PDA

View Full Version : workfare is fair



vetran
20th November 2012, 14:08
The jobless who would rather lose benefits than work - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jobs/9689099/The-jobless-who-would-rather-lose-benefits-than-work.html)


Almost two thirds of benefits claimants referred to a mandatory work scheme do not turn up because they either take a job or stop claiming welfare


May last year and August this year, more than 90,000 claimants have been referred to the Mandatory Work Activity scheme by Jobcentre staff.
Of those, little more than 33,000 began work placements. Of the remaining 57,000, some found work, while others chose to stop claiming benefits.

surprise, surprise.

snaw
20th November 2012, 14:17
The jobless who would rather lose benefits than work - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jobs/9689099/The-jobless-who-would-rather-lose-benefits-than-work.html)





surprise, surprise.

I've not really changed my views vis-a-vis there has to be a safety net, but living in Asia I'm definitely coming to the conclusion we're all fcked (Including myself in this) in the west if we don't realise there are a LOT of smart people in developing areas of the world, willing to work for less supported by teaming masses who are striving to get their kids educated to get a piece of it. Cause the alternatives are pretty grim for them.

Catch 22 for a bit of a leftie like me, but realty suggests that there's nothing like a bit of desperation to heal the sick. Then again, some of the poverty you see is pretty grim too.

On principal it's the right thing, but in reality it unfortunately encourages lies and cheating, which takes away from the undoubtedly civilised and rightful object.

Still thinking this one through. I'll let you know when I've worked it out ;)

DodgyAgent
20th November 2012, 14:26
I've not really changed my views vis-a-vis there has to be a safety net, but living in Asia I'm definitely coming to the conclusion we're all fcked (Including myself in this) in the west if we don't realise there are a LOT of smart people in developing areas of the world, willing to work for less supported by teaming masses who are striving to get their kids educated to get a piece of it. Cause the alternatives are pretty grim for them.

Catch 22 for a bit of a leftie like me, but realty suggests that there's nothing like a bit of desperation to heal the sick. Then again, some of the poverty you see is pretty grim too.

On principal it's the right thing, but in reality it unfortunately encourages lies and cheating, which takes away from the undoubtedly civilised and rightful object.

Still thinking this one through. I'll let you know when I've worked it out ;)

If you need any help :happy

vetran
20th November 2012, 14:28
I've not really changed my views vis-a-vis there has to be a safety net, but living in Asia I'm definitely coming to the conclusion we're all fcked (Including myself in this) in the west if we don't realise there are a LOT of smart people in developing areas of the world

Still thinking this one through. I'll let you know when I've worked it out ;)

by george I think she's got it.

good luck.

speling bee
20th November 2012, 19:01
I've not really changed my views vis-a-vis there has to be a safety net, but living in Asia I'm definitely coming to the conclusion we're all fcked (Including myself in this) in the west if we don't realise there are a LOT of smart people in developing areas of the world, willing to work for less supported by teaming masses who are striving to get their kids educated to get a piece of it. Cause the alternatives are pretty grim for them.

Catch 22 for a bit of a leftie like me, but realty suggests that there's nothing like a bit of desperation to heal the sick. Then again, some of the poverty you see is pretty grim too.

On principal it's the right thing, but in reality it unfortunately encourages lies and cheating, which takes away from the undoubtedly civilised and rightful object.

Still thinking this one through. I'll let you know when I've worked it out ;)

What puzzles me is: if unemployment is caused by laziness, why is there always an international outbreak of laziness during global economic downturns?

Freamon
20th November 2012, 19:25
What puzzles me is: if unemployment is caused by laziness, why is there always an international outbreak of laziness during global economic downturns?

It's actually the laziness that causes the downturns, unemployment is just one of the side effects.

RasputinDude
20th November 2012, 19:47
I think it's a bit more nuanced.

The benefit system in this country is rubbish from all angles. Let's say - just for a moment - that a professional engineer loses their job for some reason. Taking aside redundancy etc - maybe they have just moved to their new company - the moment that they lose their job, they are being punished. I would argue that it is much better for the state to help support that person by keeping in their own house, keeping their self esteem high by paying them a proportion of their salary than to reduce them to almost immediate penury. The chances that that professional person - given the right support - would find work quicker on their own than being forced to attend workfare courses and being made to explain their situation ad infinitim to job centre workers.

Now take the opposite of that person - someone who has never shown any inclination to work - why should they continually be liberated from the consequences of their actions?

escapeUK
21st November 2012, 07:34
I think it's a bit more nuanced.


Benefits should simply be contribution based. The engineer who was paid £10ks in tax (NI) over the years will be taken care of. The chav or immigrant who has never worked a day in his life will get nothing unless he spends the day working. Id do the same with the NHS for people over 21.

speling bee
21st November 2012, 08:00
Benefits should simply be contribution based. The engineer who was paid £10ks in tax (NI) over the years will be taken care of. The chav or immigrant who has never worked a day in his life will get nothing unless he spends the day working. Id do the same with the NHS for people over 21.

That will reduce public spending, but it won't create jobs (but hang on a minute.) Look at the mass unemployment of the 1930s within the context of lack of benefits and other provisions. People didn't work because there were no jobs.

Now, there is a hard core of people who won't work, no matter what. I have known some of them. The time to address this is in times of low unemployment, but it is always politically convenient to hammer people when unemployment is high to distract from the real causes of the economic mess.

escapeUK
21st November 2012, 09:12
That will reduce public spending, but it won't create jobs (but hang on a minute.)

If I wasnt heavily taxed to pay people to do nothing, then I might have the money to employ a cleaner, others might employ a nanny to help raise their children rather than having them dragged up in expensive child care.

We'll find out how it will work soon, as the way things are going even if tax was 100% it wont be enough to pay for those who do nothing. Obviously the system will collapse long before that point thank goodness.

speling bee
21st November 2012, 09:26
If I wasnt heavily taxed to pay people to do nothing, then I might have the money to employ a cleaner, others might employ a nanny to help raise their children rather than having them dragged up in expensive child care.

We'll find out how it will work soon, as the way things are going even if tax was 100% it wont be enough to pay for those who do nothing. Obviously the system will collapse long before that point thank goodness.

But in a recession you (or most people in your situation) would probably put the money aside and hang tight. And anyway, this doesn't explain peaks in unemployment.

The time to be hard is in the good times, when there are jobs to go into.

escapeUK
21st November 2012, 09:44
The time to be hard is in the good times, when there are jobs to go into.

The good times were fictional, they were purely based on people borrowing and inflating the prices of assets.


The total amount of money that has been borrowed by the general public in the last decade is close to £1,4000 billion. The additional amount of money that has been borrowed by the population of Britain in the last eight years is well over £800 billion or more than £100 billion per annum.

The mean GDP of the UK has been about £1,000 billion per annum over the last decade. This is a rate of borrowing of 10% per annum. The British Government has also been borrowing very heavily in the last few years. The British Government admits to a borrowing of £500 billion. If the British Government admits to this number then the real figure is much higher. Businesses have also borrowed very heavily in the recent past because money was so cheap and readily available. Combined these borrowings represent a total UK borrowing level of well over £2,500 billion.

This would give a borrowing rate of over 20%. This will prove to be about the same as the real gross rate of inflation between 2000 and 2010. This shows where the 'growth' in the UK economy has come from since Labour came into office. There was never any growth, there was just borrowing.

vetran
21st November 2012, 11:15
That will reduce public spending, but it won't create jobs (but hang on a minute.) Look at the mass unemployment of the 1930s within the context of lack of benefits and other provisions. People didn't work because there were no jobs.

Now, there is a hard core of people who won't work, no matter what. I have known some of them. The time to address this is in times of low unemployment, but it is always politically convenient to hammer people when unemployment is high to distract from the real causes of the economic mess.

too true.

It would make so much sense when there were surplus jobs to pass legislation to hammer benefit abusers, it might not take effect until the bad times come but it would be there.