'living wage' Ireland

RoboRat

I was listening to the Matt Cooper show yesterday and they had some bloke talking about a guide for a living wage.

To be honest I agree with most of the points and I do think that the government needs to step in and not leave it on the shoulders of the employers but two things really stood out in the report; (1) Social inclusion and participation allowance of €46.37 per week - this was broken down into an allowance for going out to the pub, on holidays, for dinner etc and (2) Health Insurance of €13.70.

For me, things like going out, holidays and health insurance and not a necessity and therefore should not be in such a report. They are things that you get if you can afford them and are luxuries. I have a decent job and so does my wife but we wouldn't have nearly €2,500 each to spend on going out a year and we have both cancelled our health insurance as we had to tighten our belts.

I remember when I went to college a lot of my friends were on building sites and I spent 5 years living hand to mouth, paying my way through college whilst my friends were out having a great time. Then I took my first job for a pittance and done every training available (after hours and weekends) to develop my skills and enhance my job prospects, still living hand to mouth. It was only about 4 years after I left college that I started having some kind of life and I still worked hard to progress. All that time my mates were doing well on the sites and I never begrudged them for it.

Then the economy takes a turn for the worse and I feel sorry for a lot of people but there seems to be an expectation of entitlement. If you want to live a lifestyle, you go out and make it happen. This generally requires hard work and sacrifice but now employers are expected to take another hit to level the playing field. It was these incentives that made me work my ass off to progress.

I think this country is moving more and more towards a communist state.

Here is a link to the article: http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/why-youll-need-to-earn-at-least-23k-a-year-to-have-a-living-wage-30406046.html

dar100

[
I think this country is moving more and more towards a communist state.[/QUOTE]

Socialist State:D:D

hereford

the way it is now the harder you work the more you get penalised .if you get off your ass to do anything you will get red tape and asshole bureaucrats kicking you. im still working my ass off not for me but to keep the fat cats in their lavish lifestyles its a bad thing to say your better off being a crook it will get you places

RoboRat

the way it is now the harder you work the more you get penalised .if you get off your ass to do anything you will get red tape and asshole bureaucrats kicking you.

Ever tried setting up a company... its like the government don't want you to and will put as many blocks in your way. Once you get established it can be OK but getting there is a mare.

hereford

they only want big companies coming in that have a bit of power
people who know nothing about what's going on calling the shots and them gombeens in government laughing at us .Just to tender for a job now is not worth your while

Holidays are not a luxury every one needs down time, however I have no time for those who expect that they should have a luxury holiday just because they are working, if all you can afford is a budget hotel in Ireland or Camping somewhere that's life it is still a holiday and a brake away from the routine.

Health insurance its debateable I am having very expensive treatment at the moment and while I would have got it from the public health system, because I have health insurance I am getting it closer to home and at time of my choosing, appointment with the consultant not with the register again at a time of my choosing. So its debatable if health insurance is a luxury.

Mr. Incognito

I hate when words like "communist" state are bandied about.

That can mean anything from commune communities to an iron dictatorship. Its meaningless.

A living wage means you can afford rent, food and utilities.

Unfortunately due to jobsbridge, inflation, rent exploding on the back of a cgt amnesty for investors and the public service and utility companies having ridiculous wage costs, crumbling infrastructure and entrenched delusional unions the private sector and the middle class and vulnerable are being squeezed

Living wage is an abstract term. More people are miserable since austery kicked in and i dont see anything going back to the ordinary punter. Namas profits are being flogged at a discount to foreign entities.

Caliden

RoboRat wrote: »

Ever tried setting up a company... its like the government don't want you to and will put as many blocks in your way. Once you get established it can be OK but getting there is a mare.

Enterprise Ireland say they're there to help startups but won't give you grants until you're established and have customers.

I think our definitions of startups differ quite a bit.



With regards the living wage, the OP mentioned 'going out' or holidays as a luxury.

We've come to a point where a lot of people are living to work instead of working to live.

You can't expect someone to work day in day out and not live life.

The same goes for those on social welfare in my opinion.

What would be the point in life if all you have going on in your life is existing??

hereford

insurance seems to be a scam
they are the worse t o deal with always an excuse not to pay out. I dropped my house insurance its not worth having
anymore

Awkward Badger

So your argument is "I lived hand to mouth when I was a student ergo nothing more than a roof and food is necessary to live and anything else is a luxury and to think its necessary is an over inflated sense of entitledment".

Heard it all before, doesn't hold up. Its one thing living on the breadline as a student its quite another for those with families or for those who this will have negative impact on. Its not as simple as give people bread, water and a tent and they can get by.

Friend Computer

Going out/socialising/what have you are absolutely not luxuries; they're conducive to a healthy mental state. Psychological needs are just as important as physical ones.

WilyCoyote

RoboRat, you sound like one of the Veterans out here. Any mention of Socialised medicine, unemployment benefit, free education etc smells of Communism. Time to start knocking the Democrats and talk of invading some other place ......... just to let the world know that they will uphold the status quo.
The status quo, by the way, is the reason that most of the world's problems exist.

Happy 4th of July peeps!

Awkward Badger

Awkward Badger wrote: »

So your argument is "I lived hand to mouth when I was a student ergo nothing more than a roof and food is necessary to live and anything else is a luxury and to think its necessary is an over inflated sense of entitledment".

Heard it all before, doesn't hold up. Its one thing living on the breadline as a student its quite another for those with families or for those who this will have negative impact on. Its not as simple as give people bread, water and a tent and they can get by.

Whats living on the bread line though, one person perceives having to budged for a family day as being hard done by, or feels resentful because all they can afford is a mobile home in Wexford for a family holiday and another person perceives actually being able to afford a holiday at all as doing very well for themselves.

RoboRat

We've come to a point where a lot of people are living to work instead of working to live.

Economies have ups and downs, you enjoy the ups and do without during the downs... its a basic enough concept.

Any mention of Socialised medicine, unemployment benefit, free education etc smells of Communism

I have no issue with social welfare, I do take issue with people bleeding the system. Social Welfare is a safety net but I get annoyed when you interview somebody and offer them a decent living (28k plus benefits) and its turned down because its pays better being on the dole.

Maybe my thoughts are outdated but I was bought up to work for money and to work harder and better than others to ensure you get promoted and move up the ladder.

I hate when words like "communist" state are bandied about.

Fair enough, just with this and the 12:1 that was discussed yesterday, I think there is far to much focus on socialism.

Its not as simple as give people bread, water and a tent and they can get by.

Didn't read my post fully then? I AGREE with most of the points, just NOT the bit about having just under 2.5k for 'social engagement' or health insurance. I don't go out yet I am socially engaged when I go training, go for a coffee and scone...

Going out/socialising/what have you are absolutely not luxuries; they're conducive to a healthy mental state. Psychological needs are just as important as physical ones.

I am on meds for the last 3 years so I am fully aware of that but there are plenty of alternative means to socialise that don't involve going out. You can go camping for a week and it will cost you next to nothing.

The amount are just average's those thing are very hard to pin down, you seem very resentful of people expecting to have a bit of a life. I kinda agree with you... with what I perceive as people having exaggerated expectations of what life style they are entitled to, but people are entitle to socialise in a modest way and to have some sort of a holiday.

Its human nature to strive for things as my husband says to me, if one cave man hadn't look around and said feck sake! I want a better bigger drier cave, society would have never progressed.

Awkward Badger

RoboRat wrote: »

Didn't read my post fully then? I AGREE with most of the points, just NOT the bit about having just under 2.5k for 'social engagement' or health insurance. I don't go out yet I am socially engaged when I go training, go for a coffee and scone....

I read your post but that's what it essentially boils down to. There is more that is necessary to "live" in the modern world than what you are making out. You're also ignoring a large part of what that social inclusion allowance is for and simply writing it off as luxury money.

Its not luxury money for holidays and drinking, its a social inclusion allowance to deal with the issues surrounding social isolation which can have physical and mental health effects as well as reducing the chances of gaining employment. Whether its spent on drinking or put towards a holiday by some is immaterial.

Awkward Badger

Awkward Badger wrote: »

I read your post but that's what it essentially boils down to. There is more that is necessary to "live" in the modern world than what you are making out. You're also ignoring a large part of what that social inclusion allowance is for and simply writing it off as luxury money.

Its not luxury money for holidays and drinking, its a social inclusion allowance to deal with the issues surrounding social isolation which can have physical and mental health effects as well as reducing the chances of gaining employment. Whether its spent on drinking or put towards a holiday by some is immaterial.

Awkward Badger while I agree you how is social inclusion allowance defined exactly,.. what exactly does it include, is a family socially excluded because they can only afford a holiday in a mobile home in Wexford while down the road another family can take their children to France on holiday or is a family socially excluded if a family day out is going up the Wicklow mountains for a walk and a picnic because they cant afforded to pay for shiny plastic fun in a play centre or bowling ally?

RoboRat

There is more that is necessary to "live" in the modern world than what you are making out. You're also ignoring a large part of what that social inclusion allowance is for and simply writing it off as luxury money.

I agree that its necessary to live and not exist but my point is that (a) you can socialise, have fun and even have a break without spending much, or even anything and (b) 2.5k per year is a ridiculous figure.

you seem very resentful of people expecting to have a bit of a life

I'm not, trust me, I just think that people need to widen their horizons and realise they can fun and socialise without paying.

Awkward Badger

mariaalice wrote: »

Awkward Badger while I agree you how is social inclusion allowance defined exactly,.. what exactly does it include, is a family socially excluded because they can only afford a holiday in a mobile home in Wexford while down the road another family can take their children to France on holiday or is a family socially excluded if a family day out is going up the Wicklow mountains for a walk and a picnic because they cant afforded to pay for shiny plastic fun in a play centre or bowling ally?

I guess all that can really be done is take it into account as an actual issue when budgeting and the figure is an average to try cover the bases.

Given it will vary quite a bit depending on situation I'm sure it will be adequate for some, inadequate for others and more than necessary for others again. I'm just saying its a necessary allocation when determining the "living wage".

The thing is who is setting the agenda because once it out there it can be used to set the bar so to speak and that will be used to define what a living wage and social exclusion is.

I would hazard a guess and say it is some social policy research's who will more than likely come form a middle class background themselves and will be using research produced by other middle class professional.

Tony EH

RoboRat wrote: »

I have no issue with social welfare, I do take issue with people bleeding the system. Social Welfare is a safety net but I get annoyed when you interview somebody and offer them a decent living (28k plus benefits) and its turned down because its pays better being on the dole.

That's a call for better wages.

RoboRat wrote: »

Maybe my thoughts are outdated but I was bought up to work for money and to work harder and better than others to ensure you get promoted and move up the ladder.

Until such time that companies and employers pay decent wages across the board, such a viewpoint only makes the worker a mug. The problem with your stance re "working for money" and "working harder than the other guy" is that:

a. It's not reciprocated the other way. Workers are often exploited and often not rewarded for their labour to a proper degree. A lot of companies will go to great lengths to simply pay the minimum that they can get away with.

b. Creates an unhealthy "competition" amongst workers, who should be standing together. At the end of the day, it your workmates and you who can be fucked out on your arse without a second thought by your employer, regardless of what you've put in.

RoboRat wrote: »

Fair enough, just with this and the 12:1 that was discussed yesterday, I think there is far to much focus on socialism.

You can thank socialism and socialist movements for most of the rights you enjoy in working life today.

It certainly wouldn't have come from the right, that's for sure.

However, there has been a concerted effort to devalue people's labour recently in many western countries, to a point where we are getting to serious levels. The likes of Jobbridge and zero hour contracts should have EVERYONE concerned for the future of working life.

RoboRat

You don't by chance work for a union or the Public Sector Tony?

a. It's not reciprocated the other way. Workers are often exploited and often not rewarded for their labour to a proper degree. A lot of companies will go to great lengths to simply pay the minimum that they can get away with.

I doubt that very much. I have worked for 5 companies and have rarely been exploited. I generally find that companies see good workers and try to hold onto them. Most companies worth their salt can see the benefits of paying a little extra for a good worker versus paying peanuts and getting a monkey.

First job, albeit part time as I was in college, I got quite a few above average pay raises due to my work ethic.

2nd Job > I started at the bottom and I was a manager within 2 years as I stayed back and done courses. Pay increased by 37% over the 2 years I worked there.

3rd Job >moved to a bigger company, back at the bottom and within 3 years was department head. Pay increased by circa 25%

4th Job > pay increased but was also cut during recession, didn't like it towards the end of my tender and left for a better job/pay.

Current job > Going very well.

Creates an unhealthy "competition" amongst workers, who should be standing together

No it doesn't. If I want to work hard and stake my claim to a promotion then I can, if somebody else wants it then they stake their claim. I believe that the right person gets the job and not those who get a promotion based on length of service. Don't get me wrong, loyalty should be rewarded but not the basis for a promotion. This seems very much like a 'union' statement.

You can thank socialism and socialist movements for most of the rights you enjoy in working life today

I agree, a good woking environment is a mixture but you also should have goals and incentives. Thats how we actually develop.

Tony EH

RoboRat wrote: »

You don't by chance work for a union or the Public Sector Tony?

I don't work in a job that allows unions.

RoboRat wrote: »

No it doesn't. If I want to work hard and stake my claim to a promotion then I can, if somebody else wants it then they stake their claim. I believe that the right person gets the job and not those who get a promotion based on length of service. Don't get me wrong, loyalty should be rewarded but not the basis for a promotion. This seems very much like a 'union' statement.

I didn't say that it should. You seem to have a low opinion of unions.

Your sentence of "work(ing) harder and better than others" lends a different initial take to the paragraph above.

I believe that people should work together as that is usually the way that a company will drive forward. Of course, people who deserve to be promoted, should be and based on their merit, not who they know.

I do believe, though, that longevity should be part of a promotion process. But, it would have to go hand in hand with the person's ability to do the job they are being promoted into.

RoboRat

You seem to have a low opinion of unions.

I do. I think the likes of Larkin and Connolly would be rolling in their graves when they see the antics of modern day unions. Another debate though.

I believe that people should work together as that is usually the way that a company will drive forward. Of course, people who deserve to be promoted, should be and based on their merit, not who they know.

You can easily work together whilst still going above and beyond to get a promotion. Don't kid yourself, everybody has their own agendas, some are just more determined than others and some feel they are entitled.

I am perfectly aware that there is very little loyalty from an employer and they can at any stage fcuk you out the door, but if you are an exemplary employee who is worth the money, why would they do that? Productivity = revenue. When I left my last job because I felt that I was undervalued they took on an inexperienced guy for a lot less, despite my recommendations to pay the extra for another guy. It really backfired on them and they realised that and most companies actually understand this through experience or just being savvy.

I do believe, though, that longevity should be part of a promotion process.

I do too, I just don't think it is a reason in itself for a promotion. Loyalty should always be rewarded but if I have a guy who is on my team for 10 years and just tapping by versus a dynamic hardworking guy who is 4 years on my team, its a no brainer who gets the promotion.

Tony EH

RoboRat wrote: »

I am perfectly aware that there is very little loyalty from an employer and they can at any stage fcuk you out the door, but if you are an exemplary employee who is worth the money, why would they do that? Productivity = revenue.

It happens all the time lad.

Over the years, I've seen PLENTY of quality staff thrown out the door and inferior people hired in their place, usually for lesser wages.

The entire "outsource solution" is the very embodiment of that kind of thinking.

The current Jobbridge disaster is also a perfect example and there are loads of stories of staff being let go and free labour being hired in lieu of them.

Logic often goes out the window in the business world, if there's a cheap buck to be made.

UCDVet

Tony EH wrote: »

It happens all the time lad.

Over the years, I've seen PLENTY of quality staff thrown out the door and inferior people hired in their place, usually for lesser wages.

The entire "outsource solution" is the very embodiment of that kind of thinking.

The current Jobbridge disaster is also a perfect example and there are loads of stories of staff being let go and free labour being hired in lieu of them.

Logic often goes out the window in the business world, if there's a cheap buck to be made.

Inferior is highly subjective. For most jobs, the difference in ability is quite small, but the difference in pay is quite high.

I have an Uncle who spent 30 years painting buildings. The truth is, after year two or three - he was as good as he'd ever be. The remaining 27 years didn't really improve his ability much - but his wage kept going up. Now his employer is trying to replace him with an 'inferior' painter. The thing is, the inferior painter might be 10% slower, but he's 18 and will do the job for 1/2 the pay.

In terms of 'value' the slightly slower painter is the better deal. He's only 'inferior' in terms of absolute quality. But most people, don't care. If my new building gets painted in 4 days or 4.5 days, as a customer, I don't care too much.

I see this in a lot of professions - times are good, companies give raises. After 20 years, you have some loyal employees with 20+ years of experience who are *slightly* better than someone with 2-3 years of experience. But cost 2x as much to employee.

Clandestine

The government already has too big of a hand in business. There should be no minimum wage (more employment+interest rates go down) and the income tax should be scrapped (its theft). I think that'd be a good start.

PizzamanIRL

I have a simple solution. Become an expert online poker player and make loads without being taxed.

oldyouth

Make yourself of value to your employer and (normally) you get rewarded. I would have no problem paying any individual twice the rate as all other employees if that person brought in sufficient additional revenue to warrant it.

Having a high minimum wage will close a lot of businesses and lead to a lazy workforce.

Amirani

Clandestine wrote: »

The government already has too big of a hand in business. There should be no minimum wage (more employment+interest rates go down) and the income tax should be scrapped (its theft). I think that'd be a good start.

The removal of the minimum wage in theory is good, but it inevitably leads to the exploitation of workers. It's no surprise that even the US is strongly considering raising their minimum wage to above $10 per hour, minimum wage workers there currently have essentially no social mobility.

I'm not sure of any country or coherent lobby (outside of pariah states and super-rich micro states) that is in favour of a 0% tax on income. It's a pretty bizarre suggestion that even most right-wing libertarians would be opposed to. You support the provision of absolutely no state services? Policing, military, primary education, basic healthcare etc?

Whatever about suggesting a flat rate, suggesting 0% income tax is non-nonsensical.

cloud493

By own definition, 'living wage' is what I need to pay my rent, pay for my food, pay for my bus ticket, my sisters living, and other various utilities. Anything else is a luxury. I dislike my job, but I do it, theres plenty of extra work right now so I'm not short, but I know I'm lucky in that regard.

mickydoomsux

Lads, any chance I can have a few quid for cans every week so I can feel "socially included"?

ancapailldorcha

Clandestine wrote: »

The government already has too big of a hand in business. There should be no minimum wage (more employment+interest rates go down) and the income tax should be scrapped (its theft). I think that'd be a good start.

I don't understand. If you remove the minimum wage, companies will pay employees barely enough to live on. And by live on, I mean rent, utilities and a few loaves a week. Nearly half of Lloyds Bank employees are on £17,000 or £14,000 a year which is less than the stipend a postgraduate student in the life science would recieve. I can't find a link for that but I read it in the Guardian.

As for removing Income Tax, who'll pay for the Gards, HSE, etc?

Iwasfrozen

mickydoomsux wrote: »

Lads, any chance I can have a few quid for cans every week so I can feel "socially included"?

And a holiday because apparently that's a necessity...

Jesus wept. Next these geniuses will be lobbying for the min wage to be raised to 11.45.

Wanderer2010

Friend Computer wrote: »

Going out/socialising/what have you are absolutely not luxuries; they're conducive to a healthy mental state. Psychological needs are just as important as physical ones.

Exactly! What good is sitting on your battered couch mentally high-fiveing yourself on buying 1kg of Aldi rice for a euro if you have nowhere to go or no money to enjoy yourself? I cant stand these people who say "Ooh you must cut down on pubs, clubs and concerts, they are luxuries". Say that to the people who work very hard all week, watch their money and look forward to some release by meeting up with their mates and having a bit of a laugh and topping up their mental health so they can face another tough week. There are so many tight people in this country it drives me mad. You dont have to be knocking back shots every night of the week or jetting of to USA twice a year but everyone needs some release so money for that is just as important as rent/food money.

Clandestine

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I don't understand. If you remove the minimum wage, companies will pay employees barely enough to live on. And by live on, I mean rent, utilities and a few loaves a week. Nearly half of Lloyds Bank employees are on £17,000 or £14,000 a year which is less than the stipend a postgraduate student in the life science would recieve. I can't find a link for that but I read it in the Guardian.?

http://bastiat.mises.org/2014/01/hazlitt-explains-minimum-wage-laws/

If there is no minimum wage, the costs of everyday items would drop (a drop in inflation). If companies were to pay their employees a pittance, I don't think many people would apply for the jobs because there would be more competition. Employees would essentially be paid what their labor is actually worth. Minimum wage laws stop people with little/no skills from getting jobs. e.g Switzerland has no minimum wage and has a 2.1% unemployment rate.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

As for removing Income Tax, who'll pay for the Gards, HSE, etc?

There are other options available, e.g:
Make taxes voluntary, people pay for the services they want or private companies would provide services instead.

ancapailldorcha

Clandestine wrote: »

http://bastiat.mises.org/2014/01/hazlitt-explains-minimum-wage-laws/

If there is no minimum wage, the costs of everyday items would drop (a drop in inflation). If companies were to pay their employees a pittance, I don't think many people would apply for the jobs because there would be more competition. Employees would essentially be paid what their labor is actually worth. Minimum wage laws stop people with little/no skills from getting jobs. e.g Switzerland has no minimum wage and has a 2.1% unemployment rate.


There are other options available, e.g:
Make taxes voluntary, people pay for the services they want or private companies would provide services instead.

The first point makes no sense. If prices on good drop, how do farmers and manufacturers make a living? People would still have to apply for these jobs as they need an income. We're in a recession meaning that in terms of jobs, supply is far outstripping demand so employers can pick anyone they want, pay a pittance and suffer no consequence.

Making taxes voluntary? Seriously? How many people do you think would choose to pay for the Gards? Virtually every time I've tried to even speak to one of them, I've been treated with contempt. Look at the UK, they've entrusted more public services to the private sector and it's a disaster. There's no incentive for investment as there's virtually no competition and the service is a guaranteed sell. We've one of the worst rail systems in Europe and don't even start me on the energy companies.

looking_around

RoboRat wrote: »

Economies have ups and downs, you enjoy the ups and do without during You can go camping for a week and it will cost you next to nothing.

Depends where you live.
It will cost you the petrol, the gear (Tents /sleeping bags), and places that allow camping have a nightly charge.

It does cost, and it can add up.

People have a right to be able to afford hobbies. You sound like one of those people who say "well, cancel your internet, you don't need that to live."..
and no, you don't...but if you don't have it, you'll definitely be socially excluded, look on weirdly...and why shouldn't we expect some things to live.

I want to live, not just exist.

I think a certain amount being put towards hobbies is a good thing, then let people decide how they spend that and for what hobbies. But people (working or on welfare should be able to afford a little.)
How much? I think 30-40euro per week just for hobbies is fair. If someone can't afford this working, shows more an issue with wages(and probably mortgage.) than with it being "too high" for socialising/hobbies.

Iwasfrozen

looking_around wrote: »

I want to live, not just exist.

Then be glad you have a job.

Sam Kade

Friend Computer wrote: »

Going out/socialising/what have you are absolutely not luxuries; they're conducive to a healthy mental state. Psychological needs are just as important as physical ones.

Here both involve going to the pub and downing drink, not great for mental health.

ancapailldorcha

Sam Kade wrote: »

Here both involve going to the pub and downing drink, not great for mental health.

There are ways to socialise without alcohol. In addition, it is possible to go to the pub and indulge without excess. I do it regularly.

Sam Kade

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

There are ways to socialise without alcohol. In addition, it is possible to go to the pub and indulge without excess. I do it regularly.

I never said there weren't in fact you could socialise without spending a cent but the pub and drink are the mindset of the majority.

looking_around

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Then be glad you have a job.

I currently don't. I'm also currently not receiving welfare.

Anyway.

The problem is many people with jobs don't have enough for hobbies.
I think it's excellent to be deciding what IS a standard of living, how much should people have. It will help with balancing other supports etc.

People should have X amount for hobbies.
X amount for food.
X amount for rent/home.
X amount for clothes.
X amount for traveling expenses.
X amount for health.

What these amounts are/should be I don't know, but defining what peoples needs are and how much they should for those needs. Is a good thing.

and yes, some money towards hobbies is a need, You don't want people so poor that they have nothing to do, or very little... which is terrible for mental health, means they're less likely to be able to get back in to work and will need more long term help from the government.

ancapailldorcha

Sam Kade wrote: »

I never said there weren't in fact you could socialise without spending a cent but the pub and drink are the mindset of the majority.

You said "downing drink" so that's which constitutes an assumption in my opinion.

Iwasfrozen

looking_around wrote: »

I currently don't. I'm also currently not receiving welfare.

Anyway.

The problem is many people with jobs don't have enough for hobbies.
I think it's excellent to be deciding what IS a standard of living, how much should people have. It will help with balancing other supports etc.

People should have X amount for hobbies.
X amount for food.
X amount for rent/home.
X amount for clothes.
X amount for traveling expenses.
X amount for health.

What these amounts are/should be I don't know, but defining what peoples needs are and how much they should for those needs. Is a good thing.

and yes, some money towards hobbies is a need, You don't want people so poor that they have nothing to do, or very little... which is terrible for mental health, means they're less likely to be able to get back in to work and will need more long term help from the government.

No the idea of social welfare is to provide a person with the bare minimum to survive. The budget doesn't stretch to booze money.

looking_around

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

No the idea of social welfare is to provide a person with the bare minimum to survive. The budget doesn't stretch to booze money.

No it's not.

It's there to support a person in times of need.

We have long moved away from bare minimum to survive. Putting people on the bare to survive, has longterm negative consequences, it affects mental and physical health.

but there's no point arguing if you can't see that people need hobbies. Even cheap hobbies like knitting aren't free.

But lets not label it booze money, what about money for a weekly class? like yoga/other fitness.. This would have long term benefits by keeping people physically healthy.
Maybe 40€/week is too much.. 10 I think would be too little, maybe 20€/week as min on hobbies..would that be more fair?

ancapailldorcha

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

No the idea of social welfare is to provide a person with the bare minimum to survive. The budget doesn't stretch to booze money.

Why do people seem to think that people, employed or not spend every spare cent/penny on booze? It's just ignorant.

Social welfare exists as support for people who need it. It does unfortunately, get abused as the tabloids love reminding constantly. If we limit it to nothing more than rent and food stamps then it'll just cause bigger problems. Look at Detroit, Chicago or Baltimore in the US if you don't believe me. People can be so short sighted and selfish when it comes to things like this which is sad when you consider that short term investment can lead to long term rewards. For example, investing in free IT courses for the unemployed can give them skills to work in one industry which is still highly profitable so that they can start paying tax.

Iwasfrozen

looking_around wrote: »

No it's not.

It's there to support a person in times of need.

We have long moved away from bare minimum to survive. Putting people on the bare to survive, has longterm negative consequences, it affects mental and physical health.

but there's no point arguing if you can't see that people need hobbies. Even cheap hobbies like knitting aren't free.

But lets not label it booze money, what about money for a weekly class? like yoga/other fitness.. This would have long term benefits by keeping people physically healthy.
Maybe 40€/week is too much.. 10 I think would be too little, maybe 20€/week as min on hobbies..would that be more fair?

Nope. It's there to provide a social security net to make sure a persons basic needs are covered. The dole as it stands is too generous.

ancapailldorcha

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Nope. It's there to provide a social security net to make sure a persons basic needs are covered. The dole as it stands is too generous.

Have you ever lived on it?

fr336

So the country and people's lives should go to ruin as more and more jobs are made redundant due to computers..just so people don't call it all communist? The stupidity of the little people. I wish I was a jerk I could become a billionaire with ease.

Iwasfrozen

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Have you ever lived on it?

Yeah a few months ago actually. 100 euro for doing nothing I felt like a thief.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Why do people seem to think that people, employed or not spend every spare cent/penny on booze? It's just ignorant.

Social welfare exists as support for people who need it. It does unfortunately, get abused as the tabloids love reminding constantly. If we limit it to nothing more than rent and food stamps then it'll just cause bigger problems. Look at Detroit, Chicago or Baltimore in the US if you don't believe me. People can be so short sighted and selfish when it comes to things like this which is sad when you consider that short term investment can lead to long term rewards. For example, investing in free IT courses for the unemployed can give them skills to work in one industry which is still highly profitable so that they can start paying tax.

Oh don't get me wrong I'm very supportive of subsidised courses for the long term unemployed but they shouldn't be given any substantial amount of disposable income.