Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Working For Unemployment Benefit


Recommended Posts

I think Damik is arguing that the state already employs millions of people in schools, the NHS et.c - and these state employees take the jobs of millions of "private" teachers and health employees etc. - and therefore, if workfare displaced jobs, we should see mass unemployment of these millions of displaced "private" workers - and the fact that we aren't seeing this is the proof that workfare doesn't displace jobs. It's too hard for me to understand! but I'm sure it can't be right!

Really? What a daft argument.

I know dozens of doctors and nurses that do both state and private work (or have done) - ditto teachers. If anything they do better for having both state and private potential employers.

Comparing professional qualified workers with NMW workers is daft anyway.

If you displace NMW workers with free workers the displaced NMW workers need alternative work. What is that supposed to be exactly?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 232
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I think Damik is arguing that the state already employs millions of people in schools, the NHS et.c - and these state employees take the jobs of millions of "private" teachers and health employees etc. - and therefore, if workfare displaced jobs, we should see mass unemployment of these millions of displaced "private" workers - and the fact that we aren't seeing this is the proof that workfare doesn't displace jobs. It's too hard for me to understand! but I'm sure it can't be right!

If mandatory work schemes gain any significant traction then we may very well see the majority of those doing the work being on benefits. If we rely on the would be employer to tell us what is a 'real' job in the traditional sense or a supposedly non-job 'experience' then they will just tell us it is merely experience for which the person should be grateful. I call a spade a spade. If it looks like a job then it probably is despite semantics. In any event people can gain experience doing simple tasks and be employed. It is these starter jobs that will be re-purposed to begin with. It is a similar thing with internships. There are genuine ones and then there are ones that look like what would have been starter jobs but for which you are either paid nothing or are given 'expenses'.

I don't have a problem with the state employing these people to do the jobs, but it must be in line with NMW law. It's not about people being lazy as Damik suggests or other prejudices about the unemployed. His statements are offensive and to me mean that if you don't want to be exploited then you are a waste of space. It's not about the type of job for me. It's the fact that we are creating a new category of people who are doing real work but are not deemed worthy enough of having any rights or being paid the legal minimum, which anyway is a pittance.

'getting something for nothing' is also the wrong way of looking at it and is quite selfish despite the pretence of caring about public money. It is a socialized system we pay tax for. Have each of us truly paid on an individual level for all the hospital treatments, schooling etc. that we could hypothetically calculate? Once you try to make this calculation then it breaks down. Higher education for e.g used to be free. Think about all the benefits that 'getting something for nothing' can bring society instead of just the negatives. We are led down the road towards private provision and insurance, which is I think deliberate.

There should only be two situations for e.g take a simple claim from a single person:

1. You are receiving benefits and are expected to look for work. If you want to volunteer for experience then that is good, as long as it is mainly shadowing etc. and not a job - in which case go to 2. If the state/private wants to guarantee you a job you are obligated to take then also go to 2.

2. You are employed by either the state or a private entity and are paid at least NMW and associated rights.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Damik, I'll tell you why many of the unemployed sit at home doing nothing. They have little choice unless they break the law.

Doesn't take long for lack of motivation to set in and while I agree they 'should' be out there doing something, for their own good, not as a punishment. imo the 'should' must come from them and not be forced onto them. In the minds of most people, work = reward and if we do an activity for it's own reward, then we call it fun, not work.

A guy I know of had a little 'earner' looking after a couple of guard dogs. He'd turn up every day, clean up the mess in the back yard, then take them out for a walk. About 40 minutes a day. The shopkeeper then gave him a small packet of tobacco. The snoopers turned up one day and his neighbour told them he was at work.

Full on sh*t storm followed and he went for about 3 months on £20/week hardship allowance. By the time his dole was reinstated he looked terrible, horribly thin.

Many people on the dole are wary of doing anything 'productive' in case it is viewed as work and they end up on hardship benefit.

Another vote here for the citizens/social wage. Corporate seems to have forgotten that their customers need to have some disposable income in order to buy tat and every adult being given say 25% of NAW would be a consumer base immune from recession. No more HB, WTC, JSA, state pensions etc. and rents get to find their true level.

Here's a scary look at automation:

http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm

Link to post
Share on other sites

A few stats on the labour market.

Including;

JSA claimants per unfilled jobcentre vacancy 3.5

Not enough jobs to go around. I'd be more than happy for a scheme to pay people who were unemployed to work as long as they were paid NMW for everything they did. Just because they are unemployed doesn't make them any less human than anyone else in the country.

In reality though, we don't pay them £70 a week for nothing. We pay them £70 so they don't come around, steal your stuff and eat your children. Anyone who has anything at all to lose in society should view this payment as absolutely necessary and value for money.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A few stats on the labour market.

Including;

Not enough jobs to go around. I'd be more than happy for a scheme to pay people who were unemployed to work as long as they were paid NMW for everything they did. Just because they are unemployed doesn't make them any less human than anyone else in the country.

In reality though, we don't pay them £70 a week for nothing. We pay them £70 so they don't come around, steal your stuff and eat your children. Anyone who has anything at all to lose in society should view this payment as absolutely necessary and value for money.

Indeed. There's also the argument around structural unemployment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1/ I don't have a problem with the state employing these people to do the jobs, but it must be in line with NMW law.

2/ It's not about people being lazy as Damik suggests or other prejudices about the unemployed. His statements are offensive.

1/ anybody on JSA with at least one child is getting much more than the NMW

2/ I have never published anything you claim. Please prove your "claim"

---------------------------------------

so in general you agree with the workforce; great ...

Link to post
Share on other sites

2/ I have never published anything you claim. Please prove your "claim"

Right.. Lets see if we can find a subtone in the following quotes.

They do not give you a human right to sit at home doing nothing and receive money.

yes, people on the dole who do not want to work in PoundShop..

giving people a chance to work in a shop instead of sitting at home..

people should provide services to other people. sitting at home and watching TV is not one of them.

and you should thank me; sitting at home and watching TV / playing xbox is the biggest killer - depression, obesity, alcohol ebuse, etc

sitting at home idle is not normal

the moral bottom is that sitting at home idle is wrong and it will also badly effect your mental and physical health

Maybe its just me, but it does indeed seem like you have a view of what the unemployed are doing rather than working.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Right.. Lets see if we can find a subtone in the following quotes.

Maybe its just me, but it does indeed seem like you have a view of what the unemployed are doing rather than working.

1/ great; so your statement about me is not true: It's not about people being lazy as Damik suggests or other prejudices about the unemployed. His statements are offensive.

2/ yes; unemployed are not working; if they are working they would not be unemployed

Link to post
Share on other sites

If mandatory work schemes gain any significant traction then we may very well see the majority of those doing the work being on benefits. If we rely on the would be employer to tell us what is a 'real' job in the traditional sense or a supposedly non-job 'experience' then they will just tell us it is merely experience for which the person should be grateful. I call a spade a spade. If it looks like a job then it probably is despite semantics. In any event people can gain experience doing simple tasks and be employed. It is these starter jobs that will be re-purposed to begin with. It is a similar thing with internships. There are genuine ones and then there are ones that look like what would have been starter jobs but for which you are either paid nothing or are given 'expenses'.

Without NMW and other regulations, these benefit slaves would be on internships/apprenticeships. Moreover, it is the state planning laws which make NMW jobs appear poorly paid - NMW is above the global average pay, but unfortunately the price of shelter decimates this gain.

Either getting NMW or nothing creates a gap between these two price points. Those who would have taken a crappy job because it is better than nothing would have done so, gaining experience in the process. In addition, market demand would dictate when and where such jobs would exist, not some bureaucrats in Westminster/Whitehall.

I don't have a problem with the state employing these people to do the jobs, but it must be in line with NMW law. It's not about people being lazy as Damik suggests or other prejudices about the unemployed. His statements are offensive and to me mean that if you don't want to be exploited then you are a waste of space. It's not about the type of job for me. It's the fact that we are creating a new category of people who are doing real work but are not deemed worthy enough of having any rights or being paid the legal minimum, which anyway is a pittance.

If the market cannot find economic jobs for someone on NMW, what hope does the state have? Do you seriously think that the state can find efficiency gains where the market has failed? Do you really think that they can identify key areas of demand, where voluntary trades have been unable to?

The only way the state could possibly pay NMW to these individuals would be via subsidies to cover the difference. How is that sustainable? Considering the state will almost certainly do a worse job at resource allocation (lack of price signals etc), this would be utter folly.

'getting something for nothing' is also the wrong way of looking at it and is quite selfish despite the pretence of caring about public money. It is a socialized system we pay tax for. Have each of us truly paid on an individual level for all the hospital treatments, schooling etc. that we could hypothetically calculate? Once you try to make this calculation then it breaks down. Higher education for e.g used to be free. Think about all the benefits that 'getting something for nothing' can bring society instead of just the negatives. We are led down the road towards private provision and insurance, which is I think deliberate.

There should only be two situations for e.g take a simple claim from a single person:

1. You are receiving benefits and are expected to look for work. If you want to volunteer for experience then that is good, as long as it is mainly shadowing etc. and not a job - in which case go to 2. If the state/private wants to guarantee you a job you are obligated to take then also go to 2.

2. You are employed by either the state or a private entity and are paid at least NMW and associated rights.

And what is wrong with such a road? Voluntary association is far more preferable to forced association. Threatening people until they do as you wish seems pretty barbaric to me, tbh.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A few stats on the labour market.

Including;

Not enough jobs to go around. I'd be more than happy for a scheme to pay people who were unemployed to work as long as they were paid NMW for everything they did. Just because they are unemployed doesn't make them any less human than anyone else in the country.

In reality though, we don't pay them £70 a week for nothing. We pay them £70 so they don't come around, steal your stuff and eat your children. Anyone who has anything at all to lose in society should view this payment as absolutely necessary and value for money.

While that may be the reality, it demonstrates just how rotten our society has become.

The system paints these people into a corner. It is unsurprising that they may lash out. Placating them with subsistence money, rather than treating the problem of societal breakdown, isn't really tackling the problem.

Link to post
Share on other sites

While that may be the reality, it demonstrates just how rotten our society has become.

The system paints these people into a corner. It is unsurprising that they may lash out. Placating them with subsistence money, rather than treating the problem of societal breakdown, isn't really tackling the problem.

I do not understand where is this argument of £70 pw comming from. As this is applicable to only single people and under 25 years only.

If you are over 25 you are alligable for housing benefit. If you have family you will get even more; including higher JSA.

Plus as on the dole you will get council tax exemption, etc ...

http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/wales/benefits_w/benefits_benefits_in_work_or_looking_for_work_ew/benefits_for_people_looking_for_work.htm#other_benefits_while_you_are_on_jobseeker%E2%80%99s_allowance

Other benefits while you are on Jobseeker’s Allowance

If you are getting Jobseeker’s Allowance, you may be able to get other benefits or help with other costs. If you are on income-based Jobseeker’s Allowance, you will be able to get maximum Housing Benefit (to help with rent) and you should be able to get some Council Tax Reduction (which reduces your Council Tax bill). You will also be entitled to other help, for example, free prescriptions, free school meals for your children, and help with the costs of a new-born baby. If you are on contribution-based Jobseeker’s Allowance, you may be entitled to some of these benefits and help, depending on your income.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

if we want to talk about a real slavery we should focus on people who actually work for the NMW instead ...

Link to post
Share on other sites
you will be able to get maximum Housing Benefit (to help with rent)

Yes it helps but it doesn't cover it. It's £65/week here on a one bedroom flat, my rent was more like £100 a week and until you get a real job (not a work placement) you won't be able to find somewhere cheaper, that's if there is anywhere cheaper, as housing benefit is set at the third percentile of local rents they've rigged it so the majority of people have to use their JSA/ESA maybe even DLA in some cases to cover their housing costs.

you should be able to get some Council Tax Reduction (which reduces your Council Tax bill).

Council tax benefit was abolished recently, now local authorities are responsible for financing it. Most authorities ask people on these benefits to pay 25% council tax. That may not sound like much but with the other changes it adds up.

, free prescriptions

True but there are exceptions.

free school meals for your children, and help with the costs of a new-born baby.

This I've no idea as I don't have kids.

If you are on contribution-based Jobseeker’s Allowance, you may be entitled to some of these benefits and help, depending on your income.

This is the bit I hate the most because it's what justifies the vitriol directed at people in the other category.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes it helps but it doesn't cover it. It's £65/week here on a one bedroom flat,

This is meant to say on a shared room sorry for under 35s. It's effectively true though for people living in one bedroom flats though, I can imagine some people are probably stuck in that situation too after the shared room rate came in. Either they've found a job, been evicted because of the huge shortfall in rent or they've found some overpriced dive shared house accommodation to move into whilst unemployed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not understand where is this argument of £70 pw comming from. As this is applicable to only single people and under 25 years only.

If you are over 25 you are alligable for housing benefit. If you have family you will get even more; including higher JSA.

Plus as on the dole you will get council tax exemption, etc ...

http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/wales/benefits_w/benefits_benefits_in_work_or_looking_for_work_ew/benefits_for_people_looking_for_work.htm#other_benefits_while_you_are_on_jobseeker%E2%80%99s_allowance

Other benefits while you are on Jobseeker’s Allowance

If you are getting Jobseeker’s Allowance, you may be able to get other benefits or help with other costs. If you are on income-based Jobseeker’s Allowance, you will be able to get maximum Housing Benefit (to help with rent) and you should be able to get some Council Tax Reduction (which reduces your Council Tax bill). You will also be entitled to other help, for example, free prescriptions, free school meals for your children, and help with the costs of a new-born baby. If you are on contribution-based Jobseeker’s Allowance, you may be entitled to some of these benefits and help, depending on your income.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

if we want to talk about a real slavery we should focus on people who actually work for the NMW instead ...

The amount is beside the point. It's the fact that people need to be paid off to stop them going on the rampage.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And what is wrong with such a road? Voluntary association is far more preferable to forced association. Threatening people until they do as you wish seems pretty barbaric to me, tbh.

Exactly, it's not like we're saying that sitting home doing nothing is a good thing or that we don't want people to look for work but doing it in the manner this government is doing is so socially destructive. It gets peoples backs up no end because believe it or not, the majority of people in this country want to work and provide a positive contribution to society.

The government need to give people the benefit of the doubt, a bit of humanity wouldn't go amiss but I think successive policies over the years have taken their toll on people, housing policy particularly as many people on here I'm sure would agree.

Link to post
Share on other sites

While that may be the reality, it demonstrates just how rotten our society has become.

The system paints these people into a corner. It is unsurprising that they may lash out. Placating them with subsistence money, rather than treating the problem of societal breakdown, isn't really tackling the problem.

this is my motivation to replace the benefit payments (seen as a stigma) by protected and guranteed work for NMW - for the state or sociaty

so you can always work for NMW for state or private sector; and then grow up in your profession

this would have a plenty of benefits:

- minimal abuse and fraud

- no motivation to grow more children for money

- no inflation preassures

- etc ...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Damik, I'll tell you why many of the unemployed sit at home doing nothing. They have little choice unless they break the law.

Doesn't take long for lack of motivation to set in and while I agree they 'should' be out there doing something, for their own good, not as a punishment. imo the 'should' must come from them and not be forced onto them. In the minds of most people, work = reward and if we do an activity for it's own reward, then we call it fun, not work.

A guy I know of had a little 'earner' looking after a couple of guard dogs. He'd turn up every day, clean up the mess in the back yard, then take them out for a walk. About 40 minutes a day. The shopkeeper then gave him a small packet of tobacco. The snoopers turned up one day and his neighbour told them he was at work.

Full on sh*t storm followed and he went for about 3 months on £20/week hardship allowance. By the time his dole was reinstated he looked terrible, horribly thin.

Many people on the dole are wary of doing anything 'productive' in case it is viewed as work and they end up on hardship benefit.

Another vote here for the citizens/social wage. Corporate seems to have forgotten that their customers need to have some disposable income in order to buy tat and every adult being given say 25% of NAW would be a consumer base immune from recession. No more HB, WTC, JSA, state pensions etc. and rents get to find their true level.

Here's a scary look at automation:

http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm

I thought was precisely the sort of thing that UC was meant to solve?

Someone had a good idea in the comments of one of the papers. Let people keep their benefit and tax any work done on top at 50%, ie not applying the tax free allowance for as long as the benefit is being claimed.

To prevent people doing some work they can get, while the government know statistically there is not enough job offers to go around, seems bizarre.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On a related point, one other thing that gets my goat is how travel expenses to the job centre are not covered.

I know of people living in isolated towns who have to travel over 10 miles to the nearest job centre and are expected to pay the bus fare out of their JSA. It just adds insult to injury, they expect you to find a job but won't even cover the cost of getting to the job centre.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought was precisely the sort of thing that UC was meant to solve?

Someone had a good idea in the comments of one of the papers. Let people keep their benefit and tax any work done on top at 50%, ie not applying the tax free allowance for as long as the benefit is being claimed.

To prevent people doing some work they can get, while the government know statistically there is not enough job offers to go around, seems bizarre.

That's a good idea.

Tax credits get slated on here (mainly the with kids limited work element I think) but the £40 a week I got from TC when setting out on my own kept me in bread and water for the first 18-24 months. Without them I would probably still be bouncing in and out of part time work and the dole in my local area (no jobs other than seasonal work). People will say "well move then" but with no money, skills, or family that's not an option.

Getting back into work from benefits is a long hard slog, and we should do all we can to encourage folk to take risks and seek any work at all without threat of negative financial implications.

How you then encourage them to give up benefits full stop is the key. Traditionally that was a mortgage when houses were more affordable...

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a good idea.

Tax credits get slated on here (mainly the with kids limited work element I think) but the £40 a week I got from TC when setting out on my own kept me in bread and water for the first 18-24 months. Without them I would probably still be bouncing in and out of part time work and the dole in my local area (no jobs other than seasonal work). People will say "well move then" but with no money, skills, or family that's not an option.

Getting back into work from benefits is a long hard slog, and we should do all we can to encourage folk to take risks and seek any work at all without threat of negative financial implications.

How you then encourage them to give up benefits full stop is the key. Traditionally that was a mortgage when houses were more affordable...

Agree with you there.Tax credits are a decent system until you get to children.The massive problem is that they keep adding on amounts per child,per disability etc.If they replaced with a one size family tax credit it would solve most of the problems.The problem is getting a government to have the guts to do it.

Instead they prefer to abuse the single unemployed/couples who get very little in benefits.

If you could do real time monthly claims on tax credits,and replace child tax credit elements with a single family element (same if you have one child or 10) then that would mostly solve the welfare problem.

Citizens income is the only long term answer.The problem is it needs to be set much lower than the level most benefit families now get so its very difficult to bring in due to the short term mass hardship it would cause.(a large part of that hardship to the BTL brigade).

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought was precisely the sort of thing that UC was meant to solve?

Someone had a good idea in the comments of one of the papers. Let people keep their benefit and tax any work done on top at 50%, ie not applying the tax free allowance for as long as the benefit is being claimed.

To prevent people doing some work they can get, while the government know statistically there is not enough job offers to go around, seems bizarre.

I think that it was the original idea behind the UC, but because of the extensive BBC, Guardian, Labour propaganda it was descoped.

I remember BBC running stories, how the rich with 45% tax are better off than people on reduced benefits; like it would make any sense; just to win elections

Edited by Damik
Link to post
Share on other sites
You only need to read through this thread to understand why some employers prefer to recruit from Poland. It's fortunate that we have so many migrant workers willing to work and pay taxes to support those that choose welfare as a lifestyle.

But you would agree that those workers from Poland should have the same legal rights as everyone else I would guess.

We can't have a minimum wage and workfare if workfare means that people are being employed at less then the minimum wage- because this creates the very 'underclass' that pillocks like Ian Duncan Smith claim they want to get rid of.

Link to post
Share on other sites

this is my motivation to replace the benefit payments (seen as a stigma) by protected and guranteed work for NMW - for the state or sociaty

so you can always work for NMW for state or private sector; and then grow up in your profession

this would have a plenty of benefits:

- minimal abuse and fraud

- no motivation to grow more children for money

- no inflation preassures

- etc ...

This seems to be the opposite extreme from Citizens Income. Who decides what is "valid" work? What happens if you don't work in such an approved job?

Citizens Income has the same efect but it puts the power and decision making into the hands of every individual rather than into the hands of the beurocracy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This seems to be the opposite extreme from Citizens Income. Who decides what is "valid" work? What happens if you don't work in such an approved job?

Citizens Income has the same efect but it puts the power and decision making into the hands of every individual rather than into the hands of the beurocracy.

- why would you work if you are comfortable with the citizen income?

- would not you have more kids to collect more money?

- how do you finance it for 60 000 000 UK citizens?

I really do not see how taking money from more productive to less productive makes the situation any better. it just creates more inflation so the one at the bottom are in the same situation as before.

"valid" work is any work, where the state, councils, charities or businesses have a demand for

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 433 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

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.