What is a good salary?

[Mr Kobayashi]

Special treatment from student nurses you say ...

 

[BrianW]

Great idea. Perhaps you could persuade Labour to put your ideas in their Manifesto . When small businesses need to implement your new rules perhaps you need a point 4 which would deal with the rise in unemployment as they cannot afford to employ staff anymore.
As regards housing, rents have gone through the roof because those smaller landlords who saw having a house to rent out as better than having a pension, have decided to sell up as it’s not worth all the hassle anymore, leaving a shortage of houses available for rent.
Perhaps your point 5 can tell how to deal with that.

Point 1a.) If businesses cannot afford to pay realistic wages they are not viable. Why should the taxpayer prop up such lame ducks? The workers are better redeployed to some more viable work that does not need public subsidy.

Point 4, the People's Housing Programme would employ many in construction, and some more in management once the houses are built. Someone has to collect the rent and arrange the tenancies and repairs.

Point 5, the increased supply in social housing would more than make up for the loss of supply in the private sector. However, the houses in question would not vaporise. They would almost certainly be sold to owner-occupiers. The said owner-occupiers would have a house. Winner, winner chicken dinner.

I am actually proposing a reduction in public subsidies to the inefficient elements of the private sector. Pure Thatcherism. The difference is I would use the money saved to advantage the broader public.

It fascinates me how some people hate taxpayer subsidies, but then say not those taxpayer subsidies!

BTW cutting the cost of housing (which is extortionate) exerts downward pressure on both wages and benefits. Yet at the same time, enables more people to enjoy a better standard of living. Why are ludicrous housing prices for housing a Good Thing? No one suggests it would be good if petrol was £20 a gallon, or bread £12 a loaf, but for some peculiar reason excessive housing costs are seen as a bonus. Beats me.

 

[Kompany Car]

I don’t know why some people are so determined to ascribe poor behaviour or lack of work ethic to certain age groups. Your post reinforces my belief that age has absolutely nothing to do with it.

I’ve had more than my fair share of hospital stays. I’ve had older nurses who were absolutely fucking awful verging on neglectful, I’ve had younger nurses who were brilliant and vice versa.

My employer is obviously not representative of the whole country as it’s only small, but if I had to put a bet on who would pull their finger out to get something urgent done during antisocial hours, my bets would be very evenly spread between the old and young. If anything, new graduates in my experience are more flexibile to demand than other employees because they usually have no wife or kids to worry about.

Wild idea, but if people who have worked somewhere for years are great, and the young people are shit… maybe your recruitment process has become complete bobbins. Nobody ever looks internally for blame though - easier to blame an entire generation of kids.

As someone who is part of the recruitment of a good few graduates each year I fully agree with this. In fact as a group of people out of the hundred plus who i manage via various reporting lines without doubt the most awkward, militant bunch are the over 55 group.

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

Point 1a.) If businesses cannot afford to pay realistic wages they are not viable. Why should the taxpayer prop up such lame ducks? The workers are better redeployed to some more viable work that does not need public subsidy.

Point 4, the People's Housing Programme would employ many in construction, and some more in management once the houses are built. Someone has to collect the rent and arrange the tenancies and repairs.

Point 5, the increased supply in social housing would more than make up for the loss of supply in the private sector. However, the houses in question would not vaporise. They would almost certainly be sold to owner-occupiers. The said owner-occupiers would have a house. Winner, winner chicken dinner.

I am actually proposing a reduction in public subsidies to the inefficient elements of the private sector. Pure Thatcherism. The difference is I would use the money saved to advantage the broader public.

It fascinates me how some people hate taxpayer subsidies, but then say not those taxpayer subsidies!

BTW cutting the cost of housing (which is extortionate) exerts downward pressure on both wages and benefits. Yet at the same time, enables more people to enjoy a better standard of living. Why are ludicrous housing prices for housing a Good Thing? No one suggests it would be good if petrol was £20 a gallon, or bread £12 a loaf, but for some peculiar reason excessive housing costs are seen as a bonus. Beats me.

Because they own several properties themselves?

 

[Nebuchadnezzar]

If someone leaves after a day then you might say it was the individual, to have two leave immediately one after the other after short time periods suggests the job is infact shit.

 

[halfmist]

A small business is not sustainable if it cannot independently pay its staff. I find it bizarre that politicians who espouse a belief in market forces are often the ones who talk about mass unemployment and bankruptcy if people are properly paid. You cannot believe in market forces for only part of running a business.

Those same politicians have consistently reneged on promises to build affordable housing, and/or social housing, and the lack of a proper housebuilding programme that provides affordable housing for the average buyer, as has been discussed multiple times in this thread, is a large reason for the soaring rents we see.

Economically if the taxpayer is having to in effect pay 10 % of a workers wage it’s a darn site cheaper than 100% if there is no job.
Where is the money coming from for all this “affordable” housing.
Isn’t “affordable” a woke way of saying tax payer subsidised.

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

Economically if the taxpayer is having to in effect pay 10 % of a workers wage it’s a darn site cheaper than 100% if there is no job.
Where is the money coming from for all this “affordable” housing.
Isn’t “affordable” a woke way of saying tax payer subsidised.

Such a slimeball.

 

[oldius]

Economically if the taxpayer is having to in effect say 10% of a workers wage it’s a darn site cheaper than 100% if there is no job.
Where is the money coming from for all this “affordable” housing.
Isn’t “affordable” a woke way of saying tax payer subsidised.

Woke is about an awareness of justice, particularly racial injustice. Are you actually using that word about affordable housing?

So you want pay to be taxpayer subsidised but you don't want housing to be taxpayer subsidised?

I would suggest that the money for affordable housing could easily come from either shifting capital gains to the same rate as income tax, or perhaps (perish the thought) that we could use some of the 21 trillion pounds of offshore wealth that has been squirrelled away because our government condones and facilitates widespread tax avoidance.

 

[halfmist]

Point 1a.) If businesses cannot afford to pay realistic wages they are not viable. Why should the taxpayer prop up such lame ducks? The workers are better redeployed to some more viable work that does not need public subsidy.

Point 4, the People's Housing Programme would employ many in construction, and some more in management once the houses are built. Someone has to collect the rent and arrange the tenancies and repairs.

Point 5, the increased supply in social housing would more than make up for the loss of supply in the private sector. However, the houses in question would not vaporise. They would almost certainly be sold to owner-occupiers. The said owner-occupiers would have a house. Winner, winner chicken dinner.

I am actually proposing a reduction in public subsidies to the inefficient elements of the private sector. Pure Thatcherism. The difference is I would use the money saved to advantage the broader public.

It fascinates me how some people hate taxpayer subsidies, but then say not those taxpayer subsidies!

BTW cutting the cost of housing (which is extortionate) exerts downward pressure on both wages and benefits. Yet at the same time, enables more people to enjoy a better standard of living. Why are ludicrous housing prices for housing a Good Thing? No one suggests it would be good if petrol was £20 a gallon, or bread £12 a loaf, but for some peculiar reason excessive housing costs are seen as a bonus. Beats me.

Where is the money coming from for your people’s housing programme which sounds like something from Communist China

 

[halfmist]

Such a slimeball.

Now now Mr K, surely you can manage better than that. I know you are lacking some of your comrades from over on the politics threads but surely even with your level of intelligence you can put together a better response. Making it so personal does highlight your poor debating skills