Low-Paid Temporary Workers To Lose Benefits For 'not Working Enough'

[@contradevian]

Yet a man in a 'normal' factory job could buy a house, raise a family and (qualifications being good enough) send the kids to university on a single wage.

Agreed 100%. Far better days.

[@contradevian]

Trade unions had looked after the rights of the working class. The German Labour Front now did this. However, Hitler was still fearful of large group of unemployed men existing in the fledgling Nazi state. In January 1933, he inherited an unemployment rate of 26.3%. This had the potential for long-term trouble. Therefore, job creation schemes were introduced. An individual had no choice about a job placement as anyone labelled 'work shy' was sent to prison. But such an approach brought down unemployment figures. By 1936, it had dropped to 8.3% - an 18% fall. Between 1936 and 1939, this 8.3% would be mopped up by conscription. Also women were no longer included in employment/unemployment figures, so the figure had to tumble.

Sound familiar?

(Sorry for Godwin'ing the thread!)

Edited September 8, 2013 by aSecureTenant

[Eddie_George]

The last time we had a full employment economy was about 40 years ago. Take the wages then and adjust for productivity. That's the true value of labour. On this basis my back of the fag packet calculations show that low end workers labour is actually worth about £12 per hour.

And how much should the average house be using this methodology?

[campervanman]

Ah, the glorious 1973. The year of the Austin Allegro, Price and Pay Controls, 8+% inflation, the Three-Day Week, and the run-up to needing an IMF bailout a few years later.

The 1970's were the point when trade unions became perceived by ordinary people as an obstruction to better living standards rather than an enabler. The point is rapidly being reached where the opposite is true.

[byron78]

The 1970's were the point when trade unions became perceived by ordinary people as an obstruction to better living standards rather than an enabler. The point is rapidly being reached where the opposite is true.

I'm there to be honest.

Was Tory throughout the 80s/90s. I'd consider Blair/Brown an extension of Thatcherism and that era too. If anything Liebour are even more perverse because they're free marketeer puppets in socialist clothing.

The 70s were shite, but after a 35 year swing to the right and middle I don't think things have got better for the majority. One thing I do know is that an even more extreme lurch to the right probably isn't the cure. This country is presently run by the rich for the rich with very little concern for the likes of you and me.

[Ah-so]

I'm there to be honest.

Was Tory throughout the 80s/90s. I'd consider Blair/Brown an extension of Thatcherism and that era too. If anything Liebour are even more perverse because they're free marketeer puppets in socialist clothing.

The 70s were shite, but after a 35 year swing to the right and middle I don't think things have got better for the majority. One thing I do know is that an even more extreme lurch to the right probably isn't the cure. This country is presently run by the rich for the rich with very little concern for the likes of you and me.

Blair particularly and Brown to some extent, accepted that rolling back the clock entirely was not going to be possible. However, there was a fairly large rise in the state as a percentage of GDP and a huge increase in public sector employment. All very 70s.

Also benefits started being increased. There was a rather bizarre period when 40% tax payers were entitled to means tested benefits through tax credits.

[durhamborn]

Blair particularly and Brown to some extent, accepted that rolling back the clock entirely was not going to be possible. However, there was a fairly large rise in the state as a percentage of GDP and a huge increase in public sector employment. All very 70s.

Also benefits started being increased. There was a rather bizarre period when 40% tax payers were entitled to means tested benefits through tax credits.

Brown introduced the family element of tax credits at around £40 a month so that the middle class would turn a blind eye to the tax credit system costing them in tax £30billion a year.

It was the first thing he talked about with Balls.How to sell tax credits to the people paying for it so they don't notice it brings up the lowest peoples wages in many cases up to within 80% of theirs.

Their answer was a family element everyone got.That is why the first thing this government did was to remove that and tail it on the end of other tax credits.That removed it from middle class families so now they have no skin in the game they join in the chorus that benefits need cutting.

[Ah-so]

Brown introduced the family element of tax credits at around £40 a month so that the middle class would turn a blind eye to the tax credit system costing them in tax £30billion a year.

It was the first thing he talked about with Balls.How to sell tax credits to the people paying for it so they don't notice it brings up the lowest peoples wages in many cases up to within 80% of theirs.

Their answer was a family element everyone got.That is why the first thing this government did was to remove that and tail it on the end of other tax credits.That removed it from middle class families so now they have no skin in the game they join in the chorus that benefits need cutting.

That sounds like a very plausible explanation.

Most hilariously there was no way to recover over payments except through the reduction in future payments. That is why there were appeals for people to tell them if their salaries rose. I doubt anyone did.

My entitlement dropped to zero so they had no way to get the money I owed back. I think I still technically owe about 500. Thanks Gordon (and all you tax payers).

However I will need to write the revenue a cheque for child benefit so they got their money back in the end.

[byron78]

Blair particularly and Brown to some extent, accepted that rolling back the clock entirely was not going to be possible. However, there was a fairly large rise in the state as a percentage of GDP and a huge increase in public sector employment. All very 70s.

Also benefits started being increased. There was a rather bizarre period when 40% tax payers were entitled to means tested benefits through tax credits.

Yep.

I'm of the opinion now you either have some level of state employment now or you accept some level of state benefits are neccesary - there are simply more people than private sector jobs.

All the 80s did really was reduce state employment and replace that with benefit culture.

The private sector is wonderful and should be encouraged, but there are the plenty of areas where I think it's unnecessary and actually just ends up costing us more (both in terms of employment/benefits, and the cost of the actual services). Making people work for benefits is really just state subsidied employment, albeit on a slave wage.

It's a fine line, but I think we've gone too far in the direction of "private is always right and public is always wrong". Far far too simplistic IMO. I think it's been used to outsource areas of policy that used to be in the public interest, and now they're privately owned the politicians can just hold up their hands and be appeased of any blame or responsibility.

As you say, Blair and Brown didn't reverse anything. God knows they dropped the ball on housing. We desperately need the state to contribute housing stock in this NIMBY run land. I think it might be easier for a government at some point in the future to bring some level of state employment back actually (3 out of 4 people apparently want British Rail back for instance - old stock and bad sandwiches being preferable to constantly rising prices and publicly subsidised fat cats).

[Lone_Twin]

The only time wages match actual value created is under a full employment economy, because that is the only point in time when workers are able to capture the true amount that owners of capital are willing to concede. Any more than that and capital will believe it is not receiving enough return for it's own inputs and will stop providing capital. Thus this means this is what capital truly believes workers labour is worth relative to their own inputs. Capital will of course take more than this if it can, but this is the true worth they ascribe to labour.

The last time we had a full employment economy was about 40 years ago. Take the wages then and adjust for productivity. That's the true value of labour. On this basis my back of the fag packet calculations show that low end workers labour is actually worth about £12 per hour.

Your premise is incorrect since it relies on labour input being 100% Fungible.

Which it patently is not.

[alexw]

And how much should the average house be using this methodology?

Since the cost of housing has always been based on the availability of credit rather than implicit input costs, it's impossible to say. But you'd expect it to take a slowly shrinking share of income if it were based on such costs rather than credit.

[alexw]

Ah, the glorious 1973. The year of the Austin Allegro, Price and Pay Controls, 8+% inflation, the Three-Day Week, and the run-up to needing an IMF bailout a few years later.

You mean the year the middle east oil embargo and dislocations from dropping off the gold standard hit and crucified our economy, as well as many others? What has that to do with full employment?

What problems did full employment cause in 1950, 1951, 1952, 1953, 1954, 1955, 1956, 1957, 1958, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969 and 1970?

The backdrop to the 1970's was outside shocks to our economy and some economic policy errors by various governments. This led to wages rising much slower than prices, which unions tried to counter by using strikes as a means to force wages to keep up.

I don't support what they did, and something did need to be done. But is what we have now any better? An out of control financial sector. Wages that have stagnated/fallen since about 2000. 1%ers at the same time filling their boots while telling everyone else to tighten their belts. Massive household debt as consumers tried to fill the income gap between wages and productivity. Middle class nimbys preventing housing being built for the younger masses. Etc. Etc.

Seems like its substantially worse to me.

Edited September 8, 2013 by alexw

[South Lorne]

You mean the year the middle east oil embargo and dislocations from dropping off the gold standard hit and crucified our economy, as well as many others? What has that to do with full employment?

What problems did full employment cause in 1950, 1951, 1952, 1953, 1954, 1955, 1956, 1957, 1958, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969 and 1970?

The backdrop to the 1970's was outside shocks to our economy and some economic policy errors by various governments. This led to wages rising much slower than prices, which unions tried to counter by using strikes as a means to force wages to keep up.

I don't support what they did, and something did need to be done. But is what we have now any better? An out of control financial sector. Wages that have stagnated/fallen since about 2000. 1%ers at the same time filling their boots while telling everyone else to tighten their belts. Massive household debt as consumers tried to fill the income gap between wages and productivity. Middle class nimbys preventing housing being built for the younger masses. Etc. Etc.

Seems like its substantially worse to me.

"Massive household debt as consumers tried to fill the income gap between wages and productivity."...no..."Massive household debt as" many consumers tried to keep up with the 'Joneses' buying stuff the didn't need to impress people they didn't like and fuelled by rabid high street bankers in streets near to you spading cash out the window to lend to them, while the FSA reporting to and set up by Gordon Brown looked the other way, while as Chancellor he claimed it was all 'sustainable growth' ...but in fact it was his almighty 'Boom and Bust'.....

[campervanman]

"Massive household debt as consumers tried to fill the income gap between wages and productivity."...no..."Massive household debt as" many consumers tried to keep up with the 'Joneses' buying stuff the didn't need to impress people they didn't like and fuelled by rabid high street bankers in streets near to you spading cash out the window to lend to them, while the FSA reporting to and set up by Gordon Brown looked the other way, while as Chancellor he claimed it was all 'sustainable growth' ...but in fact it was his almighty 'Boom and Bust'.....

The Blair government were elected 20 years too early. They had no choice but to attempt to continue with the money for nothing stuff that had gone before whilst at the same time attempting to bring about a fairer society. The money for nothing culture was always going to blow up whether the nothing came from selling off assets, spending oil and gas revenues or housing Ponzi.

In1997 the majority of voters still believed in the free market, trickle down myth and if Blair had gone to them saying that was it was all shite and would only end in tears for the majority then at that time nobody would have believed him.

We are now in a different situation, a situation where many more people now understand that free market trickle down money for nothing economics doesn't work for them.and are looking for something different.

Edited September 9, 2013 by campervanman

[durhamborn]

The Blair government were elected 20 years too early. They had no choice but to attempt to continue with the money for nothing stuff that had gone before whilst at the same time attempting to bring about a fairer society. The money for nothing culture was always going to blow up whether the nothing came from selling off assets, spending oil and gas revenues or housing Ponzi.

In1997 the majority of voters still believed in the free market, trickle down myth and if Blair had gone to them saying that was it was all shite and would only end in tears for the majority then at that time nobody would have believed him.

We are now in a different situation, a situation where many more people now understand that free market trickle down money for nothing economics doesn't work for them.and are looking for something different.

I knew Blair and my father knew him quite well on a personal level.It was the Iraq war that caused most of the damage.Blair lost/used so much political capital through backing Bush he didn't have enough left to keep Brown in check.

Blair knew Brown was a lunatic,and he was.Blair was desperate to sack him but simply didn't have the political cover after Iraq.

Brown and Balls were the two who went on the spending spree trying to create a socialist Jerusalem.

If Iraq hadn't happened Blair would of sacked Brown and its highly likely we wouldn't be in such a mess now.Labour made other huge mistakes in office of course (immigration for one),but it was Brown who destroyed their time in office.

Even now it is his legacy that has the front bench and unions at war.

The main parties now don't know how to deal with the fact people have seen through the trickle down/global policy for what it is.

The left had the best chance they have ever had to deal with it but were a huge failure and even speeded up the process.

[byron78]

The Blair government were elected 20 years too early. They had no choice but to attempt to continue with the money for nothing stuff that had gone before whilst at the same time attempting to bring about a fairer society. The money for nothing culture was always going to blow up whether the nothing came from selling off assets, spending oil and gas revenues or housing Ponzi.

In1997 the majority of voters still believed in the free market, trickle down myth and if Blair had gone to them saying that was it was all shite and would only end in tears for the majority then at that time nobody would have believed him.

We are now in a different situation, a situation where many more people now understand that free market trickle down money for nothing economics doesn't work for them.and are looking for something different.

That's how I remember it really.

I think people also underestimate the effect the internet has had on ushering in globalisation since the late 90s. There's a one world economy now that simply didn't exist 15 or so years ago as a result of the web and the "viral" spread of ideas and information. Let's not forget "Brown's" economic model wasn't all that different from any of the developed nations - he's easily blamed in hindsight, but IMO the entire world dropped the ball. What I find more alarming is that those we have in charge now seem to have learned nothing and if anything seem determined to repeat past mistakes.

[fluffy666]

Blair particularly and Brown to some extent, accepted that rolling back the clock entirely was not going to be possible. However, there was a fairly large rise in the state as a percentage of GDP and a huge increase in public sector employment. All very 70s.

Also benefits started being increased. There was a rather bizarre period when 40% tax payers were entitled to means tested benefits through tax credits.

Ok, numbers..

UK public spending percent GDP.

The real hike comes as a result of the financial meltdown.

As for public sector employment,

1997: 5,178,000

2008: 5,778,000

During which time there has bees a c. 10% increase in population generally. Note that there were significant pay hikes, though.

The idea of a huge, bloated public sector grown under labour is more propaganda than reality..

[campervanman]

the living standards agenda now being pursued by all UK political parties is an interesting development.

In the past rising living standards used to mean giving more to people who already had enough. Now it increasingly means giving more to people who are on their knees financially. People who are on their knees financially tend to think differently about living standards to people for whom better living standards meant having a bigger car or an extra foreign holiday every year. People who are on their knees financially tend to think they have no stake in the game as played by the current rules and there seem to be many more people who are in this situation.

[fluffy666]

the living standards agenda now being pursued by all UK political parties is an interesting development.

In the past rising living standards used to mean giving more to people who already had enough. Now it increasingly means giving more to people who are on their knees financially. People who are on their knees financially tend to think differently about living standards to people for whom better living standards meant having a bigger car or an extra foreign holiday every year. People who are on their knees financially tend to think they have no stake in the game as played by the current rules and there seem to be many more people who are in this situation.

One of the interesting problems of game theory is that if you are winning the game, it becomes strongly in your interest to ensure that the game continues.

Like if you are playing monopoly and you have hotels on park lane and Mayfair, you don't want the other players to just give up, that spoils the fun.. so you cut deals on the rents and don't bankrupt them. Or if you are playing chess against someone who isn't as good, given them a few pieces head start, because they won't play if you just repeatedly thrash them.

Scale this to today's elite. Having got themselves into a 'winning' position where they can basically take whatever they want, the worst thing that can happen to them is that people stop playing; a sufficient proportion of the population see that they cannot possibly gain or even survive by continuing to 'play' (= go to work, obey the law, repay debt, etc).

In theory the rich/elite should recognize that it's in their interest that everyone else gets something. In practice, of course, that means understanding that the mythology that they use to justify having so much ('wealth creators', 'trickle down', 'randian superpeople', etc) is just that. Unfortunately it can sometimes take a blindfold and a wall..

[PopGun]

The main parties now don't know how to deal with the fact people have seen through the trickle down/global policy for what it is.

The left had the best chance they have ever had to deal with it but were a huge failure and even speeded up the process.

+1 apart from the left/right wing fallacy.

Political wings died over 30 years ago, It's just us and them, simple and the game is up.

[Damik]

Ok, numbers..

UK public spending percent GDP.

The real hike comes as a result of the financial meltdown.

As for public sector employment,

1997: 5,178,000

2008: 5,778,000

During which time there has bees a c. 10% increase in population generally. Note that there were significant pay hikes, though.

The idea of a huge, bloated public sector grown under labour is more propaganda than reality..

it is not about the employment; it is about the state spending; from your own graph:

1997: 35% of GDP

2010: 46% of GDP -> 31% increase

and the financial melt down has not been caused by aliens, but by the labour; setting up the state spending and benefit system only for the boom times is not the most responsible aproach you should really go for

[edit] especially the private rental housing benefit without building more housing and working tax credits for low earners - creating even more inflation

and the unfinancable public sector pensions pensions

Edited September 9, 2013 by Damik

[byron78]

it is not about the employment; it is about the state spending; from your own graph:

1997: 35% of GDP

2010: 46% of GDP -> 31% increase

and the financial melt down has not been caused by aliens, but by the labour; setting up the state spending and benefit system only for the boom times is not the most responsible aproach you should really go for

What are the GDP figures pre-bank bailout?

Isn't a lot of the increase in state spending being highlighted here actually that?

[Damik]

What are the GDP figures pre-bank bailout?

Isn't a lot of the increase in state spending being highlighted here actually that?

AFAIK a plenty of bailouts, QA and state gurantees are off this chart; so the situation is even worse

Edited September 9, 2013 by Damik

[byron78]

AFAIK a plenty of bailouts, QA and state gunrantees are off this chart; so the situation is even worse

No way. Having looked at the graph it leaps violently in 2008. Has to be the bailout (s). What have the Tories increased spending on since then???

Not much difference between GDP spent on the state between 1990 - 2007 according to the graph really. If you didn't know they'd been a bank bailout in 2008, you'd look at the graph and see "world war" from that date.

[Liquid Goldfish]

What are the GDP figures pre-bank bailout?

I think public spending had gone up by about 5% of GDP before the financial crash. Mainly on doctors, nurses, police, hospitals, schools. I think people forget how poor our services were in 1997. But I know it's become accepted that the money was just pissed away on equality officers etc.

4% was an increase in heath spending and 1% in education - which just brought us closer to the levels of spending by other civilized nations in these areas - but still below.

Whether it is affordable is another matter - how do other countries do it?

Edited September 9, 2013 by oldsport