society own one, but you can't afford one, then this is poverty.
Or a telephone. Modern living requires that you own a telephone, preferably a mobile. You can'T even apply for a job without one. Again, if you can't afford one, when owning one is the social norm then you are poor.

You could reasonably say that in a developed country such as the UK, a person who can never afford to go to a restaurant, or who has trouble affording to run a car, is poor.

What nonsense it is to go on about water and vaccines in the third world... such ignorance.

No cheap food isn't due to the downturn but the downturn changes cheap food from a desire to a necessity for many people.

The downturn turns it into a necessity for more people.

i agree about the downturn decreasing choice - but cheap food is what the majority of people chose in the good times. they had money to buy lots of other things (e.g. the high street was really busy on Saturday) but thier choice was to buy cheap food...

...so we have large stores selling cheap food that have been consitently on the rise for decades.

rabbit i dont think large numbers of people care sufficiently to make any personal sacrifice or limit their choices, & IMO the ignorance and the incorrect assumptions are part of keeping the status quo. this belief is based on different campaigning i did when younger (womens rights, environmentalism, social justice). we are a free country - its very far from perfect just much better than the alternatives.

Yes in the good times people chose cheap food so they could go on holiday, buy luxury goods etc. However cheap food was always a necessity for a proportion of the population. With the current economic conditions more and more people are falling into that category.

They are faced with the choice of cheap food or no food. I'm sure we can at least agree that eating something is essential to staying alive long term. I don't want others to suffer but my family have to come first. I really don't think allowing myself and my family to starve is going to significantly help anyone, anywhere. The only possible benefit really is giving snobs the satisfaction of getting rid of some more poor scum.

DP & i spend about £50 per week on food (organic, high welfare, fairtrade).

(this week its £42.15, last week £47.64, sometimes it 50 something)

we make bread & eat a little fish, no meat, a few eggs, at little cheese, mainly global staples (rice, pasta, lentils, beans), seasonal veg. we eat really well.

my jaw falls off when i see what other people spend on food & it does tie into the OPs comment on relative poverty.

Don't you see though, to many people £50 per week for food would be a luxury.

so how much would someone who thinks £25 per week per adult is a luxury, actually spend on food (& household goods like washing up liquid etc. thats included in the above figure)?

We don't spend much on food, either. However, we do have a nice kitchen to prepare our food in (cooker and gas hob and microwave, double sink, work surfaces), a fridge and a freezer, and cupboards in which to store our staples and keep them away from vermin, rather than living in temporary accommodation without proper access to cooking facilities. We also have a car, so don't need to go shopping every day - we can fit going out to work and shopping and cooking into our day. And we have a garden in which we can grow our own vegetables (or keep our own chickens if we wanted to). And we understand enough about food and its preparation to ensure that we are getting a healthy, well balanced diet. And we have knives, chopping boards, saucepans, frying pans, etc. And my mother taught me an awful lot about kitchen hygiene, food preparation, budgeting, etc. It's all incredibly easy to eat cheaply and well on that basis. It's considerably harder work if some or all of those elements are missing. It would also be bad economic news for the companies that sell crisps, chocolate, alcohol, takeaways, etc, if everyone were very self sufficient. Capitalism doesn't like parsimony very much.

£25-30, you cope by skipping meals.

rabbit - i had to double check what parsimony meant. i dont see what i do as 'Unusual or excessive frugality; extreme economy or stinginess', i do see it as:

1. the type of food we all need to eat to reduce global food costs so people in developing countries benefit.
2. a way of avoiding being sold a load of processed rubbish
3. a way of healthy eating

whats not to like?

its opting out of consumerism

hecuba - do you mean £25-30 for a couple or family?

someone mentioned up thread have you checked you are getting all the benefits you are entitled to?

For a family of 4 including nappies. You don't seem to be able to recognise the reality of life for many in the UK today. There are 100s of families living like this and many trying to cope with a lot worse. The numbers are growing daily.

rabbitstew makes some very good points.
It is easy to be economical when you have all those resources. It is much more difficult to be economical when you live in hostel or B&B accommodation, for example, or crappy rentals with slot meters and poor insulation so that you're spending way more than people in conventional housing for things like heating and lighting.

Have name changed for this particular post. I was homeless for two years and would like to tell the people who refuse to believe there is poverty in the UK a few facts:

Living in a hostel - no washing machine. Had to use launderette, which used more than 15% of my total weekly income.
Slot meters for heating/lighting. Very, very expensive. Hostel room very poorly insulated. Single glazed with night storage heaters.
Poor public transport made shopping difficult and expensive. Had to use the corner shop for basics (expensive) or do a £4.50 round trip to 'proper' shops. £4.50 represented just under 5% of my total weekly income.
No home phone. No contract for mobile as 'no fixed aboide'. Standard PAYG rate - very expensive (although better deals may be had now).
Nappies - 20% of total weekly income.
No refrigerator and no proper cooking facilities (2 electric hobs (expensive) and a kettle) meant shopping on almost daily basis. See above re shopping...
People who say poverty doesn't exist in the UK and 'prove their point' by making comparisons to third world countries are misguided at best, callous at worst IMO.