How To End Benefits Britain

[the_dork]

Sorry for not responding sooner, I see we've had the usual mixture of the good, the bad and the mad, I gather this is usual for HPCF!

I think several people have missed my point. Nowhere have I labelled everyone currently on benefit as scum or lazy. There are undoubtedly some like this but IMO most people do want to work even if they're unrealistic about what they could be getting (not just talking financially, but 'job satisfaction'

I also think we've ventured on to the linked question of corporate structure. OBviously if firms are run by a small coterie at the top who profit (which many are) then there's no incentive to take on more staff or even to really consider the overall economy. If we're talking more about worker ownership of firms, performing valuable and necessary work, then there's not really an obstacle to being macro-efficient (ie. for the whole economy rather than individual firms) This isn't socialism because it would still use the price mechanism to the same extent we do now.

I will add some more comments later but one more for now: Unemployment is a necessary feature of capitalism.Google phillips curve. I'm not a hardcore socialist as I don't think it solves the problem (and creates others) but to say that anyone can find work if they want is just sloganeering nonsense. It's also inefficient and the same logic as the GDP measure of two women looking after each other's children and being paid to do so (then paying tax on that income) as being 'better' than each looking after their own for free.

It seems to me that people who berate all benefit claimers have either a few options:

1) Tough luck. There are X jobs at average 45 hours a week, Y potential workers, people who don't take jobs are either too inadequate/stupid/unskilled or pricing themselves too high. Hence good conditions for the working majority, nothing for the others who will effectively starve. Logical but unfair IMO as you would think too if you were in the position of a willing but unemployed worker.

2) As above but recognise there's a degree of arbitrariness and tax the fortunate workers a bit to pay for those who can't get jobs. Probably lowers other costs incurred in first scenario as you'll get loss robbery and fraud from the starving unemployed.

3) Accept my proposal that most jobs (I would estimate 75-80% in the UK) could easily be shared out amongst all willing workers. Lower take home pay as they all do fewer hours, but they are taxed less. Very little effect on overall efficiency, I would hypothecate that productivity may actually go up as people are less fatigued though I accept there may be short term handicaps.

I haven't read a convincing rebuttal of my proposal 3) that doesn't rely on 1) which I regard as deeply questionable morally. 2) is quite wide as it does depend what the benefits are but is basically what we have now.

[miko]

Sorry for not responding sooner, I see we've had the usual mixture of the good, the bad and the mad, I gather this is usual for HPCF!

I think several people have missed my point. Nowhere have I labelled everyone currently on benefit as scum or lazy. There are undoubtedly some like this but IMO most people do want to work even if they're unrealistic about what they could be getting (not just talking financially, but 'job satisfaction'

I also think we've ventured on to the linked question of corporate structure. OBviously if firms are run by a small coterie at the top who profit (which many are) then there's no incentive to take on more staff or even to really consider the overall economy. If we're talking more about worker ownership of firms, performing valuable and necessary work, then there's not really an obstacle to being macro-efficient (ie. for the whole economy rather than individual firms) This isn't socialism because it would still use the price mechanism to the same extent we do now.

I will add some more comments later but one more for now: Unemployment is a necessary feature of capitalism.Google phillips curve. I'm not a hardcore socialist as I don't think it solves the problem (and creates others) but to say that anyone can find work if they want is just sloganeering nonsense. It's also inefficient and the same logic as the GDP measure of two women looking after each other's children and being paid to do so (then paying tax on that income) as being 'better' than each looking after their own for free.

It seems to me that people who berate all benefit claimers have either a few options:

1) Tough luck. There are X jobs at average 45 hours a week, Y potential workers, people who don't take jobs are either too inadequate/stupid/unskilled or pricing themselves too high. Hence good conditions for the working majority, nothing for the others who will effectively starve. Logical but unfair IMO as you would think too if you were in the position of a willing but unemployed worker.

2) As above but recognise there's a degree of arbitrariness and tax the fortunate workers a bit to pay for those who can't get jobs. Probably lowers other costs incurred in first scenario as you'll get loss robbery and fraud from the starving unemployed.

3) Accept my proposal that most jobs (I would estimate 75-80% in the UK) could easily be shared out amongst all willing workers. Lower take home pay as they all do fewer hours, but they are taxed less. Very little effect on overall efficiency, I would hypothecate that productivity may actually go up as people are less fatigued though I accept there may be short term handicaps.

I haven't read a convincing rebuttal of my proposal 3) that doesn't rely on 1) which I regard as deeply questionable morally. 2) is quite wide as it does depend what the benefits are but is basically what we have now.

Well said !!

[wonderpup]

I haven't read a convincing rebuttal of my proposal 3) that doesn't rely on 1) which I regard as deeply questionable morally. 2) is quite wide as it does depend what the benefits are but is basically what we have now.

The problem is that the people who want unemployed people gassed turn out to be the same people who would reject any attempt to jobshare, as for them the impact would be the same as being taxed to pay benefits- so they lose either way.

Unemployment is not a side effect of capitalism, it's a primary goal, since profitability is the only metric that counts and employees cost money.

The perfect business model from a purely capitalist viewpoint would be one that had zero raw material/ sales costs and zero employees- it would be pure profit with no downside. So every intelligent business man will seek to lower his costs to maximise his profits- efficiency and unemployement are two words for the same thing broadly speaking.

The only slight problem being that when the last job is outsourced to a low paid chinaman, or automated out of existence, who is left to consume all the stuff?

[Guest absolutezero]

The problem is that the people who want unemployed people gassed turn out to be the same people who would reject any attempt to jobshare, as for them the impact would be the same as being taxed to pay benefits- so they lose either way.

Unemployment is not a side effect of capitalism, it's a primary goal, since profitability is the only metric that counts and employees cost money.

The perfect business model from a purely capitalist viewpoint would be one that had zero raw material/ sales costs and zero employees- it would be pure profit with no downside. So every intelligent business man will seek to lower his costs to maximise his profits- efficiency and unemployement are two words for the same thing broadly speaking.

The only slight problem being that when the last job is outsourced to a low paid chinaman, or automated out of existence, who is left to consume all the stuff?

They've not fathomed that one out yet.

Which is why capitalism, ultimately, will fail.

[Tired of Waiting]

I haven't read a convincing rebuttal of my proposal

You fell into the "Lump of labour fallacy". You have assumed that the amount of work available to labourers is fixed. In reality the amount of work is flexible, because when a worker accepts a job offer, starts working, being paid, and then STARTS SPENDING HIS SALARY, his spending increases the aggregate consumption, thus expanding the economy proportionally.

That explains why we had, say, a million jobs available in Britain in 2004, then we had a million (or more) Polish arriving and getting those jobs, and in 2007 we still had around a million jobs available.

See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy

[Guest absolutezero]

You fell into the "Lump of labour fallacy". You have assumed that the amount of work available to labourers is fixed. In reality the amount of work is flexible, because when a worker accepts a job offer, starts working, being paid, and then STARTS SPENDING HIS SALARY, his spending increases the aggregate consumption, thus expanding the economy proportionally.

Does that apply to the (on here, detested) public sector workers who spend their salaries or are they immune?

I suppose public sector workers could be classed as an economic stimulus for the private sector.

[Tired of Waiting]

Does that apply to the (on here, detested) public sector workers who spend their salaries or are they immune?

I suppose public sector workers could be classed as an economic stimulus for the private sector.

Much less, because to pay for that worker's salary you have to tax others, hence removing that amount from the economy. It is much better if this job is on the private sector.

(And to fine tune this a little deeper: Much better still is to create jobs in an export sector, estimated to generate a "multiplier" of around 20 - the new money in the country circulates about 20 times, generating many other jobs.)

.

Edited November 18, 2009 by Tired of waiting

[Stars]

In the example I gave the company had its best year last year and made £1.6 Billion. profti , so you are saying that a company with that type of profit can not be lumbered with paying for the labour it employe's but has to get some of it for nothing.

If you try to force up wages by further restriction (which is what it amounts to), you will increase costs and raise unemployment

Extra cost's , if you want somthing you pay for it , if a company want's labour it should pay for it, not get if for free. While keeping other's on the dole the cost being picked up by the tax payer.

1 The company is paying the rate the owner thinks appropriate

2 How is the company keeping people on the dole?

[Stars]

Does that apply to the (on here, detested) public sector workers who spend their salaries or are they immune?

I suppose public sector workers could be classed as an economic stimulus for the private sector.

No because value had to be taken off someone else to pay the public sector worker

[alexw]

You fell into the "Lump of labour fallacy". You have assumed that the amount of work available to labourers is fixed. In reality the amount of work is flexible, because when a worker accepts a job offer, starts working, being paid, and then STARTS SPENDING HIS SALARY, his spending increases the aggregate consumption, thus expanding the economy proportionally.

That explains why we had, say, a million jobs available in Britain in 2004, then we had a million (or more) Polish arriving and getting those jobs, and in 2007 we still had around a million jobs available.

See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy

Actually your post is a fallacy too, or at least a strawman argument. If a polishman comes to the uk and takes a lower wage than a uk citizen would have for that job (as a result more go to profits), while also saving money to take back to poland, this will have a substantial negative effect on consumption. The pole will naturally minimize his outgoings to take back as much as possible, while the lowering of overall wages for the employment sector will also reduce consumption. The increased returns on profits will mostly be reinvested rather than spent, which is exactly what we have seen happen. Thus where historically a uk citizen employed in that position on an average wage would create work in say, a 1:1 ratio, now we have the pole and the wage depressed uk citizen creating work in a 1:0.8 ratio or worse. This issue is exactly what is plaguing china currently, in that wages are too low and held so to support internal demand of current production.

[Justice]

How To End Benefits Britain

Hang the banksters, charge MP's with treason and send the immigrants packing so people get a decent wage for a decent days work.

did i miss anything

[miko]

If you try to force up wages by further restriction (which is what it amounts to), you will increase costs and raise unemployment

1 The company is paying the rate the owner thinks appropriate

2 How is the company keeping people on the dole?

Yes it does cost , if you want something you have to pay for it , there is nothing for free , if you get it for free someone else will pay later. Stopping companys getting people to work for free , is not further restriction just making them pay for what they use in this case labour.

Don't know how many times I have explained on this topic how this company and other's are keeping people on the dole , if you carn't work it out , im not explaining it again.

[Stars]

Yes it does cost , if you want something you have to pay for it , there is nothing for free , if you get it for free someone else will pay later. Stopping companys getting people to work for free , is not further restriction just making them pay for what they use in this case labour.

But the owner agreed on his price and so obviously doing what he was doing was a net benefit to him, or he wouldn't do it. Now you want to interfeer and block him. I don't think this will help.

Don't know how many times I have explained on this topic how this company and other's are keeping people on the dole , if you carn't work it out , im not explaining it again.

It seems to me that a company by employing people is (if anything) keeping them off the dole..you disagree?

[miko]

But the owner agreed on his price and so obviously doing what he was doing was a net benefit to him, or he wouldn't do it. Now you want to interfeer and block him. I don't think this will help.

It seems to me that a company by employing people is (if anything) keeping them off the dole..you disagree?

No the owner's did not agree on these prices , that's the whole point , in this one case the contract given to the person was for a nine to five job , not eight to five for the same money. Don't take it from me if you are an aware person and can communicate with people go out and do your own research on this . Ask people you know ask people that you bump into and meet on a daily basics and ask do they or people they know do unpaid overtime , it is rife especially now in this economic environment.The relative in question hated doing it thought it was wrong but worried about keeping her job even though it was not the contract agreed when first employed makes her reluctantly do it.

Yes a company employing people is keeping those people off the dole but by getting them to work x amount of time for free they are keeping others on the dole.

Look at this way company "A" opens up and contracts to take x amount of office stationary from a supplier at a price let's say the price is £100 then a while later it needs that order again + 20 % more stationary . The new bill for stationary comes in at £120 , but company "A" wants to only pay £100 . NO the stationary company demands their £120 and rightly so as that is the price of the stationary that company "A" used .

If company "A " bully the stationary company to accept £100 , then the stationary company take the £20 loss , saying company "A" was entitled to £120 of stationary for £100 as they spent £100 means that that the stationary company has to find the £20 from somewhere else. So the stationary company pick up the tab for company "A" 's free stationary.

The £20 does not just disappear in thin air someone else has to pay for it in someway , either the stationary company or someone back down the line ( nothing is free someone has to pay.)

This topic was about the cost of unemployment . Many people on here have given suggestions of how to reduce unemployment the cost of which is picked up by the tax payer.

My suggestion was that if company's did not get fee labor then they would have to pay for it i.e. in the example given 7 people doing 5 hours per week for free is one free worker . Worker 8 does not get a job but stays on the dole . The labour used on worker 8 is still enjoyed by the employer as workers 1 to 7 , do number 8's work for free . The tax payer pays for number 8 to sit on the dole . The tax payer pays because the company got something for nothing FREE LABOR . The cost was picked up by someone else the tax payer.

[Guest absolutezero]

No because value had to be taken off someone else to pay the public sector worker

But the public sector then spends (as you call it) other people's tax money and stimulates the private sector with it.

So the money is removed from the private sector and then given back to the private sector.

So in effect, the public sector costs nothing....

Edited November 18, 2009 by absolutezero

[Injin]

But the public sector then spends (as you call it) other people's tax money and stimulates the private sector with it.

So the money is removed from the private sector and then given back to the private sector.

So in effect, the private sector costs nothing....

That assumes that those in the public sector buy the same things that the private would and that taxing them is free.

Can't see it myself.

[Stars]

But the public sector then spends (as you call it) other people's tax money and stimulates the private sector with it.

So the money is removed from the private sector and then given back to the private sector.

So in effect, the public sector costs nothing....

That's more or less what you said last time - i just explained why it isn't true

If I take five pounds off you and buy your shoes for five pounds, how 'stimulated' are you by the exchange?

[Guest absolutezero]

That's more or less what you said last time - i just explained why it isn't true

If I take five pounds off you and buy your shoes for five pounds, how 'stimulated' are you by the exchange?

I'm not but the shoemaker is, and then he spends that money elsewhere. Then they spend it elsewhere... And so on.

[Stars]

I'm not but the shoemaker is, and then he spends that money elsewhere. Then they spend it elsewhere... And so on.

No he isn't - if you didn't take the fiver, it would now be waiting in someone else's palm ready to buy his shoes

No stimulation there -

And since you have taken a fiver, the person you have taken it from has lost the incentive he had to do whatever he did to earn it.

Edited November 18, 2009 by Stars

[erat_forte]

I'm not but the shoemaker is, and then he spends that money elsewhere. Then they spend it elsewhere... And so on.

OK, but you have £5 less; you didnt spend it on some stupid novelty chicken keyring. So the stupif novelty chicken keyting maker loses a sale, loses £5. And so on. Net result = 0

(or, given that there is friction in the system, net result < 0

[Little Professor]

Goa death mother on benefit fraud charges

The mother of a British teenager whose body was found on a beach in Goa has been charged with falsely claiming more than £50,000 in income support.

The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) said Fiona MacKeown, 44, is accused of claiming £51,401 of support while failing to declare other income.

The charge relates to the period 2 February 2005 to 10 March 2008 and includes the time when Ms MacKeown had taken a six-month family holiday to Goa with Scarlett.

The body of her daughter Scarlett Keeling, 15, was found on the beach at Anjuna, Goa, on 19 February 2008. During their time in the resort of Anjuna, Scarlett was left in the care of a 25-year-old tour guide while the rest of the family went travelling.

Edited November 19, 2009 by Little Professor

[Guest skullingtonjoe]

Goa death mother on benefit fraud charges

The mother of a British teenager whose body was found on a beach in Goa has been charged with falsely claiming more than £50,000 in income support.

The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) said Fiona MacKeown, 44, is accused of claiming £51,401 of support while failing to declare other income.

The charge relates to the period 2 February 2005 to 10 March 2008 and includes the time when Ms MacKeown had taken a six-month family holiday to Goa with Scarlett.

The body of her daughter Scarlett Keeling, 15, was found on the beach at Anjuna, Goa, on 19 February 2008. During their time in the resort of Anjuna, Scarlett was left in the care of a 25-year-old tour guide while the rest of the family went travelling.

Goa is a fecking shithole. Been there. Hated it - recommend Thailand instead.

[Traktion]

No the owner's did not agree on these prices , that's the whole point , in this one case the contract given to the person was for a nine to five job , not eight to five for the same money. Don't take it from me if you are an aware person and can communicate with people go out and do your own research on this . Ask people you know ask people that you bump into and meet on a daily basics and ask do they or people they know do unpaid overtime , it is rife especially now in this economic environment.The relative in question hated doing it thought it was wrong but worried about keeping her job even though it was not the contract agreed when first employed makes her reluctantly do it.

|

The bit in bold is the problem. If person A has a contract to do something for person B, person A either:

1. Does as is contracted to do, with any additional work at person A's discretion.

2. Ceases the contract, as it is not what was agreed.

3. Complains about it not being fair, but does nothing, as is unsure whether they would get a better offer if they did 2 and doesn't have the courage to do 1.

It really is as simple as that.

If person A takes the approach of 1 and they are unfairly dismissed because they didn't work more than agreed, then they can take action (tribunal for unfair dismissal, break of contract etc). I would suggest that then approach 2 is made as the company obviously isn't a nice place to work.

However, by doing 3, they are acknowledging that they don't have the courage to go elsewhere nor to stick to their principles. I don't mean to sound rude or uncaring, but everyone has to take responsibility over their actions/inactions. Do you think the stationary supplier in your example would cancel the sale or do you think they would accept it? I would say, unless they are desperate for the business, in most case do the former. If they do the latter, they are pretty much acknowledging that the market dictates they take such action.

EDIT: reworded

Edited November 19, 2009 by Traktion

[miko]

The bit in bold is the problem. If person A has a contract to do something for person B, person A either:

1. Does as is contracted to do, with any additional work at person A's discretion.

2. Ceases the contract, as it is not what was agreed.

3. Complains about it not being fair, but does nothing, as is unsure whether they would get a better offer if they did 2 and doesn't have the courage to do 1.

It really is as simple as that.

If person A takes the approach of 1 and they are unfairly dismissed because they didn't work more than agreed, then they can take action (tribunal for unfair dismissal, break of contract etc). I would suggest that then approach 2 is made as the company obviously isn't a nice place to work.

However, by doing 3, they are acknowledging that they don't have the courage to go elsewhere nor to stick to their principles. I don't mean to sound rude or uncaring, but everyone has to take responsibility over their actions/inactions. Do you think the stationary supplier in your example would cancel the sale or do you think they would accept it? I would say, unless they are desperate for the business, in most case do the former. If they do the latter, they are pretty much acknowledging that the market dictates they take such action.

EDIT: reworded

You don't give up do you !!

Maybe you could have written your post in words a bit easier to understand , I had to read it three times to make sense of it.

Not going into all the in's and out's again , but just to say my origional point on this subject , How to get people on the dole back to work ? one idea I came up with was that if companys did not get work done for free form their current worker's , they would need to take more workers on to get the work done.

Simple as that it's a number's game x amount of work divided by x amount of workers.If fewer workers are employed as companys don't need them due to free workers more stay on the dole.

[Traktion]

You don't give up do you !!

Maybe you could have written your post in words a bit easier to understand , I had to read it three times to make sense of it.

Not going into all the in's and out's again , but just to say my origional point on this subject , How to get people on the dole back to work ? one idea I came up with was that if companys did not get work done for free form their current worker's , they would need to take more workers on to get the work done.

Simple as that it's a number's game x amount of work divided by x amount of workers.If fewer workers are employed as companys don't need them due to free workers more stay on the dole.

I don't give up when I know I have a good point. I will try to write in simpler English for you next time - unless you were just trying to lace your reply with vitriol?

The bottom line is, people need to take responsibility for their own lives. This looking for someone to blame, an entitlement for others to support them etc, is part of the problem.