Growing up, we have all heard of the story of the ant and the grasshopper. The
ants slog all through the summer to save food for the winter and the grasshopper is having the time of his life feeding on everything that’s on offer without a care in the world as to how he is going to deal with the oncoming winter. Lo and behold, winter arrives, the ants are in their anthill all warm n cosy sipping on their cups of tea ( or ant food! ) and the grasshopper is now shivering in the cold and hungry and is almost about to die when the ants see him and take him in give him some food to eat and tell how it’s necessary to save for the bad times! The grasshopper realises his mistake and promises that this will not happen the next season and that he will be more careful in
future.
Now I know legions of people who grew up listening to stories like this and others encouraging people to save for the bad times. Infact, the origins of the
retirement fund lies in this very story! And yet I am sceptical about if I would ever read this story to my kids! I am terribly afraid that they will get the wrong message
because the logic has well and truly reversed in the modern day welfare state!
A modern day welfare state promises all its citizens a certain jobseekers allowance when they are out of job. The best part of this allowance is that you don’t get it if you have enough money saved in your bank etc. So, what it means is that when you were
in job if you had managed to save any money during that time, you have to first take that money, spend it all, make yourself utterly and completely bankrupt and then apply for state support which comes in at approx. £650 pm. Or the other (and more wise option) is never bank
your money when you were in
the job, just take all our salary out and stash it under your
mattress. That way when you are out of job it will be easier to prove you are bankrupt as
your bank account will be empty ne ways. Also, another wise way would be to run a massive credit when you are in job that way most of your income is spent furnishing the credit and you can live a luxurious life as long as it lasts and when the job goes (and your things on credit!) you can always count on the nanny state to support it bankrupt sons and daughters.
My ideas must sound incredulous (stupid!) however that’s what its come to! The
bankruptcy of thought in the government is running at an all-time high. And actually the 2nd suggestion in the paragraph above is not that out of the ordinary. Its pretty much every middle class person in Europe and
America is doing already (and almost every middle class person in BRICS following suit closely). As to elaborating on the bankruptcy of thoughts in the government, I recently heard that the national minimum pay in UK is going up to £6.10 per hour. As soon as this number was talked about, the trade unions and all the other organisations were up in arms about how that number is low, and how the poor were hoodwinked etc. and I cant help but think is it really low?? And why is it illegal to pay someone lower than that when the government itself thinks its ok and does so??
Before I am chastised or you lose interest in this article, let me quickly elaborate. The government if you are out of
job pays you £650 a month as job seekers allowance. A month has 150 working hours (37.5*4) so effectively the government is paying a person £4.34 per hour when he doesn’t have a job and reckons that that’s enough to make do for a month. However, the same government by law prohibits businesses from paying anything lower than £6.05-6.10 per hour (£900 per month approx.). That doesn’t make any sense to me! If the national minimum
wage was set in order to make sure that the employers don’t pay less than whats basic minimum requirements of living, then why do they themselves pay less??? If £650 is enough why is it higher for business???
The best way out of this mess would be ideally keep the national minimum pay compulsory for minimum pay (£900) not to the employer but to the employee. What I mean by this is, the employer and employee should strike up a job and a salary. Now if this salary is less than the national minimum pay, then the shortfall is filled in by the government. This way neither
party loses! The employee gets fair wages, the employer gets an employee at the wage that his business can sustain and the government ends up only paying the difference instead of £650 all the time. Also, this way if the employee has to avail the government
benefit, he will have to come and
register at the government
offices which will solve the problem of undocumented labours. Also, this will make Britain’s labour market more cost efficient to the businesses. This will also have a profound effect on the foreign labour that’s coming to do unskilled jobs as they won’t get the government salary support making Britain’s labour better option for businesses.
As always let me know what you think
