Wages still increased graduate jobs during the recession. Wages for the lowest paid started dropping in 2005 before then. You can throw what graphs you want at it all the shop floor staff in the logistical industry will disagree
-
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
A Political Thread
- Thread starter Draggs
- Start date
- Status
The problem there is trying to attract graduate's, graduate pay has increase but so has standards. Any role I've seen where the wages have gone up companies have asked for more out of those graduates (before you needed a pass to get a job now most places demand a B/2:1 before they'll entertain you with an interview). In equal measure post graduate starting pay has pretty much frozen in line with all jobs with less than inflation pay rises if your lucky to get one at all.
Also hate to be the one to say but why should someone not be paid mimimum wage for a job that requires basically no skills. Some of the people I worked with had to be some of the stupidity people I've met (on equal measure there were quite a few who should of been doing far better for themselves).
- - - Updated - - -
Sorry a living wage not minimum wage different thing.
So the stupid should be punished for being stupid?
Years ago the local ********s would be labouring on the pit top or low speck production work now they are better off collecting the rock and roll how does that reflect on us as a society?
Years ago the local ********s would be labouring on the pit top or low speck production work now they are better off collecting the rock and roll how does that reflect on us as a society?
Look at this way there are increasingly more graduates every year. If your employing one you want a bright talented individual who is dedicated to working. Now you ask for higher standards but how do you ensure the best will come work for you? All benefit packages are pretty much the same and they are complex to add anything else. So what do you do? Knock up the wages by a bit so you can convince them to come to you.
I had a very different argument about this recently but interestingly there are some parellels. Last year we aimed to recruit 4 graduate engineers actually trying to find 4 grads with the skillets we were looking for, willing to live in this part of the country and take the pay we were offering was actually hard work. We actually failed and employed just two. Clearly we aren't attracting the right people to apply. Simple answer is to raise those wages(it's the wrong answer but thats a dfife rent can of worms).
Now here's a question are struggling to get people in the pickers role at what your paying?
- - - Updated - - -
No stupid people shouldn't be punished hense living wage but that how wags work in a non socialist state. The more skilled a worker you are the more you get paid....unless you count 50% of the managers I've known....
Someone somewhere has to be at the bottom as long as they are being paid enough to live on they can't really complain.
I had a very different argument about this recently but interestingly there are some parellels. Last year we aimed to recruit 4 graduate engineers actually trying to find 4 grads with the skillets we were looking for, willing to live in this part of the country and take the pay we were offering was actually hard work. We actually failed and employed just two. Clearly we aren't attracting the right people to apply. Simple answer is to raise those wages(it's the wrong answer but thats a dfife rent can of worms).
Now here's a question are struggling to get people in the pickers role at what your paying?
- - - Updated - - -
Who's sounding like a lefty now?
No stupid people shouldn't be punished hense living wage but that how wags work in a non socialist state. The more skilled a worker you are the more you get paid....unless you count 50% of the managers I've known....
Someone somewhere has to be at the bottom as long as they are being paid enough to live on they can't really complain.
No . Got loads of Romania and Bulgarians happy to work for **** all an hour
Not bothered about sounding lefty but the mass immigration of eastern europeans has driven down wages for those who normally lived on the bottom branch. The left should have protected these people but the immigration mind set of the Labour party ignored this so people who would have always voted Labour now look to UKIP
When you get the finest tenor, who is German, singing Rule Britannia and watch the Last Night of the Proms, you can see that dear old Jerry has an uphill task!!!!!
Wouldn't know watching the boxing
Rhetoric spinned by scaremongers.
See: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/05/29/migrants-wages-uk-immigration_n_5409319.html
If you genuinely care about the worst off, the priorities that will help them: a living wage, a stronger benefits system, a control on exorbitant rents, a boost to the construction sector to bring more houses in and house prices down, and a healthy public sector. The effects of immigration appear to be small, and putting the kinds of controls on immigrations that e.g. UKIP want, would be absolutely destructive to institutions such as the NHS.
Ah get off the fence taffy!!!!!!
TobesHodges
Bench Player
Personally i think it's same old, same old, one party is better for some and the other for other people. Me personally the Tories suit what i want to achieve in life.
By the sounds for Corbin, he is going to ping me for wanting to better my life and have a better class of life for myself and future family, he is saying that he is going to do everything for "Normal" people, but i don't really want to be Normal, i want to earn a decent wage and not be taxed massively because I wanted this.. so that my hard working money will get filtered back down to the bottom to try and make it even for those that are happy to be "normal".
I get the Austerity measure's, filtering money back into the public sector is a good idea, but understandably is easier said than done, without taking England's deficit back up.
When it comes to Immigration, i didn't vote Labour because they had no stance on it, Conservatives were clever, they knew that UKIP had a big following and the 50/50 UKIP voters would go Tory because they had put there stance on the situation.
When it comes to the bare-bones of the "immigration crisis" in England i'm not worried about migrants taking my Jobs, I will always get a job over anyone whether it be a migrant or someone born in the UK, because i will work harder than them and will always bring more to the table.
The way i think England should deal with it going forward, is for a start put a Cap on Migration to the UK, I know there are ethical reasons for these people to want to get to our country, if England was being bombed like Syria and Afghanistan i'm pretty sure i would want to leave also. Though saying this i really do think Migrants should be bringing something to the country, England needs skilled migrants 'Skilled' Being the predominant word.
The other side of this story that people will be looking at is A: ISIS, saying that they are going to send fighters hidden as refugees, this is a real threat sadly. B: The amount of countries these refugees are travelling through to get to Germany,France, England that 'do not have any war zones', if you were to draw a line on a map, from Syria to Germany, it will nearly border about 7 countries where there is no war, which begs the question, why are they trying to get to these countries without first trying to settle in neighbouring ones?
All in all, i think as much as people don't like to say it, David Cameron is right "we need to deal with the crisis in the countries in question Syria, Nigeria etc. housing and feed hundreds of thousands of people that can't pay into that pot, just isn't sustainable, in any which way you look at it, its the sad but harsh truth.
*The whole Conversation is in a very calm context*
I know how these political threads can go.. 
By the sounds for Corbin, he is going to ping me for wanting to better my life and have a better class of life for myself and future family, he is saying that he is going to do everything for "Normal" people, but i don't really want to be Normal, i want to earn a decent wage and not be taxed massively because I wanted this.. so that my hard working money will get filtered back down to the bottom to try and make it even for those that are happy to be "normal".
I get the Austerity measure's, filtering money back into the public sector is a good idea, but understandably is easier said than done, without taking England's deficit back up.
When it comes to Immigration, i didn't vote Labour because they had no stance on it, Conservatives were clever, they knew that UKIP had a big following and the 50/50 UKIP voters would go Tory because they had put there stance on the situation.
When it comes to the bare-bones of the "immigration crisis" in England i'm not worried about migrants taking my Jobs, I will always get a job over anyone whether it be a migrant or someone born in the UK, because i will work harder than them and will always bring more to the table.
The way i think England should deal with it going forward, is for a start put a Cap on Migration to the UK, I know there are ethical reasons for these people to want to get to our country, if England was being bombed like Syria and Afghanistan i'm pretty sure i would want to leave also. Though saying this i really do think Migrants should be bringing something to the country, England needs skilled migrants 'Skilled' Being the predominant word.
The other side of this story that people will be looking at is A: ISIS, saying that they are going to send fighters hidden as refugees, this is a real threat sadly. B: The amount of countries these refugees are travelling through to get to Germany,France, England that 'do not have any war zones', if you were to draw a line on a map, from Syria to Germany, it will nearly border about 7 countries where there is no war, which begs the question, why are they trying to get to these countries without first trying to settle in neighbouring ones?
All in all, i think as much as people don't like to say it, David Cameron is right "we need to deal with the crisis in the countries in question Syria, Nigeria etc. housing and feed hundreds of thousands of people that can't pay into that pot, just isn't sustainable, in any which way you look at it, its the sad but harsh truth.
*The whole Conversation is in a very calm context*
I know how these political threads can go.. The middle will be squeezed regardless of those two parties, Labour want to squeeze the very wealthy (6 figures/annum plus more) to help those at very bottom. The Conservatives generally ease up rules on those on the top and see it as unfair for working hard (even thought those generally at the top "inherited" the ability to be there). Those on middle to moderately wealthy incomes very rarely benefit from any government policy and just pay their lot. They also can't afford the accountant to teach them loopholes to handling their money within the system to keep more of it.
The sad reality much like the American Dream by voting for those who want to help aspirational people actually rarely benefit from them as they don't actually help until they reach level very few of them reach. I find it hard to vote for something that may benefit me if I get the right hand of cards at particular points of my life. I've just about recovered from being dealt a pretty rubbish hand 2 years ago and getting stitched up which essentially put my career back a fair bit due to office politics.
Of course if you earn that much you're entirely right Conservatives will help you out more.
The sad reality much like the American Dream by voting for those who want to help aspirational people actually rarely benefit from them as they don't actually help until they reach level very few of them reach. I find it hard to vote for something that may benefit me if I get the right hand of cards at particular points of my life. I've just about recovered from being dealt a pretty rubbish hand 2 years ago and getting stitched up which essentially put my career back a fair bit due to office politics.
Of course if you earn that much you're entirely right Conservatives will help you out more.
I paid my three quid to vote, I voted for Cooper, I would have strongly considered her or Kendall in my election, at the moment I don't think there's a snowball's chance that I'd vote for Corbyn. I don't like his policies and I don't like him as a leader. I am not sure how representative I am mind; I think a lot of such minded people end up with the Lib Dems to begin with.
I really can't stress how much I dislike him as a leader though. Maybe I'm being led by my bias against his policies, but I don't think he's shown anything like what is needed to successfully run a campaign of this size, that will always include people who don't agree with a lot of what he stands for. That's why I don't give him the snowball's chance.
Fair enough, tounge in cheek question how can you vote for a person who thinks enough of Ed Balls as a person to actually marry him? I mean she has to be some kind of saint or and equally intolerable person.
I hate Ed Balls BTW....
I hate Ed Balls BTW....
All people are weird and think weird things, now I know how she's weird.
valley commando
First XV
Does anyone take Corbyn seriously, he wants to get rid of our armed forces now, every time I see him on the box it feels like a i'm watching a spoof political show like the comic strip, just not as funny.
I don't know where you read that nonsense
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-34209478
Now I don't agree with him on military ground for the most part (especially in relation to the Falklands as I believe in the right to self determination of the Falklanders, and a similar reasoning in relation to Ireland) but a defence-only strategy in terms of attacking other nation he's essentially saying unless it makes the UK safer he won't deploy troops on a whim. Again I don't completely agree with him on that front but he does not belive is getting rid of our armed forces.
Trident 100% agree those who would use similar weapons against us are not being stopped just because we have them.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-34209478
Now I don't agree with him on military ground for the most part (especially in relation to the Falklands as I believe in the right to self determination of the Falklanders, and a similar reasoning in relation to Ireland) but a defence-only strategy in terms of attacking other nation he's essentially saying unless it makes the UK safer he won't deploy troops on a whim. Again I don't completely agree with him on that front but he does not belive is getting rid of our armed forces.
Trident 100% agree those who would use similar weapons against us are not being stopped just because we have them.
Well yes they are being stopped because they know if they did use them against us we would use them back hence the word deterrent
A defence only policy would have ended up in no British soldiers in Kosovo and a complete humanitarian disaster. As such, I find Corbyn's defence policy completely immoral. I appreciate the complications of the use of military force but to completely remove that card from the table is something that makes me very uncomfortable.
Incidentally, what we have going on in Syria is a humanitarian disaster. Whether air strikes are part of the quickest and most painless way to restore the situation there deserves genuine debate and thought. Yes, ordinary Syrians would suffer in the process. They are suffering already though. Destroying IS' command structures might alleviate that. Chemotherapy is nasty but beats dying from cancer.
As for Trident - I believe the deterrent works as I type this. I believe Russia's current aggressive stance would be far worse if not for the prospect of accidentally causing a nuclear war. I do not know what the future holds but so far the mere threat of nuclear weapons has caused an unusually peaceful period in human history. Some might look at what's happening and mock that idea, but as a student of military history, this is all pretty low grade really. It will not work against every threat but nothing does. There's a debate to be had about the price tag attached to it, but the general use of nuclear deterrents, for me its proven they work.
In other news, I was tickled pink by the revelation that Corbyn's team had to last-minute invent a spot to make it look like they had an important woman in the cabinet and only did so after realising how bad it looked. I consoled myself with the idea this would be funny and early days signs look good on that count. Throw in cabinet ministers who've never met him before, a foreign shadow who disagrees with him on foreign affairs, a defence shadow who disagrees with him on Trident, Watson likewise shouting he's got a mandate to preserve Trident, and John McDonnell as shadow Chancellor... it's a shame there's not too many right/centre political satirists out there, it's a gift like no other.
Oh. And the vegan at agriculture. That'll go down well.
Incidentally, what we have going on in Syria is a humanitarian disaster. Whether air strikes are part of the quickest and most painless way to restore the situation there deserves genuine debate and thought. Yes, ordinary Syrians would suffer in the process. They are suffering already though. Destroying IS' command structures might alleviate that. Chemotherapy is nasty but beats dying from cancer.
As for Trident - I believe the deterrent works as I type this. I believe Russia's current aggressive stance would be far worse if not for the prospect of accidentally causing a nuclear war. I do not know what the future holds but so far the mere threat of nuclear weapons has caused an unusually peaceful period in human history. Some might look at what's happening and mock that idea, but as a student of military history, this is all pretty low grade really. It will not work against every threat but nothing does. There's a debate to be had about the price tag attached to it, but the general use of nuclear deterrents, for me its proven they work.
In other news, I was tickled pink by the revelation that Corbyn's team had to last-minute invent a spot to make it look like they had an important woman in the cabinet and only did so after realising how bad it looked. I consoled myself with the idea this would be funny and early days signs look good on that count. Throw in cabinet ministers who've never met him before, a foreign shadow who disagrees with him on foreign affairs, a defence shadow who disagrees with him on Trident, Watson likewise shouting he's got a mandate to preserve Trident, and John McDonnell as shadow Chancellor... it's a shame there's not too many right/centre political satirists out there, it's a gift like no other.
Oh. And the vegan at agriculture. That'll go down well.
- Status
Similar threads
