Cont: Brexit: Now What? 9 Below Zero

Status
Not open for further replies.
Priti Patel has announced that if you earn under £25,600 you're basically unskilled, a second class citizen and of no value to society.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Priti Patel has announced that if you earn under £25,600 you're basically unskilled, a second class citizen and of no value to society.
Click to expand...

No-one she knows socially earns that little (unless of course they don't have to work) so that makes sense.

It's a bit of a smack in the face of all those "essential workers" the Conservatives have been asking us to applaud every Thursday. Of course applause costs nothing, it's like giving someone a snappier job title instead of a pay rise :mad:
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Priti Patel has announced that if you earn under £25,600 you're basically unskilled, a second class citizen and of no value to society.
Click to expand...
This view of the world seems to be purely left wing.

If you are only commanding £25,600, society has already passed what ever judgement there may be to pass. By definition the role is not one with a labour shortage and a high demand for the work to be performed. If you are going to have any sort of needs based immigration model, surely people with skills that are not in demand are the people not to bring in. There is no moral judgement about your worth as a person, or your skill level or anything else.
 
shuttlt said:
This view of the world seems to be purely left wing.

If you are only commanding £25,600, society has already passed what ever judgement there may be to pass. By definition the role is not one with a labour shortage and a high demand for the work to be performed. If you are going to have any sort of needs based immigration model, surely people with skills that are not in demand are the people not to bring in. There is no moral judgement about your worth as a person, or your skill level or anything else.
Click to expand...

Yet they are.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-52293061
 
Nope.
They'd go bust if they paid the market rate. Foreign imports (where labour is cheaper) would simply end the business.

That's the problem.

Of course we could always suppress the market rate by removing benefits...
 
https://www.thegrocer.co.uk/brexit-...w-brits-prepared-to-pick-fruit/554452.article
There are no official figures for average wage rates, but feedback from the industry suggests the average wage for fruit pickers typically sits at or just above the national living wage (currently £7.50), with opportunities to earn more dependent on hours worked and productivity bonuses.

Laurence Olins, chairman of British Summer Fruits, puts average pay at between £8.50 and £10.00 depending on speed of work, while Steven Munday, CEO of trade body British Apples & Pears, says in his sector it is on average £300 and £350 a week based on 40 hours worked at £7.50 to £9. “Many can earn more by doing up to 60 hours or piece work. We have a good number earning over £500 per week on a 48-hour week,” he adds. Supervisors also earn more.
Click to expand...

Note: these guys will want to make it look attractive so pinch of salt.

Concerns about how seasonal work affects benefits payments also loom large. “UK workers would lose their social benefits payments whilst working and would need to reapply for them, which is both arduous and time consuming,” says Olins.
Click to expand...

The last one rings true. I grew up in a seaside town that relied on seasonal tourism. Locals were reluctant to take summer work as it was indeed " arduous and time consuming" to get back on benefits.
 
Wudang said:
I can knock it. I remember farthings and half-crowns quite clearly and decimalization. An old penny is worth 0.4 pence and effectively worthless. The facility of having more factors is less obvious when rounding takes the value to 0.
Click to expand...

No need to over-think things.


Jacob Rees-Mogg mentioned standing six feet apart on PMQs. Now we all understand what six feet is without a second thought.

Two metres, and you have to think, ah, two yards or two times three feet, to get the idea.

Six feet is a measure people can immediately visualise, whether it be height of fence, height of man, length of win, or paced steps across a room to calculate apx area.

It is all very simple!
 
shuttlt said:
This view of the world seems to be purely left wing.

If you are only commanding £25,600, society has already passed what ever judgement there may be to pass. By definition the role is not one with a labour shortage and a high demand for the work to be performed. If you are going to have any sort of needs based immigration model, surely people with skills that are not in demand are the people not to bring in. There is no moral judgement about your worth as a person, or your skill level or anything else.
Click to expand...

Your salary is not a measure of your worth. There are plenty of highly educated and vocationally qualified people earning less than that.
 
Vixen said:
Your salary is not a measure of your worth. There are plenty of highly educated and vocationally qualified people earning less than that.
Click to expand...
Depends what you mean by "worth". I don't think salary is meant to imply any notion of worth beyond how much people are willing to pay for what ever it is that you are doing.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
No need to over-think things.


Jacob Rees-Mogg mentioned standing six feet apart on PMQs. Now we all understand what six feet is without a second thought.

Two metres, and you have to think, ah, two yards or two times three feet, to get the idea.

Six feet is a measure people can immediately visualise, whether it be height of fence, height of man, length of win, or paced steps across a room to calculate apx area.

It is all very simple!
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if you're being serious...

..but this is only because you grew up with that scale. If you'd grown up with the metric scale you'd have no problem visualising 2 metres (which is more like 61/2 feet than 6 feet by the way). After all, if you watch athletics I suspect you have absolutely no problem visualising 100m*, 200m or 400m....

*I'd lay odds you don't think "Hmm that looks about 328 feet".
 
Ethan Thane Athen said:
I'm not sure if you're being serious...

..but this is only because you grew up with that scale. If you'd grown up with the metric scale you'd have no problem visualising 2 metres (which is more like 61/2 feet than 6 feet by the way). After all, if you watch athletics I suspect you have absolutely no problem visualising 100m*, 200m or 400m....

*I'd lay odds you don't think "Hmm that looks about 328 feet".
Click to expand...

I have zero problems calculating the metric scale. Although the four-minute mile sounds so much less romantic when put in metres. Who cares about an odd couple of inches or centimetres when judging social distance?
 
Ziggurat said:
Except numeral representation complexity becomes cumbersome in such a large base.
Click to expand...
Cuneiform numerals are super simple.

Ethan Thane Athen said:
If you'd grown up with the metric scale you'd have no problem visualising 2 metres
Click to expand...
Visualising any specific distance is quite hard for most people, even if they grew up with learning about them in school.
 
Vixen said:
No need to over-think things.


Jacob Rees-Mogg mentioned standing six feet apart on PMQs. Now we all understand what six feet is without a second thought.

Two metres, and you have to think, ah, two yards or two times three feet, to get the idea.

Six feet is a measure people can immediately visualise, whether it be height of fence, height of man, length of win, or paced steps across a room to calculate apx area.

It is all very simple!
Click to expand...

Are you a Victorian?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom