|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Is poverty always bad?
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
The idea of work being unskilled is a misnomer. In a previous life, I worked with a group of workers in the UK who were totally undervalued - and classes as unskilled on minimum wages.
In my view, minimum wage implies a job that anyone can do without any specific skills or knowledge about it - and yet these people needed at least 6 months of training to be proficient (and fast enough) to produce enough to earn a living.
I gave the example of a supermarket till because it is job that requires little skills or training to do. I am sure there are people on minimum wage who do have skills and are being underpaid, but surely the issue there is not the level the minimum wage is set at, but the fact that they're earning it at all instead of something more reflective of their abilities.
For example if there are medical care workers or skilled manual laborers being paid the same as someone working at Topshop, then I think that's a serious problem, but it doesn't seem directly related to the living wage debate.
Since a lot of social care in people's homes was contracted out to the lowest private sector bidder, there are a lot of care workers earning a lot less than someone working at Topshop, if you take the time travelling from one client to the next into account.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
justlooking
Shipmate
# 12079
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
....But society can only decide a minimum pay level by determining what the minimum standard of life should be and what it should include.
The minimum wage should obviously be regularly reviewed and adjusted to remain in line with actual living costs. But are those costs limited to food/housing/clothing, or should they include other items that contribute to quality of life but are not essentials?
'Society' has determined what the minimum standard of life should be and what it should include in the research referenced above. This has been used to determine the Minimum Income Standard for each year since.
Whether someone earning minimum wage reaches this standard will depend on other circumstances. A single person working full time on minimum wage will fall below the standard, a childless couple both working at minimum wage will exceed the standard. A family with one parent working on minimum wage would be entitled to multiple benefits amounting to around 50% of their net earned income and would still fall below the standard.
AFAICS levels of poverty can be judged from how many of the minimum standards are lacking and for how long.
Posts: 2319 | From: thither and yon | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
Jeremy Brett's Sherlock is rubbish? - I am obviously watching the wrong channel for my class. There are more rubbishy channels than that.
More importantly, I'm not sure about the toilet cleaners pay going up if they weren't there for a month - if the users followed the instructions I vaguely recall from the Parisian foyer we stayed in when I was 15 and "laisser le WC comme vous voulez le trouver" they wouldn't be nearly so necessary.
On the other hand, if people responsible for allocating wages were made to do every task they were responsible for a week, and then took into account the amount of revulsion they felt, the world would be a better place. (And maybe the people who don't think about leaving the WC as they would wish to find it would find themselves having sanctions taken out against them.)
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I think that, assuming everyone has the minimum amount necessary to live, how much extra they get should be determined by the value of what they are able to provide to the people who are paying for it.
Ok - there's a 'should' in there. That implies that there's some normative aspect.
Who gets to decide the value of what people provide? Suppose the shit shovellers are being paid the minimum wage. Suddenly, somebody opens a factory farm next door, and the demand for shit shovelling goes up, so that the employers have to pay twice the minimum wage to retain their staff. The employers are willing to pay that, so clearly the shit shovelling is worth that to them.
Does that mean that they ought to have paid that previously? Or that they're now paying over the odds? No - the value of the job is simply what the employer pays and the employee accepts. One can't say that the employer should be paying more or that the employee should be accepting less. Or so goes the argument.
So shit shovellers are being paid the minimum wage. Instead of a factory farm being opened, the government decides to double the minimum wage. The employers are still willing to pay double, as when the factory farm was opened; the employees are still willing to accept. Does this mean that the minimum wage has been raised too high? No. The value of the job is what the employers are willing to pay, and they are willing to pay this new level of the minimum wage. One cannot say that the employer should pay more; one cannot say that the employee should accept less.
One cannot therefore on the above argument say that the government has set the minimum wage at the wrong value. The minimum wage is set at the value at which it is set; and that therefore is the value of minimum wage labour jobs. Should doesn't come into it. As long as employers need the job done, and therefore have to pay for it to be done, the work is indeed worth whatever level the minimum wage is set at.
To say that matters are different when the government intervenes as when another factory intervenes is to make an entirely different argument. It is to import a moral argument into the value-free argument. A value-free economics can make no distinction between the actions of government and any other economic factor. To treat government interference with the market as interference is to covertly import a moral or political view into the economic case.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Who gets to decide the value of what people provide? Suppose the shit shovellers are being paid the minimum wage. Suddenly, somebody opens a factory farm next door, and the demand for shit shovelling goes up, so that the employers have to pay twice the minimum wage to retain their staff. The employers are willing to pay that, so clearly the shit shovelling is worth that to them.
Does that mean that they ought to have paid that previously? Or that they're now paying over the odds? No - the value of the job is simply what the employer pays and the employee accepts. One can't say that the employer should be paying more or that the employee should be accepting less. Or so goes the argument.
So shit shovellers are being paid the minimum wage. Instead of a factory farm being opened, the government decides to double the minimum wage. The employers are still willing to pay double, as when the factory farm was opened; the employees are still willing to accept. Does this mean that the minimum wage has been raised too high? No. The value of the job is what the employers are willing to pay, and they are willing to pay this new level of the minimum wage. One cannot say that the employer should pay more; one cannot say that the employee should accept less.
I think that's a good way to put it.
You could also consider the case of all the local shit-shovellers getting together (whether or not formally, as some sort of guild or union) and saying "none of us will shovel shit for less than X". Would that be very different in principle to each individual shit-shoveller deciding that he won't take a job at that wage?
The minimum wage is a collective decision of a similar sort: the country (by its elected representatives) saying "None of us should have to shovel shit for less than X". There's no reason why we shouldn't collectively decide that X should be a decent living wage.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
pydseybare
Shipmate
# 16184
|
Posted
Point of information: shit shovellers in the UK are actually paid reasonably well. Toilet cleaners are not.
This is largely due to professionalisation and unionisation of the water workers and the lack of qualifications and unions amongst toilet cleaners.
Also if the shit shovellers rebel, everyone soon knows about it. If toilet cleaners rebel, they get locked out and someone else is dragged in from the job centre.
It is true to say that a refusal of everyone to do certain jobs would have an effect, but the government actively pushes people into low paid jobs by subsidising crappy wages and penalising those who are looking for higher-than-minimum-wage jobs.
--------------------
"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future."
Posts: 812 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
One thing that is being overlooked is that, at least in the US, many minimum-wage jobs are held by teenagers living at home.
Even though the teen does not learn many specific job skills, he does learn what it means to hold a job--getting to work on time and following the instructions of his supervisor.
It is much easier for a teen who has held this type of job to get another job later than it is for one with no work experience.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
An die Freude
Shipmate
# 14794
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
You could also consider the case of all the local shit-shovellers getting together (whether or not formally, as some sort of guild or union) and saying "none of us will shovel shit for less than X". Would that be very different in principle to each individual shit-shoveller deciding that he won't take a job at that wage?
The minimum wage is a collective decision of a similar sort: the country (by its elected representatives) saying "None of us should have to shovel shit for less than X". There's no reason why we shouldn't collectively decide that X should be a decent living wage.
You may be surprised to find that the Scandinavian countries, hailed over the world as having least poverty and greatest equality in income, do not have a minimum wage. Why should something as important and as rapidly changing as decent pay levels be left to such an untrustworthy, unrepresentative and sluggish as a politically elected government?
Also, basing it in law disables unions from actually affecting the level once just about everyone involved agrees it ought to be raised. Sure, they could write collective agreements, but justifying a certain level by law makes it harder to argue or negotiate for a raise beyond the statutory level.
Admittedly, Sweden and other Scandinavian countries in general have rather generous social benefits that minimize the need for a minimum wage as the working poor are outlawed along with the general poor, but I could personally well see lowering the lowest pay levels just to enable young unemployed (as I was myself until temporarily emigrating for studies abroad) to actually enter the job market.
However, this points to a problem with the "decent pay level" - I have lower needs than a family breadwinner. I suppose raising child benefits might help reduce this difference, but we're still talking about an actual difference in the needs of a certain pay level, although the difference in desperation for a job is not really that great.
--------------------
"I too am not a bit tamed, I too am untranslatable."
Walt Whitman
Formerly JFH
Posts: 851 | From: Proud Socialist Monarchy of Sweden | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
pydseybare
Shipmate
# 16184
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
One thing that is being overlooked is that, at least in the US, many minimum-wage jobs are held by teenagers living at home.
Even though the teen does not learn many specific job skills, he does learn what it means to hold a job--getting to work on time and following the instructions of his supervisor.
It is much easier for a teen who has held this type of job to get another job later than it is for one with no work experience.
Moo
According to a recent report, 2.4 million UK workers are within 50p of the minimum wage. Not all are teenagers living at home, clearly.
But then I think it is highly unlikely that is even true in the USA either.
--------------------
"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future."
Posts: 812 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Talitha
Shipmate
# 5085
|
Posted
The trouble with inflating the definition of poverty is that not only is it an insult to genuinely poor people like those Mudfrog works with, but it diverts resources and compassion from them.
Every time I see a list of so-called necessities in the UK, like the one on page 2 of this thread, I'm shocked by how much is on it. I'm sure most of those categories are more than we spend in our family, and I've always thought of us as rich. We have everything we need and pretty much everything we want. This is partly luck of temperament - we have cheap hobbies - and partly deliberate cultivation of contentment by not reading things like lifestyle magazines, which are likely to make me start thinking I "deserve" nicer things. I don't expect my contentment to be similarly threatened by reading "minimum income" lists!
I think a lot of UK-based anti-poverty campaigners are really campaigning against inequality: they want to go beyond everyone having the necessities and have complete equality of wealth, 100% redistributive taxation, no one having more than anyone else. Which is a valid opinion, just not one I share. I just wish they'd be honest about it.
Posts: 554 | From: Cambridge, UK | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JFH:
You may be surprised to find that the Scandinavian countries, hailed over the world as having least poverty and greatest equality in income, do not have a minimum wage. Why should something as important and as rapidly changing as decent pay levels be left to such an untrustworthy, unrepresentative and sluggish as a politically elected government?
Also, basing it in law disables unions from actually affecting the level once just about everyone involved agrees it ought to be raised. Sure, they could write collective agreements, but justifying a certain level by law makes it harder to argue or negotiate for a raise beyond the statutory level.
Interesting point. I also wonder about the logic of a national minimum wage, which is certainly too low for London/SE but possibly too high for some other parts of the country. Setting it too close to the higher or lower ends of the labor market will either mean some workers in expensive areas get underpaid, or some workers in low cost areas don't get hired.
There's no mechanism such as in the US to allow regions to set their own minimum wages so I'm not sure how to resolve it.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Talitha:
I think a lot of UK-based anti-poverty campaigners are really campaigning against inequality: they want to go beyond everyone having the necessities and have complete equality of wealth, 100% redistributive taxation, no one having more than anyone else. Which is a valid opinion, just not one I share. I just wish they'd be honest about it.
Yes, because fuel poverty, homelessness and food banks don't exist.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Talitha
Shipmate
# 5085
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Talitha:
I think a lot of UK-based anti-poverty campaigners are really campaigning against inequality: they want to go beyond everyone having the necessities and have complete equality of wealth, 100% redistributive taxation, no one having more than anyone else. Which is a valid opinion, just not one I share. I just wish they'd be honest about it.
Yes, because fuel poverty, homelessness and food banks don't exist.
And I'm completely in favour of working to make sure everyone has adequate shelter, fuel and food!
The controversy in this thread is about what things beyond those count as necessities and what as luxuries. And, IME, people like the JRF (and a lot of people on this thread) put a lot of what I'd call luxuries in the necessity category, hence my comment.
Posts: 554 | From: Cambridge, UK | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Yes, because fuel poverty, homelessness and food banks don't exist.
Again - isn't the original post raising the question of poverty beyond the point of having basic needs met? I haven't seen any suggestion that a home, heating, and food are not basic needs.
ETA: cross-post with Talitha
[ 13. February 2014, 14:06: Message edited by: seekingsister ]
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
One thing that is being overlooked is that, at least in the US, many minimum-wage jobs are held by teenagers living at home.
Even though the teen does not learn many specific job skills, he does learn what it means to hold a job--getting to work on time and following the instructions of his supervisor.
It is much easier for a teen who has held this type of job to get another job later than it is for one with no work experience.
Moo
This was true a generation ago. Today most minimum wage earners in the US are adults, often single mothers with a family to support.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Talitha:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Talitha:
I think a lot of UK-based anti-poverty campaigners are really campaigning against inequality: they want to go beyond everyone having the necessities and have complete equality of wealth, 100% redistributive taxation, no one having more than anyone else. Which is a valid opinion, just not one I share. I just wish they'd be honest about it.
Yes, because fuel poverty, homelessness and food banks don't exist.
And I'm completely in favour of working to make sure everyone has adequate shelter, fuel and food!
The controversy in this thread is about what things beyond those count as necessities and what as luxuries. And, IME, people like the JRF (and a lot of people on this thread) put a lot of what I'd call luxuries in the necessity category, hence my comment.
And as I pointed out on the last page, that is not intended to be a list of necessities. It is a list that the responders to the survey from which the list was derived defined as being a minimum to fully participate in society as they understood it.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076
|
Posted
The problem at least me is that it's easy to clump everyone who is worried about poverty as people who say that everyone deserves a vacation, and then ignore the fact that at least where I live we have children going hungry every day, and not because their parents don't care. In my area, for instance, it's a big problem that every day the schools close or just open late, there are many children who just won't eat those meals. The parents' budget is just that tight. Because you know, I'm just not worried about everyone having a vacation. I'm worried about every effing child getting three nutritious meals. Hell, it would be nice if their parents could eat three meals too! I'm concerned about the fact that most people on food stamps are working, which means they're doing their best--don't tell me they're choosing to work at a low-paying job and turning down good ones--and it's still not enough. I'm concerned that in this country it's just fine to pay people a wage that doesn't cover feeding their children more than one meal a day. But that's okay, it's all their fault for working a minimum wage job. Clearly, if they just were virtuous enough a better job would pop into being!
--------------------
A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea.
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.
Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
pydseybare
Shipmate
# 16184
|
Posted
I think many might be surprised at the number of people who use foodbanks and are in work and earning above the minimum wage.
I was surprised earlier about someone's claims of the value of the minimum wage.
The current minimum wage in the UK is £6.31. I think most people are contracted to work 35-37 hour weeks, which in a year would be £12,000 per year. But people might actually earn less than that - depending on holiday pay and so on.
The living wage for London is suggested to be £8.80, which is nearly £17,000 per year, outside of London it is £7.65, which is nearly £14,700 per year.
Clearly none of these will pay for the kinds of expenses reported above.
--------------------
"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future."
Posts: 812 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
It is much easier for a teen who has held this type of job to get another job later than it is for one with no work experience.
This was true a generation ago. Today most minimum wage earners in the US are adults, often single mothers with a family to support.
It remains a fact that it is much harder nowadays for a teenager to get his first job than it was when my daughters were teenagers twenty-five years ago.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Surely, TVs should be apportioned according to moral worth? I would think a 20" model would be suitable for no-good lazy bastards, who don't draw their curtains in the morning, and probably smoke in bed; maybe a 32" TV would be OK for the deserving poor. Sky? Out of the question, they'll only watch the racing on it, and gamble their benefits away.
You could do the same with holidays, maybe a week in a caravan in Skegness for the deserving poor, as long as they don't start getting delusional about having ice-creams and other luxuries; but for the stay-in-beds - no way.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
One of the true hallmarks of poverty is the lack of choice. Being middle class means having options. You can't afford everything, but you can choose where to live or where to go on holiday. You can choose where to scrimp and save and what you are scrimping and saving for. You can't afford every luxury, but you are able to afford a few indulgences, even if it's just a weekly latte at a nice cafe or a monthly special meal out. But you get to choose what those indulgences are.
So we see this persistent notion that the poor should have what they need, but shouldn't have any choices about it. We (taxpayers? government? some Unnamed Moral Authority?) determine what is important, what is necessary, and what is not. We determine that a nice cut of meat is necessary, but a boxed cake mix to make a cake for your child's birthday is not. We decide that a cell phone is necessary, but not a smart phone. As we have seen on this thread, mostly we decide the indulgences that are important to ME are necessary, but the indulgences I chose to go w/o in order to afford the former are wasteful.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
It is much easier for a teen who has held this type of job to get another job later than it is for one with no work experience.
This was true a generation ago. Today most minimum wage earners in the US are adults, often single mothers with a family to support.
It remains a fact that it is much harder nowadays for a teenager to get his first job than it was when my daughters were teenagers twenty-five years ago.
Moo
Probably partially because so many non-teens are stuck in those jobs.
--------------------
A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea.
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.
Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Talitha
Shipmate
# 5085
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
And as I pointed out on the last page, that is not intended to be a list of necessities. It is a list that the responders to the survey from which the list was derived defined as being a minimum to fully participate in society as they understood it.
The JRF page originally linked from this thread says "a minimum acceptable living standard", and the PDF linked from there even says: "it covers needs, not wants; necessities, not luxuries."
[bad code is always bad]
[ 13. February 2014, 14:38: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posts: 554 | From: Cambridge, UK | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Talitha
Shipmate
# 5085
|
Posted
(Argh, sorry, made some copy-paste errors in UBB code and then missed edit window)
Posts: 554 | From: Cambridge, UK | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Talitha:
(Argh, sorry, made some copy-paste errors in UBB code and then missed edit window)
Sorted.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
An die Freude
Shipmate
# 14794
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Surely, TVs should be apportioned according to moral worth? I would think a 20" model would be suitable for no-good lazy bastards, who don't draw their curtains in the morning, and probably smoke in bed; maybe a 32" TV would be OK for the deserving poor. Sky? Out of the question, they'll only watch the racing on it, and gamble their benefits away.
You could do the same with holidays, maybe a week in a caravan in Skegness for the deserving poor, as long as they don't start getting delusional about having ice-creams and other luxuries; but for the stay-in-beds - no way.
One of the true hallmarks of poverty is the lack of choice. Being middle class means having options. You can't afford everything, but you can choose where to live or where to go on holiday. You can choose where to scrimp and save and what you are scrimping and saving for. You can't afford every luxury, but you are able to afford a few indulgences, even if it's just a weekly latte at a nice cafe or a monthly special meal out. But you get to choose what those indulgences are.
So we see this persistent notion that the poor should have what they need, but shouldn't have any choices about it. We (taxpayers? government? some Unnamed Moral Authority?) determine what is important, what is necessary, and what is not. We determine that a nice cut of meat is necessary, but a boxed cake mix to make a cake for your child's birthday is not. We decide that a cell phone is necessary, but not a smart phone. As we have seen on this thread, mostly we decide the indulgences that are important to ME are necessary, but the indulgences I chose to go w/o in order to afford the former are wasteful.
I think it's more an issue of suspending everyone's choice as to what basic conditions should be accepted in society, forcing a lack of choice onto a chip of everyone's income in order to achieve basic necessities for all. However, enforcement goes onto everyone, and once people have what could be considered human needs, I have little reason to see why some should get a choice taken from the sum of others'.
I say this not having been poor, but with experiences of tricky bits of life causing me to live on sums quite far below social benefits. I also say this having had the experience of having worked an entire summer with manual labour at minimum wage, just to find out that after taxes, had I not worked the government would've paid out benefits for the same amount as I earned - but the money I had worked up went to luxuries, and I had the same government support as every single student in Sweden. (The benefits were eligible only for students, and I could not receive them due to my "high" income following summer labour.) That dented the legitimacy of the benefit levels for me quite a bit.
--------------------
"I too am not a bit tamed, I too am untranslatable."
Walt Whitman
Formerly JFH
Posts: 851 | From: Proud Socialist Monarchy of Sweden | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Talitha:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
And as I pointed out on the last page, that is not intended to be a list of necessities. It is a list that the responders to the survey from which the list was derived defined as being a minimum to fully participate in society as they understood it.
The JRF page originally linked from this thread says "a minimum acceptable living standard", and the PDF linked from there even says: "it covers needs, not wants; necessities, not luxuries."
[bad code is always bad]
I don't think you're reading that in the context of the whole explanation.
It says:
quote:
The Minimum Income Standard (MIS) is the income that people need in
order to reach a minimum socially acceptable standard of living in the
UK today, based on what members of the public think.
(My Bold)
In other words, "needs" means as "needed to participate in society as that society (i.e. the members of the public in the survey) define that."
It goes on to be clear that:
quote:
How is it related to the poverty line?
MIS is relevant to the discussion of poverty, but does not claim to be
a poverty threshold. This is because participants in the research were
not specifically asked to talk about what defines poverty. However, it is
relevant to the poverty debate in that almost all households officially
defined as being in income poverty (having below 60 per cent of median
income) are also below MIS. Thus households classified as being in
relative income poverty are generally unable to reach an acceptable
standard of living as defined by members of the public.
IOW - if you're in poverty, you will be below the MIS. It doesn't follow that if you are below the MIS, you are in poverty. One is a subset of the other.
The JRF didn't make it up and decide what should be a "need". They asked the public.
[ 13. February 2014, 14:44: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Talitha:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
And as I pointed out on the last page, that is not intended to be a list of necessities. It is a list that the responders to the survey from which the list was derived defined as being a minimum to fully participate in society as they understood it.
The JRF page originally linked from this thread says "a minimum acceptable living standard", and the PDF linked from there even says: "it covers needs, not wants; necessities, not luxuries."
[bad code is always bad]
I don't think you're reading that in the context of the whole explanation.
It says:
quote:
The Minimum Income Standard (MIS) is the income that people need in
order to reach a minimum socially acceptable standard of living in the
UK today, based on what members of the public think.
(My Bold)
In other words, "needs" means as "needed to participate in society as that society (i.e. the members of the public in the survey) define that."
The American safety net, such as it is, isn't the same as the UK, so I can't comment on whether or not your definition is the reality or not. But the bolded statement you are parsing does not seem to say what you are defining it to be. Rather, it would appear the public were asked to define what a "minimal standard" of living was. In reality, all societies do that, if not explicitly then implicitly, by the choices we make. In the US we have decided that a "minimal standard" does not necessarily include having shelter. We have determined that it does include emergency health care but not (until quite recently) preventative health care that might avoid that emergency. We have decided to provide some minimal food allowance (although in constant risk of being cut) but not to provide rehab for alcohol or drug dependency. We have decided it's OK to have folks freeze to death on the streets but not OK to die of a heart attack w/o some medical intervention.
The point is, all societies decide what is the "minimal standard" that they're not willing to let anyone fall below. That is not the same thing as saying "have what everyone else has."
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
The point is, all societies decide what is the "minimal standard" that they're not willing to let anyone fall below. That is not the same thing as saying "have what everyone else has."
But the question here is whether that minimum standard should be one that allows a fuller participation in society than existence/survival. I would say that it should be. As I understand it from your post, the consensus in the USA would be that it need not be.
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
I think there is more than one definition of "acceptable". There's "acceptable" meaning "able to play a full part in society, "acceptable" meaning "I'd be pretty pissed off if I was below", and "acceptable" meaning "I'd not be willing to see anyone have less than this". The Survey used to create the MIS is close to the first, which is why it isn't, and isn't meant to be, a definition of a poverty line.
That was rather my point. The JRF and the MIS have nothing to do with the levels at which benefits, or for that matter the minimum or even living wages, are set.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
No - the value of the job is simply what the employer pays and the employee accepts. One can't say that the employer should be paying more or that the employee should be accepting less. Or so goes the argument.
As I adknowledged in a subsequent post.
quote:
One cannot therefore on the above argument say that the government has set the minimum wage at the wrong value. The minimum wage is set at the value at which it is set; and that therefore is the value of minimum wage labour jobs. Should doesn't come into it. As long as employers need the job done, and therefore have to pay for it to be done, the work is indeed worth whatever level the minimum wage is set at.
Then why not advocate for setting the minimum wage at £100/hour? I mean, it is what it is and "should" doesn't come into it, right? Why set your sights so low?
quote:
To say that matters are different when the government intervenes as when another factory intervenes is to make an entirely different argument. It is to import a moral argument into the value-free argument. A value-free economics can make no distinction between the actions of government and any other economic factor. To treat government interference with the market as interference is to covertly import a moral or political view into the economic case.
The problem with setting a minimum wage higher than where I have already said it should be set is that it removes choice from the workers. Specifically, it removes a worker's ability to improve their own employment prospects by undercutting their rivals for the job.
Let's go back to the shit shovellers. Let's say they have all agreed to not work for less than £40k a year. Now let's say that I'm not the best shit-shoveller by any means, but that I am quite willing to offer my services to employers for £35k a year, thus giving myself a chance at a job that I would otherwise not be able to get. Should I be allowed to do so, or should I be forced into unemployment because my only good selling point - being cheaper - has been outlawed?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
justlooking
Shipmate
# 12079
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
The point is, all societies decide what is the "minimal standard" that they're not willing to let anyone fall below. That is not the same thing as saying "have what everyone else has."
But the question here is whether that minimum standard should be one that allows a fuller participation in society than existence/survival. I would say that it should be. As I understand it from your post, the consensus in the USA would be that it need not be.
The minimal standard in the UK as defined by the JRF research
quote:
‘A minimum standard of living in Britain today includes, but is more than just, food, clothes and shelter. It is about having what you need in order to have the opportunities and choices necessary to participate in society.’
Thus, a minimum is about more than survival alone. However, it covers needs, not wants; necessities, not luxuries: items that the public think
people need in order to be part of society.
However, many people earn less than they need to reach that standard and can still fall well below even with benefits to top up their earnings.
Posts: 2319 | From: thither and yon | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Let's go back to the shit shovellers. Let's say they have all agreed to not work for less than £40k a year. Now let's say that I'm not the best shit-shoveller by any means, but that I am quite willing to offer my services to employers for £35k a year, thus giving myself a chance at a job that I would otherwise not be able to get. Should I be allowed to do so, or should I be forced into unemployment because my only good selling point - being cheaper - has been outlawed?
Yes, to be honest. Because your getting the job not only results in someone else not getting it (so zero net benefit) but in everyone else does that job taking a pay cut over the long term (certainly anyone else wanting that job) and leads to a race to the bottom that leaves everyone worse off except the person who can most afford to lose it - the owner of (say) the stable. Employers can and will exploit people's need to work to drive down wages. Collective bargaining is the only weapon most employees have.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
I think many might be surprised at the number of people who use foodbanks and are in work and earning above the minimum wage.
Yes, and I think you might actually be shocked to know the truth about food banks.
1. You have to be referred by the JobCentre or another agency - you can't just turn up as and when and get stuff.
2. You will only be given 3 days worth of food.
3. You can only return to the food bank twice more in any 6 month period.
Yes, that's correct; you read it right:
You can only get 9 days' worth of food in an entire 6 month period, having been referred by the Jobcentre who stopped your money in the first place.
Now tell me again that Britain is living on food from food banks...?
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
pydseybare
Shipmate
# 16184
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Yes, and I think you might actually be shocked to know the truth about food banks.
1. You have to be referred by the JobCentre or another agency - you can't just turn up as and when and get stuff.
2. You will only be given 3 days worth of food.
3. You can only return to the food bank twice more in any 6 month period.
Yes, that's correct; you read it right:
You can only get 9 days' worth of food in an entire 6 month period, having been referred by the Jobcentre who stopped your money in the first place.
Now tell me again that Britain is living on food from food banks...?
I'm not sure why you are telling me this, I am quite aware of the way that Trussell Trust banks work. Or don't work.
--------------------
"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future."
Posts: 812 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:
The minimal standard in the UK as defined by the JRF research
quote:
‘A minimum standard of living in Britain today includes, but is more than just, food, clothes and shelter. It is about having what you need in order to have the opportunities and choices necessary to participate in society.’
Thus, a minimum is about more than survival alone. However, it covers needs, not wants; necessities, not luxuries: items that the public think
people need in order to be part of society.
However, many people earn less than they need to reach that standard and can still fall well below even with benefits to top up their earnings. [/QB][/QUOTE]
And there is the problem.
It's not that low-income people don;'t have what everyone else has because they think that's what everyone should have, but that they want it
now. It's their right to own it now.
A generation ago people who couldn't afford, say, a washing machine, saved up for it until they had enough money and in the meantime went to the laundrette. They didn't demand extra money so they could afford just to take the money from their account and buy it.
I was talking to my wife yesterday about this thread and she reminded me of her parents. Not poor - her Dad was a draughtsman at British Aorospace - but when my wife was a child 40 years ago she remembers being told 'no, you can't have XYZ because we can't afford it.' Has she grown up scarred, and mentally corrupt and excluded from society because her parents couldn't just go and buy it? Not at all!
And in those days it was almost considered shameful to go into debt to get even necessary items. My wife remembers the time when her parents, for the very first time bought something on Hire Purchase; my father-in-law's mother went absolutely mad when she found out her son had done this terrible thing!
Nowadays, materialism and consumerism have convinced people, even poverty campaigners, that our lives are incomplete, that we are not participating fully in society, if we don't have at least the basic model of what everyone else has.
Don't they see that is exactly how advertising works?
Poverty is when you don't have the basics, not when you can't afford gadgets and entertainment. - for example I went to a young man's flat this very evening and it was freezing because he had the heating off - now that is poor.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Yes, and I think you might actually be shocked to know the truth about food banks.
1. You have to be referred by the JobCentre or another agency - you can't just turn up as and when and get stuff.
2. You will only be given 3 days worth of food.
3. You can only return to the food bank twice more in any 6 month period.
Yes, that's correct; you read it right:
You can only get 9 days' worth of food in an entire 6 month period, having been referred by the Jobcentre who stopped your money in the first place.
Now tell me again that Britain is living on food from food banks...?
I'm not sure why you are telling me this, I am quite aware of the way that Trussell Trust banks work. Or don't work.
I'm just 'putting it out there' because people seem to assume that 'Britain isn't eating' means that every week all these poor families are relying on food banks to supplement their poor incomes because they can only afford to 'heat or eat'. It simply is not true.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
And in those days it was almost considered shameful to go into debt to get even necessary items.
So a mortgage holder would hang his head in shame around a good, honest renter? That seems like a vaguely bullshit claim to me.
It all seems to go back to an ugly resentment of the poor. I'm reminded of politicians like Ronald Reagan railing against Cadillac-driving welfare queens and "strapping young bucks" buying T-bone steaks with food stamps. Sure, these were racially-coded dogwhistles (which I don't think applies here), but there also seemed to be an outright anger at the idea that anyone who was poor and receiving public assistance be anything more than absolutely destitute.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Which is why Christians should not give to food banks.
It lets the government off the hook.
The PM said - and I don't think it was a cynical comment - that the reason for the rise in the use of foodbanks was because they have authorised JobCentres to refer people to them in emergency circumstances.
It seems to me that Jobcentres find it easier to do that than to sort out the problem for their client.
I also believe that foodbank use has risen because of the 'build it and they will come' phenomenon.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
And in those days it was almost considered shameful to go into debt to get even necessary items.
So a mortgage holder would hang his head in shame around a good, honest renter? That seems like a vaguely bullshit claim to me.
It all seems to go back to an ugly resentment of the poor. I'm reminded of politicians like Ronald Reagan railing against Cadillac-driving welfare queens and "strapping young bucks" buying T-bone steaks with food stamps. Sure, these were racially-coded dogwhistles (which I don't think applies here), but there also seemed to be an outright anger at the idea that anyone who was poor and receiving public assistance be anything more than absolutely destitute.
Sorry Mr Croesus, but here in mid twentieth century postwar Britain that was how our culture worked.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
pydseybare
Shipmate
# 16184
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The PM said - and I don't think it was a cynical comment - that the reason for the rise in the use of foodbanks was because they have authorised JobCentres to refer people to them in emergency circumstances.
It seems to me that Jobcentres find it easier to do that than to sort out the problem for their client.
Of course, not only Jobcentres are able to refer people to foodbanks. Large, and growing, numbers of local agencies often give out the passes necessary to obtain food from a foodbank.
quote:
I also believe that foodbank use has risen because of the 'build it and they will come' phenomenon.
Sorry, let me understand what you are implying here: are you saying that people are commonly using foodbanks who do not need to? What evidence do you have for this claim?
--------------------
"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future."
Posts: 812 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
are you saying that people are commonly using foodbanks who do not need to? What evidence do you have for this claim?
Particularly given the claim upthread that access to foodbanks is actually quite restricted!
--------------------
"Could I believe in the doctrine without believing in the deity?". - Modesitt, L. E., Jr., 1943- Imager.
Posts: 889 | From: Surrey Heath (England) | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The PM said - and I don't think it was a cynical comment - that the reason for the rise in the use of foodbanks was because they have authorised JobCentres to refer people to them in emergency circumstances.
It seems to me that Jobcentres find it easier to do that than to sort out the problem for their client.
Of course, not only Jobcentres are able to refer people to foodbanks. Large, and growing, numbers of local agencies often give out the passes necessary to obtain food from a foodbank.
quote:
I also believe that foodbank use has risen because of the 'build it and they will come' phenomenon.
Sorry, let me understand what you are implying here: are you saying that people are commonly using foodbanks who do not need to? What evidence do you have for this claim?
No, that's not quite what I mean - I'm saying that the existence of the foodbanks gives agencies the easy option. Instead of making a phone call to sort out someone's benefit, give them a referral form to the foodbank down the street. if the foodbank hadn't been built the chances are the only option for the referring agency would be to sort out the problem better.
Bear in mind that the non-benefit office referrers can only refer 2 ways - either they refer the client to the food bank or they refer them back to the JobCentre or Benefit Agency. Either way, if the JC or the BA will not help the only alternative is the food bank.
A question: What happens to the family with no food if they are referred to the food bank 3 times in the space of a month? They have 5 more months before they can access the food bank again. I guess that it's at that point the Jobcentre actually does it's job because the aternative is no longer avaliable to their client. Maybe the jobcentre should have sorted out the money in the first place!
Build the foodbank and they will come - or mmore accurately, get sent!
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
What happens to the family with no food if they are referred to the food bank 3 times in the space of a month? They have 5 more months before they can access the food bank again. I guess that it's at that point the Jobcentre actually does it's job because the aternative is no longer avaliable to their client. Maybe the jobcentre should have sorted out the money in the first place!
So there's an issue?
--------------------
"Could I believe in the doctrine without believing in the deity?". - Modesitt, L. E., Jr., 1943- Imager.
Posts: 889 | From: Surrey Heath (England) | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
No - the value of the job is simply what the employer pays and the employee accepts. One can't say that the employer should be paying more or that the employee should be accepting less. Or so goes the argument.
As I adknowledged in a subsequent post.
I'm glad my summary was accurate then.
quote:
quote:
One cannot therefore on the above argument say that the government has set the minimum wage at the wrong value. The minimum wage is set at the value at which it is set; and that therefore is the value of minimum wage labour jobs. Should doesn't come into it. As long as employers need the job done, and therefore have to pay for it to be done, the work is indeed worth whatever level the minimum wage is set at.
Then why not advocate for setting the minimum wage at £100/hour? I mean, it is what it is and "should" doesn't come into it, right? Why set your sights so low?
I'm arguing from your premises, which you acknowledged as yours above. It's not really my job to resolve problems that your premises raise.
It's fine to say there are moral reasons for setting the minimum wage at a certain level relative to benefits. It's also fine to say that moral considerations don't dictate the value of wages. You can't consistently assert both.
quote:
quote:
To say that matters are different when the government intervenes as when another factory intervenes is to make an entirely different argument. It is to import a moral argument into the value-free argument. A value-free economics can make no distinction between the actions of government and any other economic factor. To treat government interference with the market as interference is to covertly import a moral or political view into the economic case.
The problem with setting a minimum wage higher than where I have already said it should be set is that it removes choice from the workers. Specifically, it removes a worker's ability to improve their own employment prospects by undercutting their rivals for the job.
You typed 'problem' where you meant 'benefit'.
quote:
Let's go back to the shit shovellers. Let's say they have all agreed to not work for less than £40k a year. Now let's say that I'm not the best shit-shoveller by any means, but that I am quite willing to offer my services to employers for £35k a year, thus giving myself a chance at a job that I would otherwise not be able to get. Should I be allowed to do so, or should I be forced into unemployment because my only good selling point - being cheaper - has been outlawed?
Let's see: there's a person who shovels shit better than you and needs the money more than you do. And you're asking why it is you who is forced into unemployment rather than him?
Let's face it: in a contest between Mark the Muppet and Sam the Superb, the question isn't whether the employer will hire the Muppet at £35 pa or Sam at £40 pa. It's whether the employer will hire Sam at £40 or hire Sam at whatever level the Muppet becomes too stupid to hold out for a better offer. The Muppet's never going to get the job over Sam. We aren't being concerned for the Muppet by lowering the minimum wage: we're basically using the Muppet to let the employer haggle Sam's price down.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
pydseybare
Shipmate
# 16184
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
No, that's not quite what I mean - I'm saying that the existence of the foodbanks gives agencies the easy option. Instead of making a phone call to sort out someone's benefit, give them a referral form to the foodbank down the street. if the foodbank hadn't been built the chances are the only option for the referring agency would be to sort out the problem better.
I see - you are alleging something between casual disregard for the welfare of claimants and deliberate calculating brutal punishment of claimants because it is easier to give them a voucher to a food bank? Why is conspiracy an easier explanation than poor performance of the service? What do jobcentres gain from deliberately sending claimants to foodbanks?
quote:
Bear in mind that the non-benefit office referrers can only refer 2 ways - either they refer the client to the food bank or they refer them back to the JobCentre or Benefit Agency. Either way, if the JC or the BA will not help the only alternative is the food bank.
Presumably the JC or BA will have to do something eventually. So this is just a delaying tactic, no?
quote:
A question: What happens to the family with no food if they are referred to the food bank 3 times in the space of a month? They have 5 more months before they can access the food bank again. I guess that it's at that point the Jobcentre actually does it's job because the aternative is no longer avaliable to their client. Maybe the jobcentre should have sorted out the money in the first place!
Or perhaps the system is so overwhelmed that it is incapable of working within the necessary timeframes. I'm not sure believing in a conspiracy is really necessary to understand this trainwreck.
--------------------
"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future."
Posts: 812 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
What happens to the family with no food if they are referred to the food bank 3 times in the space of a month? They have 5 more months before they can access the food bank again. I guess that it's at that point the Jobcentre actually does it's job because the aternative is no longer avaliable to their client. Maybe the jobcentre should have sorted out the money in the first place!
So there's an issue?
Too right there's an issue. Don't get me started!! Over half the people who are sent to foodbanks are experiencing little more than a catastrophic 'cash-flow' problem because of the ineptitude, inflexibility and sheer awkwardness of the jobsworths at the Jobcentre. I know because I've had to deal with it on behalf of people I've helped wither on the phone or in person at the JobCentre. It's astonishing!
There's more than an issue - there's a scandal!
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
