What does boomer even mean??

[Sauron]

39 minutes ago, Lord Vile said:

It’s not really taking away jobs just filling the gap where natives are too self entitled to do the jobs that need doing. It’s very easy to live off the state now and a lot of people do it because they can’t get the job they want.

Again, where's the evidence of that? It may depend on where you live but where I live there are plenty of "natives" working menial or service jobs and not a lot of people who are in serious need of a job and disregard an opportunity to get one just because it's a low end position.

[Lord Vile]

59 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Again, where's the evidence of that? It may depend on where you live but where I live there are plenty of "natives" working menial or service jobs and not a lot of people who are in serious need of a job and disregard an opportunity to get one just because it's a low end position.

Not talking about menial and service jobs 

[Sauron]

2 minutes ago, Lord Vile said:

Not talking about menial and service jobs 

What are you talking about then?

[Lord Vile]

1 hour ago, Sauron said:

What are you talking about then?

Jobs heavy on manual labour for example working in fields etc etc. The jobs immigrants actually do and overly entitled eejits who are taking unemployment money think is below them.

[Sauron]

Just now, Lord Vile said:

Jobs heavy on manual labour for example working in fields etc etc.

I was talking about those, too.

1 minute ago, Lord Vile said:

The jobs immigrants actually do and overly entitled eejits who are taking unemployment money think is below them.

Citation needed.

[Lord Vile]

1 minute ago, Sauron said:

I was talking about those, too.

Citation needed.

For example around where I'm from there's plenty of jobs in summer picking fruit in fields and similar stuff because it's in the country, it's minimum wage but it's still making money. No one who's actually from the area does it, they moan about not having money and when you bring it up they say no that sounds too hard or not good enough. Everyone wants to work in a shop or sat at a desk. 

[Sauron]

1 minute ago, Lord Vile said:

For example around where I'm from there's plenty of jobs in summer picking fruit in fields and similar stuff because it's in the country, it's minimum wage but it's still making money. No one who's actually from the area does it, they moan about not having money and when you bring it up they say no that sounds too hard or not good enough. Everyone wants to work in a shop or sat at a desk.

1) That's anecdotal evidence 2) just because someone would like to have more money doesn't mean they are in enough of a pinch to take a seasonal minimum wage job. Picking fruit is a shitty job and if you have an alternative I wouldn't recommend it. Being "picky" about jobs when you aren't desperate for one isn't a bad idea.

 

Also turns out, not a lot of people live in the country and most would rather take a minimum wage close to where they live if at all possible, rather than move to get it - immigrants don't have this problem because they usually still need to rent a room somewhere so it might as well be wherever they can find a job.

[Lord Vile]

3 minutes ago, Sauron said:

1) That's anecdotal evidence 2) just because someone would like to have more money doesn't mean they are in enough of a pinch to take a seasonal minimum wage job. Picking fruit is a shitty job and if you have an alternative I wouldn't recommend it. Being "picky" about jobs when you aren't desperate for one isn't a bad idea.

 

Also turns out, not a lot of people live in the country and most would rather take a minimum wage close to where they live if at all possible, rather than move to get it - immigrants don't have this problem because they usually still need to rent a room somewhere so it might as well be wherever they can find a job.

You have just proven my point. People would rather sit and do nothing, scrounging off the government vs working a job that isn't ideal and earning their keep.

[Sauron]

10 minutes ago, Lord Vile said:

You have just proven my point. People would rather sit and do nothing, scrounging off the government vs working a job that isn't ideal and earning their keep.

Uhm... no, I thought your point was that people would rather starve than take bad jobs, which isn't true. If your point was that people prefer good jobs or to do nothing if they can afford to then... that has literally always been the case, much more so in the '50s and '60s in fact when most women were expected to just stay home. Are you suggesting people should be forced to take degrading and underpaid jobs they don't need to make some fat old land owner who never did that work more money?

[Curious Pineapple]

2 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Uhm... no, I thought your point was that people would rather starve than take bad jobs, which isn't true. If your point was that people prefer good jobs or to do nothing if they can afford to then... that has literally always been the case, much more so in the '50s and '60s in fact when most women were expected to just stay home. Are you suggesting people should be forced to take degrading and underpaid jobs they don't need to make some fat old land owner who never did that work more money?

People refuse to take these jobs and get government benefits to "look for work". Rent gets paid, spit out a few crotch goblins and they're getting more than most average jobs pay for the next 18 years.

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Uhm... no, I thought your point was that people would rather starve than take bad jobs, which isn't true. If your point was that people prefer good jobs or to do nothing if they can afford to then... that has literally always been the case, much more so in the '50s and '60s in fact when most women were expected to just stay home. Are you suggesting people should be forced to take degrading and underpaid jobs they don't need to make some fat old land owner who never did that work more money?

My Grandparents where boomers.

 

Grams stayed home.

The country (US) was well enough off (40s 50s 60s)economically that they raised 3 kids 2 new cars, house payment and Gramps retired in 85' with an 8th grad education. 

 

Times are much different.

We must respect the Boomers though. They (most of em) lived through the great depression as children. I recall many stories.

One in particular was just to save water. The sign read, "If it's yellow be mellow. If it's brown, flush it down."

They where allowed 5 gallons of fuel per customer only. 

For our recession some 10 years ago, I was paying about 5$ a gallon for fuel instead of gallon limitations.

[Commodus]

2 minutes ago, ShrimpBrime said:

My Grandparents where boomers.

 

Grams stayed home.

The country (US) was well enough off (40s 50s 60s)economically that they raised 3 kids 2 new cars, house payment and Gramps retired in 85' with an 8th grad education. 

 

Times are much different.

We must respect the Boomers though. They (most of em) lived through the great depression as children. I recall many stories.

One in particular was just to save water. The sign read, "If it's yellow be mellow. If it's brown, flush it down."

They where allowed 5 gallons of fuel per customer only. 

For our recession some 10 years ago, I was paying about 5$ a gallon for fuel instead of gallon limitations.

Boomers are called what they are because they're "baby boomers" -- that is, from the post-WWII period when soldiers came back and started families.  They didn't exist during the Great Depression!

 

You're thinking of the Silent Generation, born roughly between 1928 and 1945.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Commodus said:

Boomers are called what they are because they're "baby boomers" -- that is, from the post-WWII period when soldiers came back and started families.  They didn't exist during the Great Depression!

 

You're thinking of the Silent Generation, born roughly between 1928 and 1945.

Right.

Gramps was born jan 26 1926.

His first car was a 1926 Jordan.

As I had mentioned they grew up in the depression.

 

Gramps was First Calvary. He came home and mounted my grandmother they had 3 children.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

What @AlwaysFSX said.

 

See also:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scapegoating

[Lord Vile]

39 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Uhm... no, I thought your point was that people would rather starve than take bad jobs, which isn't true. If your point was that people prefer good jobs or to do nothing if they can afford to then... that has literally always been the case, much more so in the '50s and '60s in fact when most women were expected to just stay home. Are you suggesting people should be forced to take degrading and underpaid jobs they don't need to make some fat old land owner who never did that work more money?

You really have no idea how hard farming is do you... 

 

Women weren't expected to stay home in the 50's and 60's.  Maybe with young kids but otherwise they worked in factories.

 

It's minimum wage and it's hardly degrading. 

[AshRiver]

boomer means boomer

 

 

[Sauron]

36 minutes ago, ShrimpBrime said:

They (most of em) lived through the great depression as children.

Those are silent/greatest gen, not boomers.

39 minutes ago, Curious Pineapple said:

People refuse to take these jobs and get government benefits to "look for work". Rent gets paid, spit out a few crotch goblins and they're getting more than most average jobs pay for the next 18 years.

Then maybe the average job should pay better... again, are you guys suggesting we force people to take shit jobs they don't need? That sounds like slavery to be honest. And more to the point, it's not like in the past people would just go and do that.

 

Anyway I doubt you've been on welfare if you think it's a comfortable life to lead.

[Lord Vile]

3 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Those are silent/greatest gen, not boomers.

Then maybe the average job should pay better... again, are you guys suggesting we force people to take shit jobs they don't need? That sounds like slavery to be honest. And more to the point, it's not like in the past people would just go and do that.

 

Anyway I doubt you've been on welfare if you think it's a comfortable life to lead.

You can rake in tons by exploiting welfare. And yes people should work. Being on welfare when you could be working is essentially stealing from everyone else in the country. 

 

Shit jobs exist and need doing, if you don't wanna do them you should work harder in school etc etc.

[Curious Pineapple]

1 minute ago, Sauron said:

Those are silent/greatest gen, not boomers.

Then maybe the average job should pay better... again, are you guys suggesting we force people to take shit jobs they don't need? That sounds like slavery to be honest. And more to the point, it's not like in the past people would just go and do that.

 

Anyway I doubt you've been on welfare if you think it's a comfortable life to lead.

Lets see, £360 every 4 weeks towards rent (minimum, goes up if there is children or diabilites involved), about £100 per month towards council (local authority) tax, £92 per week per unemployed adult and along the lines of £500 per month per child under the age of 18 (up to 2 children).

 

That's along the lines of 2 full time adults working for minimum wage. If there is any disability or health issue than you can add even more on to it. So yeh, not working and spitting out kids for the benefits nets more money that doing an actual job.

 

Just because your welfare system forces people to live in a dumpster doesn't mean everyole elses does.

[Sauron]

4 minutes ago, Lord Vile said:

You really have no idea how hard farming is do you... 

Farming is hard, owning a farm is not.

4 minutes ago, Lord Vile said:

Women weren't expected to stay home in the 50's and 60's.  Maybe with young kids but otherwise they worked in factories.

Nonsense.

 

Have some stats, maybe you'll learn something https://www.bls.gov/spotlight/2011/women/

1 minute ago, Lord Vile said:

You can rake in tons by exploiting welfare. And yes people should work. Being on welfare when you could be working is essentially stealing from everyone else in the country. 

What about expecting people to work for you at indecently low wages while you profit off their work? Should children work too so they aren't "stealing from everyone else in the country"? What about the elderly? Why aren't you working right now instead of shitposting here?

3 minutes ago, Lord Vile said:

Shit jobs exist and need doing, if you don't wanna do them you should work harder in school etc etc.

Bullshit, there are plenty of reasons one could be unable to get a degree that are beyond their control - and even then getting a degree is a significant expenditure of both time and money in many parts of the world which could leave you bankrupt.

 

As for jobs that "need doing", if they're difficult and important then the wage should reflect that.

1 minute ago, Curious Pineapple said:

Lets see, £360 every 4 weeks towards rent (minimum, goes up if there is children or diabilites involved), about £100 per month towards council (local authority) tax, £92 per week per unemployed adult and along the lines of £500 per month per child under the age of 18 (up to 2 children).

 

That's along the lines of 2 full time adults working for minimum wage.

And yet it's not enough to sustain a family of 4 in decent living conditions. Again I feel like that speaks more to how low the minimum wage is than to how high welfare is.

2 minutes ago, Curious Pineapple said:

Just because your welfare system forces people to live in a dumpster doesn't mean everyole elses does.

Lol, if you think £2800 per month is enough for a family of 4 leading a comfortable life you're delusional. It's barely enough not to starve in a dumpster, which is the least you can do. It's going to depend on the zone but £700 isn't even enough for the average rent across a large portion of the UK https://www.statista.com/statistics/752203/average-cost-of-rent-by-region-uk/

 

If you want more people to take menial jobs over welfare then maybe pay them better than you'd pay the average horse.

[Curious Pineapple]

12 minutes ago, Sauron said:

And yet it's not enough to sustain a family of 4 in decent living conditions. Again I feel like that speaks more to how low the minimum wage is than to how high welfare is.

Lol, if you think £2800 per month is enough for a family of 4 leading a comfortable life you're delusional. It's barely enough not to starve in a dumpster, which is the least you can do. It's going to depend on the zone but £700 isn't even enough for the average rent across a large portion of the UK https://www.statista.com/statistics/752203/average-cost-of-rent-by-region-uk/

 

If you want more people to take menial jobs over welfare then maybe pay them better than you'd pay the average horse.

I guess I had better sell my 4 cars, 5 bikes and get out of my home as apprently I don't have the money to live in anything beyond a dumpster.

 

Oh wait, unlike you I know what I'm talking about.

 

FYI most people own their own homes in the UK, but £700 would net quite a big house with a garage. Averages mean fuck all when you have single rooms in the town centre a mile away from £3000/week houses. But please, continue making assumptions on a subject you have obviously never had experiance with.

 

Edit: As someone who has twice sat in front of a civil court shortly before receiving thousands in back payments for unpaid disability and housing benefits I know EXACTLY what I am talking about when it comes to welfare payments and the rental markets. I would also be better off if I walked out of my full time job and claimed carers allowance. Also, I won't be bankrupt if I have a heart attack tomorrow

[Lord Vile]

1 hour ago, Sauron said:

Farming is hard, owning a farm is not.

Nonsense.

 

Have some stats, maybe you'll learn something https://www.bls.gov/spotlight/2011/women/

What about expecting people to work for you at indecently low wages while you profit off their work? Should children work too so they aren't "stealing from everyone else in the country"? What about the elderly? Why aren't you working right now instead of shitposting here?

Bullshit, there are plenty of reasons one could be unable to get a degree that are beyond their control - and even then getting a degree is a significant expenditure of both time and money in many parts of the world which could leave you bankrupt.

 

As for jobs that "need doing", if they're difficult and important then the wage should reflect that.

And yet it's not enough to sustain a family of 4 in decent living conditions. Again I feel like that speaks more to how low the minimum wage is than to how high welfare is.

Lol, if you think £2800 per month is enough for a family of 4 leading a comfortable life you're delusional. It's barely enough not to starve in a dumpster, which is the least you can do. It's going to depend on the zone but £700 isn't even enough for the average rent across a large portion of the UK https://www.statista.com/statistics/752203/average-cost-of-rent-by-region-uk/

 

If you want more people to take menial jobs over welfare then maybe pay them better than you'd pay the average horse.

Um yes it is. Well for the times you're actually doing it and if you're not a massive corporation which no one around here is. They do most of their own work. 

 

That graph is horrendously put together but you do know American doesn't equal the world right? 

 

I think you're trying to make a strawman. The minimum wage is there for a reason. Wages for low skilled jobs are low.

 

£2800 a month is easily enough... Say £800 for rent for a 3 bed house, £50 week gas and electric, £100 a week for food, £50 internet, £50 petrol, assume everyone has a phone contract averaging £40 a month that's 160. Leaves you about £800 saved and it does not cost near those amounts for gas, electric, food, internet and petrol I've highballed all of that. I know bigger families who live off less. 

 

 

BTW I am working just have a bank holiday

[FakeNSA]

1 hour ago, Sauron said:

 

Lol, if you think £2800 per month is enough for a family of 4 leading a comfortable life you're delusional. It's barely enough not to starve in a dumpster, which is the least you can do. It's going to depend on the zone but £700 isn't even enough for the average rent across a large portion of the UK https://www.statista.com/statistics/752203/average-cost-of-rent-by-region-uk/

Fun fact: Average rent is an incredibly useless statistic!
Why? Because if you are temporarily, or permanently, a low income earner, you aren't going to be living in an nice, midsized house.

You are going to be living in a cheaper apartment (/flat in the UK IIRC) so you can make expenses.

 

Average rent should not enter into a discussion of income, as many high income earners pay a great deal in rent.

What should be discussed is can one successfully live on that if they live frugally, not "out of a dumpster", and, in most places, they can.

 

And if you can't: Move to someplace less expensive. If you are in a lower income bracket, you can probably find work almost anywhere in your nation, as you probably work in a low skill, high demand job like in the service industry.

 

Just my two cents on this particular point. Most of this argument stems from realities in the US, please let me know if these do not apply in the UK.

[Lord Vile]

19 minutes ago, FakeNSA said:

Fun fact: Average rent is an incredibly useless statistic!
Why? Because if you are temporarily, or permanently, a low income earner, you aren't going to be living in an nice, midsized house.

You are going to be living in a cheaper apartment (/flat in the UK IIRC) so you can make expenses.

 

Average rent should not enter into a discussion of income, as many high income earners pay a great deal in rent.

What should be discussed is can one successfully live on that if they live frugally, not "out of a dumpster", and, in most places, they can.

 

And if you can't: Move to someplace less expensive. If you are in a lower income bracket, you can probably find work almost anywhere in your nation, as you probably work in a low skill, high demand job like in the service industry.

 

Just my two cents on this particular point. Most of this argument stems from realities in the US, please let me know if these do not apply in the UK.

You can rent a decent sized place and live more than comfortably on the £2800 stated. If you're below the poverty line you can get council housing which is a lot cheaper though there isn't a lot of it and there is a waiting list. But even so you can get a 2 bed under £600 a month in greater Manchester. Obviously you're not gonna be able to buy a cupboard in Kensington for under £1000 a minute but overall if you're not stupid you can get by. 

 

Overall I think my point has been proven, people now don't want to do jobs that are "demeaning" (they're not it's a job) and the people that seem to be complaining that the only jobs they have a realistic chance of getting are "demeaning" are funnily enough the same people who decided sneaking out of school to smoke weed was a better use of time than attending English or Maths class.

[Monkey Dust]

13 minutes ago, Lord Vile said:

Um yes it is. Well for the times you're actually doing it and if you're not a massive corporation which no one around here is. They do most of their own work. 

 

That graph is horrendously put together but you do know American doesn't equal the world right? 

 

I think you're trying to make a strawman. The minimum wage is there for a reason. Wages for low skilled jobs are low.

 

£2800 a month is easily enough... Say £800 for rent for a 3 bed house, £50 week gas and electric, £100 a week for food, £50 internet, £50 petrol, assume everyone has a phone contract averaging £40 a month that's 160. Leaves you about £800 saved and it does not cost near those amounts for gas, electric, food, internet and petrol I've highballed all of that. I know bigger families who live off less. 

 

 

BTW I am working just have a bank holiday

£800 a week for a 3 bed house? Not in any part of the country with abundant employment. My brother pays £700 for a two-bed flat in Coventry, and it's not a fancy flat either. In Bristol £800 p/m is still one-bed flat territory (or at least it was before the event, landlords may be adjusting their expectations). Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds, Cardiff are all going to be similar, with London existing on its own special plane of insanity. If you live somewhere where £800 p/m three-bed house are common and you, or your partner loses their job, you will likely be down an income for some time. Even if you can make it work it's a pretty precarious position to be in.

 

And the seasonal fruit & vegetable picking jobs? They are in the countryside, and they start really early in the morning. On the off chance that a bus will go somewhere near the farm, it won't be running that early in the morning, so you'll need a car. You will have to purchase and run a car on minimum wage, when you may only have 6 months work a year, it's clearly not going to be worth it. You'll earn more, 12 months a year, with a useful staff discount, and probably much lower commuting costs working in a supermarket, why the hell would you go pick fruit?