Luxury or necessity?

I heard an item on the radio last night which annoyed me. It was one of those stories where they talk to people who are supposed to be suffering as a result of the recession. The lady they were talking to this time had lost her above averagely paid job a few months ago and hadn't been able to find another. Now, apparently she is struggling financially- to the extent that she can't afford foreign holidays or to replace a sofa.

Well, of course I'm sorry for her. Being made redundant isn't pleasant, nor is having to reduce your standard of living. But really, these kind of stories show how little some people know about who is really suffering- about who is really at the bottom of the ladder. Not being able to afford foreign holidays or new furniture isn't pleasant. But compared to struggling to pay your rent, or utility bills, it's a whole different territory. She bemoaned the fact that she was having to draw on her savings for her old age. While I can see her concern that she might be worse off in some years time as a result, at least she's had the kind of job where she has been able to build up savings. Some of us aren't that fortunate.

Sometimes I think we can forget that the things we consider a usual part of life are in fact luxuries. For many people across the world, even being able to have a solid roof over their head and enough food to not be hungry are more than they can hope for. Even in this country, there are people who struggle for basic necessities- who get to the end of the month not sure if they'll have enough for rent, or food. Compared to that, not being able to replace a sofa somehow doesn't seem to me to be important. It's like another radio item I heard some time ago where they gave an example of a 'low' salary of around £20,000 a year. While that may well be low compared to the likes of the BA boss's £61,000 a month, but compared to a full time minimum wage salary of around £11,000 a year it's still quite good money.

And talking of BA, and their asking their employees to work unpaid for up to a month or take unpaid leave- well, I can see why they've done it, and why many workers will probably take them up on the scheme. Better to earn a bit less money and still have a job than to quite possibly loose your job if the company struggles. And the chief executive is leading by example.

Except that the chief executive probably earns more in one month than many of his employees do in 5 years. So I don't really think it's really going to be much of a struggle for him. Whereas for some of them it could mean tightened belts- and fewer foreign holidays.

Perhaps rather than forgoing his salary for a month he should offer to take the salary of a baggage handler or check-in staff for a year- that might teach him a thing or two about managing!