Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Guest BoomBoomCrash

* Comment Is Free Some Talk About Welfare To Work. The Poor Know It As Welfare To Destitution

Recommended Posts

Guest Steve Cook

Yep

Part time, variable hour,short term

If this is a free market where all participants are free to negotiate their postions based on their economic clout, how come we especially don't allow one particular class of economic agent (via the making illegal of certain union activities) to use their collective strength to bargain for a better cut of the action?

I think we know the answer.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest BoomBoomCrash

One of the coments of the article...

"here is a link to the DWP's ominous Work for your benefits pilot which is coming out very stealthily, and appears to offer the private and corporate sector very cheap, indentured labour. Note also the DWP's policy for this: DWP's commissioning strategy is to let fewer and larger contracts with suppliers who have the capacity to manage an effective network of private, public and voluntary sector organisations. So it's only the big boys who'll get the money, while benefits claimants will have to work at what are effectively below minimum wage rates:claimants in the pilot areas will be in the unenviable position of being required to undertake full time activity in order to receive their Jobseekers Allowance (JSA). So, it's full time work for £64.95 a week if you're "lucky", or as little as £50.95, or £1.27 an hour for a 40hr week.A great way for unscrupulous employees to circumnavigate the minimum wage

Doubtless there will some hollow rhetoric and vapid 'assurances' that all of this really is in the interests of the unemployed, because as we all know work, any work, no matter how demeaning, poorly-paid or exploitative, is good for you (and your mental health).Aye, right. Even if this were true, there ain't jobs. In the meantime, the rich get richer,and certain huge 'employment and training' companies will get fatter on ever bigger contracts, without any effective scrutiny of their cherry-picking practices, poor quality training and lack of knowledge of both local considerations and mental health complexities.Deal with folk who have to got through these agencies and then you realise the state is being ripped off massively by their hollow promises: if anyone does get a job, it's typically despite these private sector agencies, who have also been known to jettison the genuinely tough cases. 'Tutors' are often shockingly poor, in need of skills coaching themselves and hopelessly ill-equipped when faced with anyone with a functioning intelligence. Let's not go too deeply into the political allegiances and favours of some agencies with some parties, including donations...

Strange how the Govt's own commissioned research which found that using such agencies was less efficient and more expensive than the regular state service didn't receive much publicity: Department for Work and Pensions

Research Report No 533 2008, ISBN 978 1 84712 445 6. Workfare doesn't work.

Oh, and I do hope someone will do a complete dissection of C4's up-coming "Benefit Busters" series, which from early word will present all single mums on benefit as feckless Vicky Pollards and present the a certain well-known for-profit agency (with a gung-ho PR dept, and a lot of terrible word-of-mouth to counter) as shining knights....propaganda, but some will take it as true, just because it's been on telly."

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/supplying-dwp/what-w...fitpilots.shtml

So claimants are going to be working for less than £1.50 an hour! This is clearly the plan the government have come up with to rebuild the economy. They intend to do it on the back of slave labour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can't make any sense of the government's attitude to financial risk. When big companies or rich individuals are willing to take it, the official view is that they must be rewarded for having the courage to gamble. That's why PFI schemes are potentially so profitable for the private sector, why bankers still get bonuses, and why profits on share dealings are taxed at less than income. Yet when it comes to the poorest people, the policy now is to push them into taking tremendous risks, with a high probability of loss, and no corresponding hope of tremendous gains.

The welfare-to-work reforms are intended to discourage everyone but the very ill or disabled from leading a life on benefits. Fine, except for two problems. The first one we all know about: as last week's figures made plain, the jobs aren't there. The second problem is just as serious. Jobs aren't what they were. The government and the welfare system tend to talk and act as if finding work is the end of the problem, and as if happy jobseekers will have nothing left to think about except the gold watch they'll receive when they retire. But many jobs on offer, particularly those advertised in jobcentres, are precarious, temporary or part-time, or have uncertain hours. Leaving the security of benefits for jobs like these is like stepping out on to cracking ice. And our antiquated welfare system hasn't worked out where the life rafts and lifebelts ought to be.

Very good article. The scheme might have made sense when there were jobs about. Now it doesn't. In any event, the scheme clearly highlights the disparity in treatment between rich and poor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This article, as I suspected, is a bit light on ideas for navigating a post-industrial society beyond, wring hands - adopt slightly patronisng tone and exclaim 'we really ought to do something about the poor...'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest BoomBoomCrash
This article, as I suspected, is a bit light on ideas for navigating a post-industrial society beyond, wring hands - adopt slightly patronisng tone and exclaim 'we really ought to do something about the poor...'.

It's an opinion piece in a newspaper. I think laying out a policy for welfare reform is a little beyond scope and available column inches. The facts are this new 'work for your benefits' scheme means that somoene who has worked hard to get themselves a decent paid job, but has lost it due to the criminal actions of our government and the banking industry and the short termism of industry, can now look forward to working a 40hr week at under £1.50/hr.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People say £64 is next o nothing, but you only have to go there for 1/2 hour every fortnight. Thats an hourly rate of £256, not bad really. The rest of the time you can just bootleg cigarettes.

Edited by Sadman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest BoomBoomCrash
People say £64 is next o nothing, but you only have to go there for 1/2 hour every fortnight. Thats an hourly rate of £256, not bad really. The rest of the time you can just bootleg cigarettes.

And under the new proposals it will be an hourly rate below £1.50

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So claimants are going to be working for less than £1.50 an hour! This is clearly the plan the government have come up with to rebuild the economy. They intend to do it on the back of slave labour.

It is well known that some claimants can be paid more than they could earn in a minimum wage job, so maybe the scheme can start by employing those. The £1.50 p/h figure applies only to people entitled just to the JSA, and many of those don't bother claiming already.

I do not know about the details of the scheme, but it seems a sound principle that people in work should be better off than those on benefits. It would appear that one of the few ways of implementing that in practice is to make claimants work. It is obviously better if they do something beneficial rather than the usual example of digging a big hole one day and filling it the next. However, even that would be better than letting them get used to long-term unemployment.

Am I a right-wing nutter?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest BoomBoomCrash
It is well known that some claimants can be paid more than they could earn in a minimum wage job, so maybe the scheme can start by employing those. The £1.50 p/h figure applies only to people entitled just to the JSA, and many of those don't bother claiming already.

I do not know about the details of the scheme, but it seems a sound principle that people in work should be better off than those on benefits. It would appear that one of the few ways of implementing that in practice is to make claimants work. It is obviously better if they do something beneficial rather than the usual example of digging a big hole one day and filling it the next. However, even that would be better than letting them get used to long-term unemployment.

Am I a right-wing nutter?

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/supplying-dwp/what-w...fitpilots.shtml

Reading the proposals would be a start.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This article, as I suspected, is a bit light on ideas for navigating a post-industrial society beyond, wring hands - adopt slightly patronisng tone and exclaim 'we really ought to do something about the poor...'.

A navigational beacon is to be found in the comments...

...onwards and upwards Jenni - what's the solution? A modest proposal: the cause of the problem (the State) is not the answer (more state). One suggestion: stop treating people like infants and assuming the State knows best - it does NOT know best. It often knows nothing. Empower adults to make an adult choice with a Citizens Basic Income: www.citizensincome.org
I often ask myself how the DWP can process all that paperwork. Every claim is a byzantine nightmare - even the straightforward ones for single people. And there are millions of them. I suspect that they can't - beyond basic computer yes/no.

Bring in the Citizen's Income and save billions in admin costs alone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Arbeit macht frei indeed.

I particularly like the way it is a contractual requirement that the 30 hours a week must be spent doing something *demonstrably* worthless + 10 hours a week of outright time wasting. I also note from the flow chart that the DWP can at any time fast-track you onto this programme as a "tool" so I'd be really bloody polite when signing on in future. Maybe "forget" your newspaper with a fiver left in the middle of it.

It has nothing to do with helping anyone, its about transferring £3000 per "customer" (cattle) to whoever wins the contract. I assume the winners (it hasn't been awarded yet but I'm sure they know who they are now) are currently offering free services to the Labour Party and the Conservative Party. Its unemployed people farming, if it was just exploitation of near-slave labour that would almost be preferable in a sort of Bridge over the River Kwai way. There is a dignity in work, even if you are being screwed over. In These Dire Economic Times, if you could overlook the fact the shareholders and board will just siphon it off anyway, you could almost argue free labour would be an important community service if it gave a small bump to production and efficiency. This isn't even that.

The decent thing would be to just hand over the 15 million to whoever it is earmarked for already and leave everyone else out of it.

Put it this way, there have to be more cost-effective ways of persecuting people that don't cost £3000 a year. It would be an easy enough IT project to rig a database that rings people's phones in the middle of the night and randomly cuts off their electricity/water. Perhaps freelancers could go out and get paid by results according to how many people's lives they make a misery of and with perhaps (capped) bonuses for extra suicides, severe self-harming, hairloss, miscarriage and suchlike. This board would be an ideal place to recruit from.

Failing that, turn the Millennium Dome into an amphitheatre and have done with it. Who doesn't like chariot races and buckler vs. trident deathmatches. What are you out for that, a bit of sawdust and however much it costs to hire some angry lions (minus feeding costs)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest BoomBoomCrash
The unions and the left were told the economic consequences of the minimum wage, and here they are.

How would the situation be any better without it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How would the situation be any better without it?

There would be a lot more employed people, although their wages would be lower.

As employment reaches maximum possible levels, then people have to compete for labour - which drives the price up.

Basic economics. The only thing that will raise wages is full employment and then competition for labours attention.

Which is why the banksters, CBI feck heads etc all did their mock horror schtick when the unions wanted minium wages - cos they knew it meant lower costs and indentured servants for them going forward.

Edited by Injin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could someone enlighten me as to what jobs in our society need a workforce of 5 million that currently isn't catered for?

If the public or private sector already provides the service then all this will do is destroy existing painting/caring/gardening industries by undercutting them with illegally priced labour.

At the same time as destroying even private sector industry, it will cost large amounts to administer the scheme.

At no point have these policies ever worked in any country. They have been tried often enough with the same poor results.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing with this is, you've all completely missed the point.

People don't stay on the dole because they are lazy or because JSA is such a good payout.

They do it because housing benefit pays their rent.

In many areas of London, that could be £1000-£2000 a month.

So you'de need a job that pays £24k+ for it to make any financial sense at all to work.

Essentially, the problem is high house prices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've just has a look at the DWP site that someone in the comments section of the article kindly provided a link to,it's all happy flow charts and acronyms. This all sounds very complicated and prone to a clusterf8ck of magnificent proportions.

I don't think this is going to go well at all.

No siree, not well.

edited for comma abuse

Edited by eightiesgirly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest BoomBoomCrash
There would be a lot more employed people, although their wages would be lower.

As employment reaches maximum possible levels, then people have to compete for labour - which drives the price up.

Basic economics. The only thing that will raise wages is full employment and then competition for labours attention.

Which is why the banksters, CBI feck heads etc all did their mock horror schtick when the unions wanted minium wages - cos they knew it meant lower costs and indentured servants for them going forward.

LOL, you really are a fool. Full employment is a fairly tale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LOL, you really are a fool. Full employment is a fairly tale.

If everyone were working for themselves, wouldn't everyone be employed?

What (ignoring physical handicap for the moment) stops this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest BoomBoomCrash
If everyone were working for themselves, wouldn't everyone be employed?

What (ignoring physical handicap for the moment) stops this?

Never going to happen. The market simply isn't big enough, and technology is making the market for human labour smaller and decreasing the value of that labour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Never going to happen. The market simply isn't big enough, and technology is making the market for human labour smaller and decreasing the value of that labour.

You think human desire is finite then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest BoomBoomCrash
because?

We've never had full employment so what makes you think it's possible at a time when technology is destroying jobs faster than it creates them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   288 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.