Is Stockton on Tees a ****hole?

Go on then MB

How much per hour/week/month does a part time self employed working student need to earn that pays for tuition and accomodation without debt ?
 
Sponsored Links
He's talking about his sailing buddy Lord Bigwallets' kids and their enormous trust fund. Talks out of his pale, male stale arris. There's no full time student on the planet that earns enough to live in a city and pay tuition fees.
Do you consider yourself working class, Nosey?
 
Go on then MB

How much per hour/week/month does a part time self employed working student need to earn that pays for tuition and accomodation without debt ?
Now here is the issue..

When I went Uni was all about leaving home and moving in to halls/digs etc. Fees paid by local authority, but no grant for me.
Accommodation in most Uni towns is a rip off. Unis see students as cash cows. They know many will be students loaned up to the eye ball or relying on bank of mum and dad. Or you can choose one that is commutable and carry on living at home. My eldest opted to do this and he is happy living with me.

£135pw + food saved. He runs his own car and works part time for my sailing buddy Lord Bigwallets as a data scientist, in a job he got by himself, after volunteering to work for free. He pretty much followed the process the two who work for me did.

Can I have some work experience..
Any jobs going mr..

Same as me when I got my first job working for market stall trader.
 
Sponsored Links
Working for free helps pay those bills I agree, not

Your facts don't support your claim
 
I consider myself a socialist, yes.
That multimillionaire bloke with all those houses and the multimillionaire children is one of those, isn’t he? Tony Blair. If that’s what socialism means, I think I’ll have to join up. How do I do that - through the Labour party?
 
And did UK "need" to give away all its best social housing, at 50% or less of its true value, to the benefit of a small minority of lucky tenants who had done nothing to deserve their good fortune at the expense of others?

It served two purposes - those who bought were mostly long term sitting tenants, and the council, having to maintain its stock, is an expensive business. The council no longer had this responsibility, and those tenants who had bought, were able to have more full freedom to improve their homes, knowing they were investing in their properties, rather than someone else's property. people who own their own home, tend to look after it much better, than those who are in rental homes. It also generated some funds for the council, tied up in housing stock.
 
A lot of courses are structured to allow students to work. There are plenty of companies who give students work. I have 2 working for me. They are self employed which means they can claim their computer, phone, broadband etc as work expenses. They split the job. Plus the Uni gives them flexibility on attendance because the work is related to their degrees.

They will Graduate with a degree in 3 years and almost 2 years relevant part time work experience. I suspect I will be competing to hire them.
I’ve heard more and more Uni students are choosing to do a degree through a job apprenticeship scheme (not sure correct term).

They get work experience whilst doing their degree - which makes them far more useful to an employer.

Whereas graduates that went from school to Uni, have zero work experience in their field….and aren’t that attractive to employers

From what you say, it seems your experience is in line with this.
 
And did UK "need" to give away all its best social housing, at 50% or less of its true value, to the benefit of a small minority of lucky tenants who had done nothing to deserve their good fortune at the expense of others?

You definitely are jealous of the good fortune of others.
 
"Although student nurses worked a 40 hour week, many were forced to take second jobs “purely to be able to feed themselves and quite often their children”, she said, pointing out that many new recruits were mature adults with families and mortgages.

My father worked 60 / 80 hours per week, to keep his head above water, I did likewise at times too.
 
It served two purposes - those who bought were mostly long term sitting tenants, and the council, having to maintain its stock, is an expensive business. The council no longer had this responsibility, and those tenants who had bought, were able to have more full freedom to improve their homes, knowing they were investing in their properties, rather than someone else's property. people who own their own home, tend to look after it much better, than those who are in rental homes. It also generated some funds for the council, tied up in housing stock.

”the council no longer had this responsibility”

“having to maintain its stock”

But there are still lots of people who need housing support….so the govt is having to pay vast amounts out on housing benefit to private housing associations and private landlords.

What Thatcher did was sell its council houses below market value and she stopped councils building more.

flogging the council houses was the starting block for this housing crisis
 
My father worked 60 / 80 hours per week, to keep his head above water, I did likewise at times too.
I see you are still claiming if people can’t manage these days it’s because they are lazy.

You refuse to accept the facts: people can’t afford to live no matter how much they earn

Please stop being so narrow minded
 
My father worked 60 / 80 hours per week, to keep his head above water, I did likewise at times too.
Most of us have done.

Imagine working 2 jobs and still not keeping your head above water . And if that is a couple, that's 3 or 4 jobs in effect and still struggling, not managing.

Working full time should pay enough to live, not exist
 
What Thatcher did was sell its council houses below market value and she stopped councils building more.

flogging the council houses was the starting block for this housing crisis

The idea was to have people move from rented, to become responsible home owners, in that it worked very well indeed. A privately owned home is potentially cheaper to maintain, than one where the council have to send an employee out, to fix every minor issue. Most of the now privately owned ex-council homes in this street, have now been extended, in one way or another, the whole street generally looks much more affluent, than it did in council ownership. Houses in the street are much sought after, they rarely even get time to put a 'for sale' notice up.
 
Sponsored Links
Back
Top