Reply to: Are badly paid jobs funner?

[LondonManc]

Or he's a thick troll ...

New to Frozen? They're all thick.

[Whorty]

Tinybrain either didn't notice "Mall Is A Real Person", or was trying to do a funny like this:

Or he's a thick troll ...

[NotAllThere]

Never been called female before. It you saw me you would realise that. Balding old bloke

Anyway I think this thread has run it's course. Bit like a disease.

Tinybrain either didn't notice "Mall Is A Real Person", or was trying to do a funny like this:

[mallisarealperson]

Firstly Malissa, your questions are annoying and you will never be a real woman.
There are perfectly good numbers in my post which you even quoted, so why ask again?

Anyway, it works like this. Unemployment insurance pays out the equivalent of a £ninety-something-thousand a year job. This makes it tricky for the unemployed to earn more than their benefits. So the powers that be, in their wisdom, decided that nobody working should earn less than they would get in benefits. Therefore they get to keep half of anything they earn if they take a job that pays less than the benefits amount. So, taking an 70,000 a year job pays the 90-something-thousand + 35,000 which is the same as a £130,000 a year job.

The consensus seems that it’s better to take the 130,000 job since it will be higher status and you might even have some peons to do the actual work.

I’m still thinking it might be better to take the £70,000 a year job. Especially if you can blag something like train driving which is fun and mindless.

Never been called female before. It you saw me you would realise that. Balding old bloke

Anyway I think this thread has run it's course. Bit like a disease.

[NotAllThere]

Firstly Malissa, your questions are annoying and you will never be a real woman.

Pot kettle black. (Being annoying - not being a real woman. Are you a transphobe?).

There are perfectly good numbers in my post which you even quoted, so why ask again?

Anyway, it works like this. Unemployment insurance pays out the equivalent of a £ninety-something-thousand a year job

It’s from the State, but called insurance. A bit like National Insurance which you may have heard of? It doesn’t pay out if you don’t look for work.

OK - what country are you in? In the UK*, Job Seekers Allowance (as unemployment benefit is called) is £74.70 a week. That's about £3900 a year. Old style contributions based JSA was £74.35 or £116.80 as a couple.

Or are you one of these moaning idiots who confuse progressive tax rates with benefits?

If you don't start producing some kind of evidence for your wild claims, I'm going to assume you're trolling.


*<smug>80% up to £9600 a month in some places for two years</smug>

[Whorty]

It’s from the State, but called insurance. A bit like National Insurance which you may have heard of? It doesn’t pay out if you don’t look for work.

You say it's State Benefits ... can you link to the UK government page that covers this and backs up your numbers?

[hugebrain]

So it is unemployment insurance, obviously a good policy and not state benefits which you was implying earlier.

Maybe English is not your first language, and if so I apologise. But in the UK benefits normally implies State Benefits not an insurance pay out.

If the individual is receiving that king of remuneration then well done sit back and retire. Why work unless the policy runs out and you have to work again.

It’s from the State, but called insurance. A bit like National Insurance which you may have heard of? It doesn’t pay out if you don’t look for work.

[mallisarealperson]

Firstly Malissa, your questions are annoying and you will never be a real woman.
There are perfectly good numbers in my post which you even quoted, so why ask again?

Anyway, it works like this. Unemployment insurance pays out the equivalent of a £ninety-something-thousand a year job. This makes it tricky for the unemployed to earn more than their benefits. So the powers that be, in their wisdom, decided that nobody working should earn less than they would get in benefits. Therefore they get to keep half of anything they earn if they take a job that pays less than the benefits amount. So, taking an 70,000 a year job pays the 90-something-thousand + 35,000 which is the same as a £130,000 a year job.

The consensus seems that it’s better to take the 130,000 job since it will be higher status and you might even have some peons to do the actual work.

I’m still thinking it might be better to take the £70,000 a year job. Especially if you can blag something like train driving which is fun and mindless.

So it is unemployment insurance, obviously a good policy and not state benefits which you was implying earlier.

Maybe English is not your first language, and if so I apologise. But in the UK benefits normally implies State Benefits not an insurance pay out.

If the individual is receiving that king of remuneration then well done sit back and retire. Why work unless the policy runs out and you have to work again.

[hugebrain]

Ok mr/mrs hugebrain.

Please detail how you can get from £70K to 130K on benefits?

Lets have some numbers please. As you keep posting on this forum about 6 figures for benefits.

I think you are trolling or talking b#####ks personally prove me wrong.

Firstly Malissa, your questions are annoying and you will never be a real woman.
There are perfectly good numbers in my post which you even quoted, so why ask again?

Anyway, it works like this. Unemployment insurance pays out the equivalent of a £ninety-something-thousand a year job. This makes it tricky for the unemployed to earn more than their benefits. So the powers that be, in their wisdom, decided that nobody working should earn less than they would get in benefits. Therefore they get to keep half of anything they earn if they take a job that pays less than the benefits amount. So, taking an 70,000 a year job pays the 90-something-thousand + 35,000 which is the same as a £130,000 a year job.

The consensus seems that it’s better to take the 130,000 job since it will be higher status and you might even have some peons to do the actual work.

I’m still thinking it might be better to take the £70,000 a year job. Especially if you can blag something like train driving which is fun and mindless.

[mallisarealperson]

Enough to bump it up to the same take home as £130,000 per year.

Why does nobody ever read the original post?

Ok mr/mrs hugebrain.

Please detail how you can get from £70K to 130K on benefits?

Lets have some numbers please. As you keep posting on this forum about 6 figures for benefits.

I think you are trolling or talking b#####ks personally prove me wrong.

[GigiBronz]

Ever think that all those 'bad' companies you work in are maybe not bad, but it's you that's got a bad attitude? It seems in every post you enter here it's someone else's fault that you don't have a job; it never seems to be anything you're doing wrong does it? We have tried to help you and offer some constructive advice, but it appears that you know best (whilst sitting on the bench).

I have a different attitude when I talk to them. But maybe it helps some people acknowledge that things are not as good as recruiters make it. It's maybe just my frustration and cynical way of seeing life but I am sure there is some truth to it that will help others.
And you should price differently a consultancy role or start-up role. If more people will stand for it the better we'd have a change for fairer terms.

Instead of getting 55k for a consultancy, in London and 2 two projects at a time and 12h a day, thank you very much but I'd rather just not work. and btw the 55k 'permi' roles that you get now are previous contract roles at 500-600pd that the clients do no want to bother with, so when the market is down the consultancies try to make advantage of that and bank on them. there is no security associated with them, you would be treated as a temporary resource.

working hard pays off:
https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMeG6kx5F/

[vetran]

The more money I make the easier my job is. When you're making 150k a year you usually don't get asked to produce something in an hour. They usually give you a couple weeks or couple months. Things are not so time pressured. When I was younger and working for less money like 50k I was constantly under pressure to produce an answer or a deliverable in a very short period of time. Everything was urgent all the time. Working through support issues when business critical systems are down for a client is much more stressful than spending 3 months coming up with a strategy for a department.

Yep the more senior you are the less likely you are to deliver in many places.

[Whorty]

I haven't had the chance to be in a permanent position so far. It has been only consultancy roles and contracts.

Most of the times the people that are successful and stay with a company for long are not that good. Apart from the brown nosing and driving the company politics. Apart from that they are at most mediocre.

I would be happy to hear about a place that proves me wrong and is delivery oriented and doing quality work and the permi team is not full of back stabbing c****. Focussed on getting the bonus and greasing the pole behind them.

Overall I think I would be more comfortable living with the idea that I am not good enough and looking to better myself than to acknowledge the full dimensions of company politics. I even looked for books in that field to make myself more comfortable with the snake pits I've been fortunate to consult in. Two of them are part of S&P 500 and I've been interacting with mid to higher management most of the times although doing lower level work.

From discussions with other people I don't think I've heard different either.

Hope this helps

later edit: are you by any chance part of a consultancy?

Ever think that all those 'bad' companies you work in are maybe not bad, but it's you that's got a bad attitude? It seems in every post you enter here it's someone else's fault that you don't have a job; it never seems to be anything you're doing wrong does it? We have tried to help you and offer some constructive advice, but it appears that you know best (whilst sitting on the bench).

[Fraidycat]

one other example of low paying jobs that are stressful is working for a consultancy.

client will be paying through the nose for you so expectations are quite high. consultants usually make good scapegoats for client's problems.
the consultancy would want to make their money worth as well so they'll try to pimp you out to a second customer or do internal work in addition to the main project.
you won't receive any support from client or training because it is not part of the deal. seldom you might from the consultancy but it costs money so probably no.

when the work dries up it is more likely to be shown the door as you'd be costing them money. you do not have a choice what clients you work for - most likely you'd be pimped up to the highest paying body.

I once got a mate into a consultancy i was a perm at, this guy was really good technically, but really bad an interviews and desperate for work.
After my boss had interviewed him, he (the boss) came out and said, 'he is definitely junior' due to his bad interview performance.
And offered him 50% less than i what i was getting, he got around 24K. This was back in 1999.

However when he started he got dumped with the most stressful and behind schedule project the company had and with a few months he was the Lead developer on it, as he was technically very good, and he was working non stop every day.

[GigiBronz]

Or perhaps you're not good enough to hold down a permanent job and keep getting found out after 3-6 months?

I haven't had the chance to be in a permanent position so far. It has been only consultancy roles and contracts.

Most of the times the people that are successful and stay with a company for long are not that good. Apart from the brown nosing and driving the company politics. Apart from that they are at most mediocre.

I would be happy to hear about a place that proves me wrong and is delivery oriented and doing quality work and the permi team is not full of back stabbing c****. Focussed on getting the bonus and greasing the pole behind them.

Overall I think I would be more comfortable living with the idea that I am not good enough and looking to better myself than to acknowledge the full dimensions of company politics. I even looked for books in that field to make myself more comfortable with the snake pits I've been fortunate to consult in. Two of them are part of S&P 500 and I've been interacting with mid to higher management most of the times although doing lower level work.

From discussions with other people I don't think I've heard different either.

Hope this helps

later edit: are you by any chance part of a consultancy?