credit crunched boaters

[WJM]

"as Tiger Woods once said "the more I practice, the lucker I get...""'

 

 

Jack Nicklaus said that long before Tiger Woods was even born!

[John Orentas]

"as Tiger Woods once said "the more I practice, the lucker I get...""'

 

 

Jack Nicklaus said that long before Tiger Woods was even born!

 

 

I think it was Gary Player.

Edited November 20, 2008 by John Orentas

[Denis R]

I think it was Gary Player.

Yep John, that's who I've read it attributed to.

[Sir Nibble]

At the risk of migrating this thread further, I'm not so sure that's the case this time round SirNib. I get much more of a feeling of 'my God it's hit them, how long before it hits us?'

I hope you are right, we will be better off as comrades in adversity than devided into the respectably prosperous and the feckless poor. I am waiting to see how long it is before I hear the return of the old cry of.... "The trouble is these people don't WANT to work".

[Athy]

Estwdjhn, you state the situation succinctly and I agree with your observations - not least because I did the overspending thing for a while in my twenties (which are now 30 years distant). One learns from experience.

With a forum alias like yours, you might be mistaken for Polish yourself - all those consonants!

No, I don't blame "the unemployed", having been of their number myself in the 1970s. It's, as our unspellable friend says, the ones who ARE earning but who spend it faster than they earn it who have only themselves to blame.

[fuzzyduck]

The trouble is these people don't WANT to work

 

about 56 minutes.

[greywolf]

Estwdjhn, you state the situation succinctly and I agree with your observations - not least because I did the overspending thing for a while in my twenties (which are now 30 years distant). One learns from experience.

With a forum alias like yours, you might be mistaken for Polish yourself - all those consonants!

No, I don't blame "the unemployed", having been of their number myself in the 1970s. It's, as our unspellable friend says, the ones who ARE earning but who spend it faster than they earn it who have only themselves to blame.

I agree to some extent but it has to be said also that the over spenders have been tacitly encouraged to spend by glitzy adverts and rampant consumerism, without which many other people would be out of work.Even in these recent times there has been a call to return to normal spending patterns,not normal savings patterns,indeed savers by the interest rate reductions and inflation predictions are paying for thrift. 18% interest rates though would be unacceptable,last time it was approaching that sort of levels inflation was running at much the same rate,stagflation was i belive the term used.

[Sir Nibble]

The trouble is these people don't WANT to work

 

about 56 minutes.

*sigh*

[FadeToScarlet]

I hope you are right, we will be better off as comrades in adversity than devided into the respectably prosperous and the feckless poor. I am waiting to see how long it is before I hear the return of the old cry of.... "The trouble is these people don't WANT to work".

 

And it's an old cry indeed... Leviticus: "If a man shall not work, then neither shall he eat"

[Sir Nibble]

And it's an old cry indeed... Leviticus: "If a man shall not work, then neither shall he eat"

Bit of a difference tho' between "shall not work" and cannot work. Not that I would consider the bible as credible evidence of anything other than the breathtaking gullibility of human kind.

[Pretty Funked Up]

It all keeps changing

we used to be taxed on 1 person working in the family, with tax relief for marriage. everyone coped.

children were properly brought up.

 

cost of living rose and rose and then a 2nd person had to work to make things float, everyone managed to get quite well off, but children started to be 'brought up' by teachers.

then they started taxing everyone on the basis 2 people are working in 1 household, with tax reflief for marriage reduced/removed.

Now people struggle to stay afloat with 2 breadwinners and the children barely see their parents.

If a 3rd person in the household became an equal breadwinner they would move the goalposts again.

 

As we adjust to earn more money they adjust the rules too, it feels like 'game over' before you even begin

 

Lets not forget why government was originally put in place, its so the 'peasants' wouldnt storm the palace and behead the monarchy, they would blame and go for the government instead.

Edited November 20, 2008 by Pretty Funked Up

[Smelly]

Bit of a difference tho' between "shall not work" and cannot work. Not that I would consider the bible as credible evidence of anything other than the breathtaking gullibility of human kind.

 

Well I'm going to get all controversial now.

 

Doing benefit advice, as I do I come across, all too often, people stuck in the Thatcherite Incapacity Benefit mentality, where a decent sicknote is perceived as a decent option. "They've stopped my money" they say, with no appreciation of how it could well be my money that they're actually spending. I pay enough tax every week to keep a long term "disabled" person in Income Support.

 

I often see people with ostensibly nothing wrong with them, who've never had the boot up their arse to motivate themselves to get back into the workplace. The way the new Employment and Support Allowance is modelled is to try and weed people out who are stuck in this rut. We're moving into a mentality of "you might not be able to lift boxes but with a bit of effort & re-training you could still sit at a desk" which is again to my mind no bad thing, well at least so long as appropriate training is actually in place, which it isn't currently.

 

They've recently brought on line a new Labour Market decisions team for Jobseekers as well, and are pushing to catch people who are sitting on their giro haunches doing too little to get back.

 

What I'm trying to say is that, apart from the Tebbitesque propaganda there remains an underclass who do think the world owes them a living, it's probably a bit of a shame it's taken so long from the "bolting the stable door" green paper until implementation that the economy has scared the horse out. Hopefully the people who found themselves caught

in the current downturn (and I fear I may be one of them in '10) and genuinely want to get back won't get tarred along with the slackers.

 

There will always be scapegoats, be they fat cat politicians will always try to shift the blame, or at least the attention onto someone else. However we still have a problem.

 

While I'm at it... Doctors could do a bit more to persuade people that they aren't permanently crippled as well.

 

 

 

It all keeps changing

 

 

As we adjust to earn more money they adjust the rules too, it feels like 'game over' before you even begin

 

Putting that in Tax Credit terms, a person earning 120 quid a week part time will only be about 30 quid a week worse off than a person earning £220 assuming full rate Tax Credit in payment. That's hardly an incentive to get back into a productive environment.

 

Developing a model to incentivise people to go back into higher earning/more hours is a nightmare though as you increase the "benefit trap" that we've spent so much time trying to think ourselves out of.

[greywolf]

£2 an hour on minimum wage may help.You could couple that with employers who could give a damm,

Edited November 20, 2008 by greywolf

[Smelly]

£2 an hour on minimum wage may help

 

Persuade the party funders of that though...

[estwdjhn]

From what little I have seen of life, I would say there are two sorts of unemployed.

 

The first sort is the genuine sponger. For various reasons they are living off the system, are perfectly capable of working, and have no intention of so doing (or they are working and signing on at the same time in a form of fraud). The number of these is fairly fixed, and is going to aproximate the number of people claiming unemploment benifit in a boom year, say 2007 minus I would say at a guess 10%.

 

The second sort is the genuinely unemployed. These people are actively seeking work, and until recently there was plenty of work, if not very well paid work, to go round. The decline in the economy will lead to these number rising, and if you add this to about 10% of the 2007 unemployment figure you probably get a true figure.

 

The problem with our welfare system is that is designed more to encourage genuine work seekers to sponge than the other way round. I have only once claimed unemployment benfit, and that was while I was still living with my parents. IIRC I was entitled to about £50 a week. I got a short term job for 1.5 hours every morning, six days a week, £5 an hour, cleaning a beach cafe. Lo and behold, I lost £45 of my 'entitlement', I.e. exactly what I had earnt. Remove from that the cost of my petrol to get to the job (say £5 a week), and I would have been better off just to claim Jobseekers allowance. Talk about incentives to get back to work.

 

Interestingly, we tried to recrut a two new tempory packers this week for my team at work. We got a few more CV's than usual, but none that were any better than usual. Result - We got one Polish girl recruted by our current Polish employees asking round for us, and who has proved to be A1, and one amiable blockhead from the job centre, who was so incapable of understanding instructions we let him go after a week. If all these newly redunant people are desperate for jobs, where were their CV's - unless these redundancys are all amongst those who are barely employable anyway? (In our firm of about 60-70 people, there is a turnover of shop floor staff of about 60% in a year, almost all of whom are people that are sacked either for laziness(mostly) or exceptional stupidiy (occasionally)).

 

Incidentally, shove £2 on the minimum wage, and we would probably go under. Either that, or sack 50% of the staff, and replace them with half as many slightly dearer people who are much higher skilled and hence more efficient. Either way, it would put more people on the dole queue than it would remove.

[david and julie]

unless these redundancys are all amongst those who are barely employable anyway? (In our firm of about 60-70 people, there is a turnover of shop floor staff of about 60% in a year, almost all of whom are people that are sacked either for laziness(mostly) or exceptional stupidiy (occasionally)).

 

Incidentally, shove £2 on the minimum wage, and we would probably go under. Either that, or sack 50% of the staff, and replace them with half as many slightly dearer people who are much higher skilled and hence more efficient. Either way, it would put more people on the dole queue than it would remove.

I'm assuming this isn't a wind up.

 

What an abysmal company you must work for. As it ever occured to you it may be poor management really? You should all be ashamed of yourselves if 60% of your staff a year are leaving. I hope you do go under and then both you and the other sick management can hopefully sample the dole yourselves.

 

In all my years of having my own business I've never had to sack a worker.

[greywolf]

From what little I have seen of life, I would say there are two sorts of unemployed.

 

The first sort is the genuine sponger. For various reasons they are living off the system, are perfectly capable of working, and have no intention of so doing (or they are working and signing on at the same time in a form of fraud). The number of these is fairly fixed, and is going to aproximate the number of people claiming unemploment benifit in a boom year, say 2007 minus I would say at a guess 10%.

 

The second sort is the genuinely unemployed. These people are actively seeking work, and until recently there was plenty of work, if not very well paid work, to go round. The decline in the economy will lead to these number rising, and if you add this to about 10% of the 2007 unemployment figure you probably get a true figure.

 

The problem with our welfare system is that is designed more to encourage genuine work seekers to sponge than the other way round. I have only once claimed unemployment benfit, and that was while I was still living with my parents. IIRC I was entitled to about £50 a week. I got a short term job for 1.5 hours every morning, six days a week, £5 an hour, cleaning a beach cafe. Lo and behold, I lost £45 of my 'entitlement', I.e. exactly what I had earnt. Remove from that the cost of my petrol to get to the job (say £5 a week), and I would have been better off just to claim Jobseekers allowance. Talk about incentives to get back to work.

 

 

 

Interestingly, we tried to recrut a two new tempory packers this week for my team at work. We got a few more CV's than usual, but none that were any better than usual. Result - We got one Polish girl recruted by our current Polish employees asking round for us, and who has proved to be A1, and one amiable blockhead from the job centre, who was so incapable of understanding instructions we let him go after a week. If all these newly redunant people are desperate for jobs, where were their CV's - unless these redundancys are all amongst those who are barely employable anyway? (In our firm of about 60-70 people, there is a turnover of shop floor staff of about 60% in a year, almost all of whom are people that are sacked either for laziness(mostly) or exceptional stupidiy (occasionally)).

 

Incidentally, shove £2 on the minimum wage, and we would probably go under. Either that, or sack 50% of the staff, and replace them with half as many slightly dearer people who are much higher skilled and hence more efficient. Either way, it would put more people on the dole queue than it would remove.

 

that is what employers said when minimun wages was introduced.Low paid jobs have not been available in Birmingham for some time.

 

I'm assuming this isn't a wind up.

 

What an abysmal company you must work for. As it ever occured to you it may be poor management really? You should all be ashamed of yourselves if 60% of your staff a year are leaving. I hope you do go under and then both you and the other sick management can hopefully sample the dole yourselves.

 

In all my years of having my own business I've never had to sack a worker.

 

Wow i agree entirely with you,i just edited it out completely because i thought i might be unfairly going off on one being redundant since feb 07.

[churchward]

Umm folks aren't we now several lights years beyond the original topic I don't think this has much to do with the OP or "General Boating" any longer. Perhaps it should get shifted to the Virtual Pub instead.

[estwdjhn]

I wish I could blame the management (I'm not a manager btw). However, it's not really their fault. The real problem has always been that most new staff we take on are unemployable. However patient the management is it cannot cure the determinely lazy, which is the main thing people get fired for. I doubt that our figures are much worse than for most industries that rely on large numbers of totally unskilled labourers. Many such employers use agency staff, which effectively masks the turnover figures.

[Dominic M]

Not sure what your going on about here to be honest. To me your above post reads like your trying to say a lot without actually saying very much - are you a politician?

Heres my post again.

 

Nothing whatsoever there even remotely implies this is the new infliction on society. Politicians,regardless of shade, care about one thing and one thing only - themselves. The electorate cease to matter immediately after an election and I didn't whinge, I made a comment which you are free to disagree with if you wish.

 

Perhaps you could tell me what is actually untrue in what I wrote though, then I can decide whether I'm wrongly searching or not?

Readers will have to refer to your original post, but you say "we have". That is the present tense. It implies that all the woes you mention have occurred now or thereabouts. It is incorrect to state that much of what you chose to post has just happened, which is what, by using the present tense, you posted. Simple as that. It did not come across as a critique of the last 25 years. And I don't genuinely think you intended it as such.

 

What was untrue? - the pound falling through the floor for starters.

 

Am I a politician - no. Am I interested in politics - yes. Do I get bemused when members of the electorate moan about policies that they actively supported in the first place - definitely. Churchill once said, or words to this effect and I can't be bothered to Google it - "Democracy is a bad system, but it is the best bad system we have."

 

You state, "Politicians,regardless of shade, care about one thing and one thing only - themselves." That displays a complete disenchantment with democracy. What is your alternative then?

Bit of a difference tho' between "shall not work" and cannot work. Not that I would consider the bible as credible evidence of anything other than the breathtaking gullibility of human kind.

I simply think it is an old book but an interesting read. Somebody here quoted Leviticus - wasn't that the same bloke whom the gay bashing fundamentalist Christians quote to support their argument? (If not I apologise - I'm not a Christian or a regular bible reader.)

 

Lets not forget why government was originally put in place, its so the 'peasants' wouldnt storm the palace and behead the monarchy, they would blame and go for the government instead.

The first incarnation of anything resembling our modern government was created after the Civil War in 1648. They did behead the monarch. Ever since then the shift from absolute monarchy to our current parliamentary system has evolved. Ending up with the right to vote for everyone over the age of 18. Women were enfranchised reluctantly - fully in 1928 I think - and then the age was lowered to from 21 to 18 by Harold Wilson's lot in the 1960s.

 

We are inclined to blame government - it is an easy scapegoat. But I really do not believe that all politicians are there for nothing more than self interest.

[Ange]

Ok - I am going to add my two pennies worth here. My mother has been a waitress, checkout operator, deli counter server, washer up in restaurants, etc, etc. My father is a bus driver. My husband has in his time put up fences, made gates, worked as a courier driver, packed foods for a frozen food company and operated a gluing machine for a packaging company. I've not been out of work since I was 13 years old.

 

The point I'm making is that I come from a very working class hard working background, where claiming benefits is seen as the worst thing that can happen to you (I can remember my dad had a six month period out of work when I had to stand in the free dinner queue at school - that was truly shaming! I'm pleased that segregation doesn't happen any more)

 

Our son finished college this summer and is now trying to find a job. He has applied for everything the jobcentre has offered him - the rejection letters come in thick and fast. He's got an interview on Monday (his first) for a cleaning job. I hate it when people react with disdain to other people's jobs - I've said to Matt that if he proves himself in that job for a year he gets a reference and proof on his CV that he's willing to work. I remember the recession of the late 70s early 80s and meeting young people who seemed to be schooled by their parents to say there was no point looking for a job because they'd be better off on the dole. Those people are parents now and I'm sure they pass on those values to their offspring. Matt could probably "earn" more with his jobseekers allowance than he will if he gets this cleaning job, but there's no way forward with benefits is there?

 

What I would hate to think of is my son being branded as one of the "lazy unemployed" - there are people out there genuinely trying to get a job and he's caught at the moment with a downturn in the economy and no work experience (you know where every job spec says "needs experience" but how do you get it if they won't give you a chance)

Edited November 21, 2008 by Ange

[loner]

Boat sales and use are significantly down from previous years in the US. Lower fuel prices should help some but our economy is in bad shape. UNLESS you are a CEO with a 10 million dollar golden parachute or a politician with benefits that are out of this world.. Its going to be many months before a recovery. The wars aren't helping.

Edited November 21, 2008 by loner

[Athy]

The person who suggested putting an extra £2 on the minimum wage was, I trust, joking. The minimum wage is too high already - I do not know the exact figue but I believe that it has climbed to over £5 an hour. Raising it still further would lead to fewer new staff being taken on, and to existing staff losing their jobs.

[bottle]

If anyone wants to know:

 

March 6 2008 - The Government has announced that the adult minimum wage rate will rise from £5.52 to £5.73 an hour in October. The youth rate for those aged 18 to 21 will be increased from £4.60 to £4.77. The Government has also said that the rate for workers aged 16-17 years should increase from £3.40 to £3.53.

 

The National Minimum Wage was first introduced on 1 April 1999. The main rate was set at £3.60 (for workers aged 22 and over) and £3.00 (workers aged 18-21 years old).

 

 

 

 

From the government website.

[wonderdust]

If anyone wants to know:

 

March 6 2008 - The Government has announced that the adult minimum wage rate will rise from £5.52 to £5.73 an hour in October. The youth rate for those aged 18 to 21 will be increased from £4.60 to £4.77. The Government has also said that the rate for workers aged 16-17 years should increase from £3.40 to £3.53.

 

The National Minimum Wage was first introduced on 1 April 1999. The main rate was set at £3.60 (for workers aged 22 and over) and £3.00 (workers aged 18-21 years old).

From the government website.

 

 

Whats wrong with that, don't know why they moan!

 

only joking!

Edited November 21, 2008 by wonderdust