Forced Work Camps?

[alexw]

Oh FFS What about them?

Look at our competition...the BRICS.

What happens to the unskilled and the unemployable there?

The idea behind the jobs market is that you trade your skills, services or goods for tokens that entitle you to a claim on what other people offer.

The more in demand your skills are, the more tokens you get per unit time of your work.

If someone cannot supply what is in demand...tough.

It is up to the individual to stay current and in demand...too many in this country want to put their feet up and relax.

In other words the unskilled/unemployable need to understand the new facts of life in the 21st century and get on their bikes.

There are winners and losers in this life and we in the UK are going to have to get used to that if we intend to pay our way in this world once more.

Successive Governments have dodged this (including Thatcher) and borrowed money rather than address our lack of skills and industry.

The socialist utopia of the post war years is over.

As for the disabled: I believe we have a duty to provide for those who Genuinely cannot do so for them selves.

If we did not waste Millions on those who do not deserve our sympathy, we would be able to provide a decent life for those poor souls who do deserve our collective love and compassion.

Unfortunately any changes to the welfare system will be too late and those changes will be severe and disproportionate.

We have to compete with hungry countries that do not have our overheads.

The UK has to:

• eradicate the Deficit,

• then start on the debt,

• then fund those pensions that the working population think they are entitled to

It isnt going to be pretty.

The workhouses are coming...re-branded but they are on their way....within 10 years.

Your post is garbage. It's the austerity meme where everyone is supposed to work more and consume less, but written in a slightly different way. Its exactly what the germans have been doing for 30 years and why they have such a trade surplus (their wages are 20% less than ours). That surplus and the consequent deficit is destroying the economies of greece/portugal/spain and italy, and when their economies collapse so will germany's due to the lack of EU countries to run a surplus with.

So if you look at it globally what is lacking is not on the production side but on the demand side. Sure we can all work for less, and consume less, but what are we all supposed to do with all the extra that noone anywhere can afford to consume?? Store it in giant warehouses or something? Because noone will be able to afford it all in the world you advocate.

In fact we are at that point now. Wages globally are significantly too low, a gap that was temporarily filled by debt, but having reached debt saturation our economies are collapsing due to a lack of demand. So rather than lower wages as you advocate to save the system we need exactly the opposite. Higher wages for the masses so they can afford to consume the goods and services that they themselves produce. The idea that we need work-houses or similar is just.... garbage.

As for advocating paying off our national debt, look into how the debt based monetary system works. If you did you'd understand that under that system paying off the national debt is an impossibility.

Edited March 31, 2012 by alexw

[PunK BeaR]

Its only lately people have started taking such a belligerent negative attitude towards dole payments. 20+ years ago nobody really cared about people getting dole money, eventhough in those days someone could happily claim it for their entire life. Crikey it was only 50 quid a week or something which was barely enough to keep a person alive. People back then felt sorry for people on the dole because they knew it was a tough life and just accepted that some people were happy to live such a life if they chose. Dole money did what it set out to achieve, which was keep people fed, clothed and warm.

Its only since the media have started propagating news stories about dolies living lavish lifestyles that perceptions have changed. But in most cases that has to be just horsesh!t. In actuality nothing has really changed. Dole money (i think its about £60 a week now) is still a pitance and is still barely enough to keep yourself alive, yet because of the media propaganda peoples attitudes have completely changed. And what comes rolling out on the back of this manufactured change of attitude, a gradual erosion of of this welfare system to the point now where they are forcing people to do work for this subsistence payment.

People need to take a stop and think about things. Dole money is about £3 billion a year which is actually a drop in the ocean compared to some other govt expenditure. What it does is keep people, who have no source of income, alive (plain and simple). Reduce access to that and people will just take other steps to survive such as thieving. Of all the welfare systems, dole money should be the last to be eroded as it is the final safety net to allow people to survive and with its erosion will come rafts of social problems.

Edited March 31, 2012 by PunK BeaR

[SNACR]

The slavery thing always crops up but people are happy doing some sort of work for money in something called a job. Suggest they do this when the money is coming from general taxation via the department for work and pensions and Godwin's law is promptly in evidence.

I've no problem with it as long as it's reasonable and flexible for people to obviously attend job interviews etc.

The work needs to really be something that's a social good and isn't taking jobs away from other people. I think things along the lines of doing laundry and similar for servicemen and women. The public won't have much patience for anyone with taxpayer funded time on their hands who can't spare a few hours to help 'our boys'.

This should only be people that appear to be settling into a long-term period/lifetime of unemployment.

[Ulfar]

The slavery thing always crops up but people are happy doing some sort of work for money in something called a job. Suggest they do this when the money is coming from general taxation via the department for work and pensions and Godwin's law is promptly in evidence.

I've no problem with it as long as it's reasonable and flexible for people to obviously attend job interviews etc.

The work needs to really be something that's a social good and isn't taking jobs away from other people. I think things along the lines of doing laundry and similar for servicemen and women. The public won't have much patience for anyone with taxpayer funded time on their hands who can't spare a few hours to help 'our boys'.

This should only be people that appear to be settling into a long-term period/lifetime of unemployment.

This still leads to the unintended consequence that there will be less jobs that pay a living wage. If employers can get cheap labour why would they pay more.

Even having people working part time in these schemes so that they work the same number of hours they would have to at minimum wage to earn their benefits would lead to distortions. This is already evident with more and more people being forced to accept part time work as it is cheaper for employers to employ two or three part timers rather than a full timer to cut down on national insurance payments.

Unfortunately part time doesn't work for those who are single and childless as they cannot get working tax credits without a full time job, people with kids can.

Additionally I think if as is current someone is being made to work full time for benefits they should be eligible for tax credits, the reason they aren't are due to the deliberate way the system has been set up.

If we get rid of benefits then the enclosures acts need to be repealed and all land divided out evenly, is this going to happen no of course its not. So instead we have the government and the elites playing divide and conquer with the majority.

The problem with this is the imbalances cannot continue and eventually if pushed too far you end up with revolution or civil war. At this point it doesn't matter that the majority have the guns as it is impossible to rule the majority against their will.

[24gray24]

Problem 1: employers would have an incentive to sack current workers and replace with slave labour.

Problem 2: the government would rack up vast costs administering the scheme. It's always cheaper to find an employee yourself, rather than have the government set up a bureaucracy to do it.

Alternative solution: reduce the size of government dramatically. Instead of forcing people on 5k a year to work as slaves, this solution involves sacking vast hordes of people on £40k a year who are only pretending to work. Far more money is involved.

[wonderpup]

The slavery thing always crops up but people are happy doing some sort of work for money in something called a job. Suggest they do this when the money is coming from general taxation via the department for work and pensions and Godwin's law is promptly in evidence.

I've no problem with it as long as it's reasonable and flexible for people to obviously attend job interviews etc.

The work needs to really be something that's a social good and isn't taking jobs away from other people. I think things along the lines of doing laundry and similar for servicemen and women. The public won't have much patience for anyone with taxpayer funded time on their hands who can't spare a few hours to help 'our boys'.

This should only be people that appear to be settling into a long-term period/lifetime of unemployment.

The question is does a person who loses their job lose the protection of the minimum wage laws and other laws that protect people in the workplace?

I don't think there would be much objection to people being paid to work- it's when they are working but not being paid the legal minimum that such work requires that the slavery issue arises. It's the slippery slope argument: If we define the unemployed as having less legal rights than the employed we have taken a step down a path that does have quite serious implications.

Having created our underclass of unemployed- and established that their legal status is not the same as that of an employed person we could then treat them as a resource-they could be relocated to areas where labour is required, they could be used to reward those who contribute to our political campaigns by supplying cheap labour for their business's ect.

It's the erosion of the legal status of the unemployed that is the most sinister aspect of the current fashion for trashing this group. In a world where structural unemployment in the west may well become a permanent feature, it's a dangerous notion that those without work are to be designated as having less legal rights than the majority.

[SNACR]

The question is does a person who loses their job lose the protection of the minimum wage laws and other laws that protect people in the workplace?

I don't think there would be much objection to people being paid to work- it's when they are working but not being paid the legal minimum that such work requires that the slavery issue arises. It's the slippery slope argument: If we define the unemployed as having less legal rights than the employed we have taken a step down a path that does have quite serious implications.

Having created our underclass of unemployed- and established that their legal status is not the same as that of an employed person we could then treat them as a resource-they could be relocated to areas where labour is required, they could be used to reward those who contribute to our political campaigns by supplying cheap labour for their business's ect.

It's the erosion of the legal status of the unemployed that is the most sinister aspect of the current fashion for trashing this group. In a world where structural unemployment in the west may well become a permanent feature, it's a dangerous notion that those without work are to be designated as having less legal rights than the majority.

They should only do 'work' there is no real monetary profit from for any either private or public sector body. It is very hard to think of much that wouldn't create market distortions though.

The minimum wage is a fetish of middle-class hand-wringers that neither earn it or employ anybody at that rate. Before 1999 there was no minimum wage and it seems to already being misremembered as some sort of Hogarthian unenlightened period - yet there's no evidence the lot of a low wage shelf-stacker has improved post 1999.

As long as the work is not replacing paid roles the pay is immaterial and if it's insufficient that implies that benefits must be too.

[wonderpup]

They should only do 'work' there is no real monetary profit from for any either private or public sector body. It is very hard to think of much that wouldn't create market distortions though.

The minimum wage is a fetish of middle-class hand-wringers that neither earn it or employ anybody at that rate. Before 1999 there was no minimum wage and it seems to already being misremembered as some sort of Hogarthian unenlightened period - yet there's no evidence the lot of a low wage shelf-stacker has improved post 1999.

As long as the work is not replacing paid roles the pay is immaterial and if it's insufficient that implies that benefits must be too.

The point you don't address is the one I made- if we agree that unemployed people are to be denied the legal protections enjoyed by everyone else we are in effect creating a class of people who are designated as inferior before the law- breaching a basic principle of justice.

If this same tactic were applied to another group- say black people- there would be outrage. So long as the minimum wage remains in place forcing unemployed people to work for less than that amount is to create a class of people for whom the protection of the law is weakened- this has bad historical resonances for me which is why I would and do oppose it.

[madpenguin]

The point you don't address is the one I made- if we agree that unemployed people are to be denied the legal protections enjoyed by everyone else we are in effect creating a class of people who are designated as inferior before the law- breaching a basic principle of justice.

If this same tactic were applied to another group- say black people- there would be outrage. So long as the minimum wage remains in place forcing unemployed people to work for less than that amount is to create a class of people for whom the protection of the law is weakened- this has bad historical resonances for me which is why I would and do oppose it.

Not a problem the people behind this kind of crap will just increase the taunting and floggings until morale improves :angry:

[Ulfar]

Not a problem the people behind this kind of crap will just increase the taunting and floggings until morale improves :angry:

I assume you are being sarcastic, but some extremists could take this seriously.

However in the past it doesn't work out in the long run. Now it wouldn't work as we are a consumerist society more than we ever have been in the past, slave aren't consumers.

[Traktion]

Slavery is just wrong. Why even try to defend it?

[Traktion]

The point you don't address is the one I made- if we agree that unemployed people are to be denied the legal protections enjoyed by everyone else we are in effect creating a class of people who are designated as inferior before the law- breaching a basic principle of justice.

If this same tactic were applied to another group- say black people- there would be outrage. So long as the minimum wage remains in place forcing unemployed people to work for less than that amount is to create a class of people for whom the protection of the law is weakened- this has bad historical resonances for me which is why I would and do oppose it.

That legal 'protection' is one of the many reasons why people are unemployed in the first place.

While slavery is clearly wrong, preventing people earning a living, due to state 'protection' being in place, is also wrong too.

[madpenguin]

I assume you are being sarcastic, but some extremists could take this seriously.

However in the past it doesn't work out in the long run. Now it wouldn't work as we are a consumerist society more than we ever have been in the past, slave aren't consumers.

Extremists wouldn't need a one line throwaway sarcastic remark on an internet forum to come up with the same idea or worse.

Of course it wouldn't work, and the ghost of Marie Antoinette could tell you how this is going to end up for the people who tried to impose this

Edited April 1, 2012 by madpenguin

[Debbie568]

The question is does a person who loses their job lose the protection of the minimum wage laws and other laws that protect people in the workplace?

I don't think there would be much objection to people being paid to work- it's when they are working but not being paid the legal minimum that such work requires that the slavery issue arises. It's the slippery slope argument: If we define the unemployed as having less legal rights than the employed we have taken a step down a path that does have quite serious implications.

Having created our underclass of unemployed- and established that their legal status is not the same as that of an employed person we could then treat them as a resource-they could be relocated to areas where labour is required, they could be used to reward those who contribute to our political campaigns by supplying cheap labour for their business's ect.

It's the erosion of the legal status of the unemployed that is the most sinister aspect of the current fashion for trashing this group. In a world where structural unemployment in the west may well become a permanent feature, it's a dangerous notion that those without work are to be designated as having less legal rights than the majority.

+1. I would be fine with work for the dole provided that the amount of work was restricted to whatever is the dole, minus the expenses of getting to and from the said work, divided by the minimum wage. What I don't like is the unemployed being required to work full time at the likes of Tesco for the dole. I never shop at Tesco now. I refuse to support companies that indulge in slave labour.

[Guest spp]

The path to enslavement.

Be a good little citizen that allows us to monitor your web access and we'll top up your RFID chip with a few extra slaveville credits.

Drip..drip...it's coming!

[wonderpup]

That legal 'protection' is one of the many reasons why people are unemployed in the first place.

While slavery is clearly wrong, preventing people earning a living, due to state 'protection' being in place, is also wrong too.

Does your definition of 'earning a living' mean earning less than the minimum required to live?

There is this weird notion that so long as some payment is offered in exchange for work, the level of that payment is irrelevant. But it's clear that to live in any given time and place will require a minimum amount of income that is set by the cost of living in that place.

So, for example, if the only work available to you pays the grand sum of 50 pounds a week, and the lowest rent you can find is 100 pounds a week then that work is unviable- it simply does not pay enough to enable you to function as a member of society.

To suggest that a rule that insists that no full time work be offered that pays below that viable minimum is somehow a restriction of 'freedom' is to pervert the very notion of freedom itself- unless the freedom to live on the streets is one you feel is worth defending.

The freedom you appear to want to protect here is the freedom of the powerful to exploit their fellow citizens.

[RufflesTheGuineaPig]

You all/most seem to misunderstand the problem.

The biggest benefit the unemployed receive actually goes to their landlord - they get their rent paid.

If you bring the cost of putting a roof over your families head down, you make it worth working.

The problem is house prices.

[Traktion]

Does your definition of 'earning a living' mean earning less than the minimum required to live?

There is this weird notion that so long as some payment is offered in exchange for work, the level of that payment is irrelevant. But it's clear that to live in any given time and place will require a minimum amount of income that is set by the cost of living in that place.

So, for example, if the only work available to you pays the grand sum of 50 pounds a week, and the lowest rent you can find is 100 pounds a week then that work is unviable- it simply does not pay enough to enable you to function as a member of society.

To suggest that a rule that insists that no full time work be offered that pays below that viable minimum is somehow a restriction of 'freedom' is to pervert the very notion of freedom itself- unless the freedom to live on the streets is one you feel is worth defending.

The freedom you appear to want to protect here is the freedom of the powerful to exploit their fellow citizens.

Our minimum wage is about the same as the global average wage (http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/index.php?showtopic=177006). Clearly, you can live on far less than NMW, as long as 'protection' isn't provided by the state.

Without planning permission, there are ample places to build shelter, which would cost far less than are currently available. However, the 'protection' the state offers prevents this basic freedom.

Worst of all, you assume that by decreeing that all businesses must pay at least NMW, it will mean all will earn the minimum needed to survive. You fail to comprehend that this will not work, any more than King Canute's attempts to hold back the tides.

Price fixing doesn't work. Capping prices just results in a restriction of supply. Jobs disappear, either replaced by machines or exported to where they are viable. The result? People with no jobs, due to a futile attempt to enforce higher prices than the market can take. They're then forced onto benefits and then into slave labour to pay for it.

The so called 'protection' just impoverishes even more people. If you want to genuinely empower people, you need to remove the state 'protection', primarily from the land owners and the corporations. However, you also need to remove the 'protection' foisted on people, preventing them from providing for themselves.

[Debbie568]

That legal 'protection' is one of the many reasons why people are unemployed in the first place.

While slavery is clearly wrong, preventing people earning a living, due to state 'protection' being in place, is also wrong too.

No one is prevented from earning their own living. People are free to set up shop already and work for whatever they want to work per hour. The self employed often work for less than the minimum wage. Take a look around our markets. I see people who don't own cars come on buses with a couple of suitcases full of stuff to sell, and rent a table/spot when they get there. I was at an auction yesterday where there were a number of dealers buying goods for resale, included a few disabled ones. I hope they make at least the NMW from their efforts, but if they don't that's their choice.

What I object to is the income guarantee, which was originally intended to guarantee pensioners a certain standard of living, being rolled out to the wider population. We are now at the point where the self employed can elect to work full time, earn £1 a week, or make a loss, and then get paid the maximum housing benefit/various tax credits that people who work full time and have low earnings are currently entitled to. Yes, that's their choice and if they would rather work than not work, good on them, but why should other taxpayers supplement their choice when they choose to neither work hard enough nor smart enough to earn at least the NMW?

While I would agree that licensing is so often used to bar people from entry into certain businesses, at the same time there are businesses that people are pouring into (Romanians selling Big Issue comes to mind) which probably wouldn't provide enough to live on even if the person worked full time hours, but which unlock the doors to a plethora of benefits the person might not otherwise have been entitled to.

Self employment is fun, imho. It's great not having a boss. But surely it's a case of all care and no responsibility if you don't set out to, and eventually earn within a reasonable space of time, enough to support yourself.

[Debbie568]

Does your definition of 'earning a living' mean earning less than the minimum required to live?

There is this weird notion that so long as some payment is offered in exchange for work, the level of that payment is irrelevant. But it's clear that to live in any given time and place will require a minimum amount of income that is set by the cost of living in that place.

So, for example, if the only work available to you pays the grand sum of 50 pounds a week, and the lowest rent you can find is 100 pounds a week then that work is unviable- it simply does not pay enough to enable you to function as a member of society.

To suggest that a rule that insists that no full time work be offered that pays below that viable minimum is somehow a restriction of 'freedom' is to pervert the very notion of freedom itself- unless the freedom to live on the streets is one you feel is worth defending.

The freedom you appear to want to protect here is the freedom of the powerful to exploit their fellow citizens.

I would agree with you if it were not for the welfare state. As things currently stand, provided you work for some consideration you can get access to funding from other taxpayers that the state will ensure is provided to you. It's not actually necessary to be involved in a profitable venture to achieve this, much less to be paid the NMW. Take fruit picking. When you go and harvest fruit you are not employed by the farmer. You are self employed and paid according to the weight that you pick. It really makes no difference how much or little you make. If you're not very good at it and hardly make anything, you get the maximum benefits that you are entitled to.

The only way I can see this changing is if we flip it around and move to New York's method of welfare, i.e. that you can only get access to welfare if you work x number of hours for at least the minimum wage and can prove it.

[Vagabond]

The problem is there is not enough work to go around. All the farming and all the manufacturing combined only account for 10% of the workforce. We are just so darned efficient now we do not much labour to meet all our needs. The problem is one of the distribution of that work. We could solve this by making it a crime to work more than 10 hours a week.

This. There simply isn't enough work for everyone to have a job. As the state has taken away the basic rights needed to live without a job (IE land laws etc) the state has to then provide the means to live for those people unlucky enough to be unemployed. That or civil uprising are your choices.

Now I agree that if you don't wish to work, you shouldn't have a comparable or better lifestyle to those that do, but the fact our benefit system is massively complex and unfair isn't the fault of the unemployed but the state, thats where your anger should be directed.

[Traktion]

No one is prevented from earning their own living. People are free to set up shop already and work for whatever they want to work per hour. The self employed often work for less than the minimum wage. Take a look around our markets. I see people who don't own cars come on buses with a couple of suitcases full of stuff to sell, and rent a table/spot when they get there. I was at an auction yesterday where there were a number of dealers buying goods for resale, included a few disabled ones. I hope they make at least the NMW from their efforts, but if they don't that's their choice.

Working for someone is essentially renting their means of production. If you argue that they can't rent another's means of production (below an arbitrary price point), but they can create their own, it is still putting them at a disadvantage.

i

What I object to is the income guarantee, which was originally intended to guarantee pensioners a certain standard of living, being rolled out to the wider population. We are now at the point where the self employed can elect to work full time, earn £1 a week, or make a loss, and then get paid the maximum housing benefit/various tax credits that people who work full time and have low earnings are currently entitled to. Yes, that's their choice and if they would rather work than not work, good on them, but why should other taxpayers supplement their choice when they choose to neither work hard enough nor smart enough to earn at least the NMW?

While I would agree that licensing is so often used to bar people from entry into certain businesses, at the same time there are businesses that people are pouring into (Romanians selling Big Issue comes to mind) which probably wouldn't provide enough to live on even if the person worked full time hours, but which unlock the doors to a plethora of benefits the person might not otherwise have been entitled to.

Self employment is fun, imho. It's great not having a boss. But surely it's a case of all care and no responsibility if you don't set out to, and eventually earn within a reasonable space of time, enough to support yourself.

When there is legislation to prevent people from working and sheltering themselves, they should at least give them basic support.

However, I would rather people were allowed to work at any price, for who they like and when they like. I would rather people could build shelter, cheaply, where and when they wanted it too. What we need is less 'protection' and more freedom to associate as we wish to.

P.S. I did run my own business for several years. When the recession came, I decided it was more profitable to work for someone else (ie. to rent their means of production). I may work for myself again in the future, should the right opportunities present themselves.

[Traktion]

I would agree with you if it were not for the welfare state. As things currently stand, provided you work for some consideration you can get access to funding from other taxpayers that the state will ensure is provided to you. It's not actually necessary to be involved in a profitable venture to achieve this, much less to be paid the NMW. Take fruit picking. When you go and harvest fruit you are not employed by the farmer. You are self employed and paid according to the weight that you pick. It really makes no difference how much or little you make. If you're not very good at it and hardly make anything, you get the maximum benefits that you are entitled to.

If you try going self employed in IT, they can claim IR35 infringements. You then have the choice to become an employee (complete with 'protection') or to pay employer NI, as well as employee NI too.

The only way I can see this changing is if we flip it around and move to New York's method of welfare, i.e. that you can only get access to welfare if you work x number of hours for at least the minimum wage and can prove it.

That's getting close to what unemployment insurance provides - you pay your premium and they pay out for a contracted period, if you lose your job.

[PopGun]

A useful blue sky thought experiment is to think what things would be like if we just scrapped dole altogether - unemployed? Tough you starve!

In that situation would a minimum wage still seem like a good idea?

When you think about it this way you realise the point of the min wage is to effectively say to employers "you need to pay X amount more than the dole, otherwise we will continue having to support all the people who don't want to work 40 hours to only bring home an extra 50p"

The US are finding out the hard way that you can't have a consumer based economy when 20% of the population don't have a job, and most of the other 80% are too $hit scared to spend it or simply don't earn enough.

This is why the BRIC economies won't work long term without implementing structured social security/welfare systems…which of course will bring its own problems. #catch22

Edited April 2, 2012 by PopGun

[wonderpup]

What always gets overlooked in these 'right to work' debates is the reality that the free market system wants to eliminate jobs, not create them. The ideal scenario from capitals point of view is a frictionless production environment in which labour has been eliminated and entirely replaced by machines.

Of course there is a problem with this fantasy which is the need for demand. But the idiots who coined the term 'supply side economics' seemed to think that demand was an indestructible force of nature that they could safely forget about. The fallacy in this assumption is only now becoming clear.