Estate where only one person has a job. Enjoy
Discussion
Engineer1 said:
If you propose cutting benefits for people out of work for 6months or more you need to make sure there is work available to them and if they apply they at least stand a chance rather than failing on the luck sift for being unemployed for 6months.
Hence my suggestion that after 6 months benefits divert for a period of time to employers. That way they get a subsidy for offering a less skilled person a job, compensating for the need to train them up, and the employee has far more incentive to work, as the alternative would be getting by on a quarter of their benefits. Engineer1 said:
If you propose cutting benefits for people out of work for 6months or more you need to make sure there is work available to them and if they apply they at least stand a chance rather than failing on the luck sift for being unemployed for 6months.
It's not the state's place to provide jobs. It is the state's place to provide an environment that is conducive to companies providing jobs.
And there are jobs out there. Just not all that nice. But someone's got to do them.
Johnnytheboy said:
And there are jobs out there. Just not all that nice. But someone's got to do them.
If you had a choice between a s
te job that paid you 250 a week, while your friends and neighbours have a slightly better lifestyle due to the way their benefits tot up and the amount of free time they have, would you want the job?Also the people who are entrenched in unemployment can't see a point in being 20 or 30 quid a week better off because none of their friends can go to the pub with them and they basically see that money as what they earn for their weeks work.
boredofmyoldname said:
Johnnytheboy said:
And there are jobs out there. Just not all that nice. But someone's got to do them.
If you had a choice between a ste job that paid you 250 a week, while your friends and neighbours have a slightly better lifestyle due to the way their benefits tot up and the amount of free time they have, would you want the job?Also the people who are entrenched in unemployment can't see a point in being 20 or 30 quid a week better off because none of their friends can go to the pub with them and they basically see that money as what they earn for their weeks work.
boredofmyoldname said:
If you had a choice between a ste job that paid you 250 a week, while your friends and neighbours have a slightly better lifestyle due to the way their benefits tot up and the amount of free time they have, would you want the job?
The problem is that people have no sense of shame in making that choice to be a parasite.te job that paid you 250 a week, while your friends and neighbours have a slightly better lifestyle due to the way their benefits tot up and the amount of free time they have, would you want the job?otolith said:
boredofmyoldname said:
If you had a choice between a ste job that paid you 250 a week, while your friends and neighbours have a slightly better lifestyle due to the way their benefits tot up and the amount of free time they have, would you want the job?
The problem is that people have no sense of shame in making that choice to be a parasite.te job that paid you 250 a week, while your friends and neighbours have a slightly better lifestyle due to the way their benefits tot up and the amount of free time they have, would you want the job?boredofmyoldname said:
Johnnytheboy said:
And there are jobs out there. Just not all that nice. But someone's got to do them.
If you had a choice between a ste job that paid you 250 a week, while your friends and neighbours have a slightly better lifestyle due to the way their benefits tot up and the amount of free time they have, would you want the job?Also the people who are entrenched in unemployment can't see a point in being 20 or 30 quid a week better off because none of their friends can go to the pub with them and they basically see that money as what they earn for their weeks work.
That is where the system is going wrong.
boredofmyoldname said:
otolith said:
boredofmyoldname said:
If you had a choice between a ste job that paid you 250 a week, while your friends and neighbours have a slightly better lifestyle due to the way their benefits tot up and the amount of free time they have, would you want the job?
The problem is that people have no sense of shame in making that choice to be a parasite.te job that paid you 250 a week, while your friends and neighbours have a slightly better lifestyle due to the way their benefits tot up and the amount of free time they have, would you want the job?I always thought the Victorian concept of a workhouse was essentially right even though the implementation was so wrong. No one should be getting money for doing nothing.
Even if its just a requirement to sweep their street or keep their garden tidy or keep an eye out for trouble. I know this sort of thing usually gets accused of stealing jobs from hard working people but personally I can't see it. The councils are often claiming they don't have enough people to do jobs (repair roads, empty bins etc) yet they also have a large group of people on the books who don't appear to have any jobs to do (those on JSA)...
Even if its just a requirement to sweep their street or keep their garden tidy or keep an eye out for trouble. I know this sort of thing usually gets accused of stealing jobs from hard working people but personally I can't see it. The councils are often claiming they don't have enough people to do jobs (repair roads, empty bins etc) yet they also have a large group of people on the books who don't appear to have any jobs to do (those on JSA)...
tinman0 said:
boredofmyoldname said:
Johnnytheboy said:
And there are jobs out there. Just not all that nice. But someone's got to do them.
If you had a choice between a ste job that paid you 250 a week, while your friends and neighbours have a slightly better lifestyle due to the way their benefits tot up and the amount of free time they have, would you want the job?Also the people who are entrenched in unemployment can't see a point in being 20 or 30 quid a week better off because none of their friends can go to the pub with them and they basically see that money as what they earn for their weeks work.
That is where the system is going wrong.
Within a day he had a job as a care assistant (that wiping old peoples bums for minimum wage for those that don't know). It didn't really bother him as he does a lot of social unpaid work in his spare time anyway.
I'm more proud of him for doing that than a lot of other things he's achieved. If he can do it why can't anyone else.
Edited by 98elise on Thursday 13th January 12:56
renrut said:
I always thought the Victorian concept of a workhouse was essentially right even though the implementation was so wrong. No one should be getting money for doing nothing.
Even if its just a requirement to sweep their street or keep their garden tidy or keep an eye out for trouble. I know this sort of thing usually gets accused of stealing jobs from hard working people but personally I can't see it. The councils are often claiming they don't have enough people to do jobs (repair roads, empty bins etc) yet they also have a large group of people on the books who don't appear to have any jobs to do (those on JSA)...
Was the implementation of workhouses really so wrong? Sure, it might be today, but put it against the background of Victorian standards of living for hardworking people at the bottom of the ladder....Even if its just a requirement to sweep their street or keep their garden tidy or keep an eye out for trouble. I know this sort of thing usually gets accused of stealing jobs from hard working people but personally I can't see it. The councils are often claiming they don't have enough people to do jobs (repair roads, empty bins etc) yet they also have a large group of people on the books who don't appear to have any jobs to do (those on JSA)...
I would like to see a workhouse mentality return today. If you can't afford your own individual housing, then the State provides communal housing. You could have a central canteen, childcare facilities and the like. Residents could work in the kitchens and nursery, thus training them for productive employment, removing childcare barriers to work for themselves and other residents, helping keep healthcare costs down by providing decent nutrition and making the whole thing cost effective.
otolith said:
boredofmyoldname said:
otolith said:
boredofmyoldname said:
If you had a choice between a ste job that paid you 250 a week, while your friends and neighbours have a slightly better lifestyle due to the way their benefits tot up and the amount of free time they have, would you want the job?
The problem is that people have no sense of shame in making that choice to be a parasite.te job that paid you 250 a week, while your friends and neighbours have a slightly better lifestyle due to the way their benefits tot up and the amount of free time they have, would you want the job?No s
t Sherlok. That is the gist of the entire thread - that fact that something needs to change. Or have I missed the point?The issue isn't the benefits themselved, it's people's attitude to benefits.
To take France as an example.
The cost of living is not significantly different from the UK. Some things cost more, some less, but on the whole it's on a par. The level of unemployment in France is also similar to here at around 10%
Depending on your age, your previous working salary and length of employment, your unemployment benefit could be anything between 25% and 75% of your annual salary for anything between 7 and 42 months.
As I understand it (and I'm happy to be told otherwise) an redundancy payment doesn't come into consideration, and the unemployment payments are only delayed if you have any paid leave that you still need to take.
Now, ponder on this.
The 'real' unemployment level in France often exceeds 20%, and yet only 10% of the population claim?
Why do only half the unemployed claim? Because they have too much pride, and would rather pay their own way in whatever way they can, than be seen to sponge off the state.
Over here, it's an attitude problem, not one of money or process. We can't say the scroungers are doing it because we give them too much, when we can see other countries offer more and yet have fewer scroungers. The issue is that they have no pride, no self esteem and you can't easily legislate against an attitude.
To take France as an example.
The cost of living is not significantly different from the UK. Some things cost more, some less, but on the whole it's on a par. The level of unemployment in France is also similar to here at around 10%
Depending on your age, your previous working salary and length of employment, your unemployment benefit could be anything between 25% and 75% of your annual salary for anything between 7 and 42 months.
As I understand it (and I'm happy to be told otherwise) an redundancy payment doesn't come into consideration, and the unemployment payments are only delayed if you have any paid leave that you still need to take.
Now, ponder on this.
The 'real' unemployment level in France often exceeds 20%, and yet only 10% of the population claim?
Why do only half the unemployed claim? Because they have too much pride, and would rather pay their own way in whatever way they can, than be seen to sponge off the state.
Over here, it's an attitude problem, not one of money or process. We can't say the scroungers are doing it because we give them too much, when we can see other countries offer more and yet have fewer scroungers. The issue is that they have no pride, no self esteem and you can't easily legislate against an attitude.
Interesting ideas and debate on this thread...
Personally I think everyone is in agreement that until the 'choice' of being supported by the state and having a better lifestyle and remuneration than any gainful employment (they are capable of) can provide is removed, the feckless and shameless will continue to make the choice that nets them a better existence.
There needs to be a wholesale overhaul of the way we support people. FWIW something along the lines of: -
If you have proved to be a net contributor for a period of time then you can call on a comprehensive set of support and aid but only for a defined period of time. i.e. similar to that which is in place in France. This will support those that are motivated and willing to work but for whatever reason find themselves not able to.
If you have never been a net contributor then what you get is the most meagre of support and absolute basic level subsistence living. Some options previously raised on other threads would be the likes of no cash payments only vouchers, limited housing i.e. dormitory based, subject to monitoring and reporting of your finances to ensure that you are not undertaking any cash in hand etc (much like a bankrupt person has to now!), also training provided in an area you wish to pursue and assistance in finding gainful work.
Then for those not capable of work due to genuine medical reasons then somewhere between the two.
If we did that then I think you would find that many more fag smoking, Kyle watching feckless idiots would all of a sudden be quite happy to undertake work which would currently be 'beneath them!'
Personally I think everyone is in agreement that until the 'choice' of being supported by the state and having a better lifestyle and remuneration than any gainful employment (they are capable of) can provide is removed, the feckless and shameless will continue to make the choice that nets them a better existence.
There needs to be a wholesale overhaul of the way we support people. FWIW something along the lines of: -
If you have proved to be a net contributor for a period of time then you can call on a comprehensive set of support and aid but only for a defined period of time. i.e. similar to that which is in place in France. This will support those that are motivated and willing to work but for whatever reason find themselves not able to.
If you have never been a net contributor then what you get is the most meagre of support and absolute basic level subsistence living. Some options previously raised on other threads would be the likes of no cash payments only vouchers, limited housing i.e. dormitory based, subject to monitoring and reporting of your finances to ensure that you are not undertaking any cash in hand etc (much like a bankrupt person has to now!), also training provided in an area you wish to pursue and assistance in finding gainful work.
Then for those not capable of work due to genuine medical reasons then somewhere between the two.
If we did that then I think you would find that many more fag smoking, Kyle watching feckless idiots would all of a sudden be quite happy to undertake work which would currently be 'beneath them!'
550Hep said:
There needs to be a wholesale overhaul of the way we support people. FWIW something along the lines of: -
Or we just cap the system for the next 15 years. No increases for 15 years to bring welfare away from the average earnings of an employed person.The whole welfare thing makes my blood boil. A girl I know/knew was a complete pain in the arse when she was 13-14, got thrown out by her parents as she was so aggravating (she really was trouble), lived at friends/grandparents until she was 16, hooked up with a 37 year old guy, got herself pregnant (because has ovary issues), the child hit the eject button at 23 weeks (iirc - he hit the eject button 2 days after the NHS are duty bound to save an infant), spent 16 weeks (or whatever it was) on a specialist ward, she married the psycho.
And last week they got a brand new flat, all taxpayer paid of course.
They will probably live happily ever after, never actually lifting a finger.
Blood boils.
And she pestered me on Facebook for months, wanting to be my friend. A firm message one day was sent:
1. I don't like the way you live your life.
2. I don't approve of the way you live your life.
3. I HAVE NOTHING IN COMMON WITH YOU! ffs.
Do you guys have work for the dole? Pretty sure over here in Australia you can get newstart allowance for a month or two then you have a choice of joining the Defence Force, studying full time or doing work for the dole. If you dont do it or prove that you have been for a certain amount of interviews per week, they cut you off.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_for_the_Dole
Work for the dole isnt a bad thing. Its usually landscaping or helping out the council workers with jobs that have to get done anyway. I cant say it would put me off as an employer to see that on a resume.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_for_the_Dole
Work for the dole isnt a bad thing. Its usually landscaping or helping out the council workers with jobs that have to get done anyway. I cant say it would put me off as an employer to see that on a resume.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff