Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Help To Work ---merged threads


Recommended Posts

it is coming even if Tories lose ellections:

http://labourlist.org/2013/01/labour-announce-compulsory-work-scheme-for-long-term-unemployed-and-those-who-refuse-to-take-part-could-lose-benefits/

Ed Balls and Liam Byrne are set to call for a compulsory Jobs Guarantee for long-term unemployed adults. In an article for PoliticsHome Ed Balls will say that, under the jobs guarantee, government will ensure there is a job for every adult who is long-term unemployed (initially those out of work for 24 months or more) and people out of work will be obliged to take up those jobs or face losing benefits. Labour would aim to expand the scheme over time to include those out of work for 18 or even 12 months.

In principle this is ok (after 24 mo) but it will probably be so stigmatised you would never work again. (if you admitted it)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 127
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Firstly, as I understand it, the policy compels nobody to do anything.

If the policy were "everyone without a job must work for the State" then I'd be against it.

But that's not it. It doesn't compel anyone to do a single hour's work. They only need to do it if they want access to the fruits of others' labour.

If the country were a village of 30 people in some isolated spot, you can bet there would be one or two workshy residents.

And you can bet they would be booted out of said community or told to shape up if they wanted feeding and clothing.

If the community supports them, this then sends a clear message to everyone else in the community that work doesn't really pay. You can get by without it, just sit under a tree doing what you like and everyone else will chip in for you.

So for anyone opposed to this policy - a serious question:

For how long should someone be in receipt of Other People's Money?

A year? Three years? Thirty years? Indefinitely?

Link to post
Share on other sites

it is coming even if Tories lose ellections:

http://labourlist.org/2013/01/labour-announce-compulsory-work-scheme-for-long-term-unemployed-and-those-who-refuse-to-take-part-could-lose-benefits/

Ed Balls and Liam Byrne are set to call for a compulsory Jobs Guarantee for long-term unemployed adults. In an article for PoliticsHome Ed Balls will say that, under the jobs guarantee, government will ensure there is a job for every adult who is long-term unemployed (initially those out of work for 24 months or more) and people out of work will be obliged to take up those jobs or face losing benefits. Labour would aim to expand the scheme over time to include those out of work for 18 or even 12 months.

Time to get rid of migrant workers, lets face it the UK is not a European dustbin for everyone else just because they cannot get work in their own countries, get rid of the migrants and let those [brits] out of work get those jobs.

Simples

Link to post
Share on other sites

Firstly, as I understand it, the policy compels nobody to do anything.

If the policy were "everyone without a job must work for the State" then I'd be against it.

But that's not it. It doesn't compel anyone to do a single hour's work. They only need to do it if they want access to the fruits of others' labour.

If the country were a village of 30 people in some isolated spot, you can bet there would be one or two workshy residents.

And you can bet they would be booted out of said community or told to shape up if they wanted feeding and clothing.

If the community supports them, this then sends a clear message to everyone else in the community that work doesn't really pay. You can get by without it, just sit under a tree doing what you like and everyone else will chip in for you.

So for anyone opposed to this policy - a serious question:

For how long should someone be in receipt of Other People's Money?

A year? Three years? Thirty years? Indefinitely?

If a country was a village of 30 people everyone would have a valuable role to play and a work shy villager wouldn't exist.

What we have in the UK is a village of 30 people that asks 5 people from the next village to come and do the jobs of 5 of its own villagers and then proceeds to jeer at and throw stones at the 5 villagers who have nothing to do. Then it threatens to stop feeding them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It sounds as if with all of those long term unemployed being effectively forced to do work then it will just result in a doubling up on jobs that are already being done - otherwise it's going to be a form of musical chairs with the long term unemployed just pushing out already employed people and onto the dole.

So the long term unemployed get work but displace the employed creating a fresh supply of unemployed. At least it keeps the "long term" unemployed figures down but doesn't the work quality deteriorate if only because inexperienced people will be replacing experienced people.

It's not as if there's going to be plenty of NEW jobs for them to do as "job" creation for jobsworths has already created many hundreds of thousands if not several millions of non-jobs so the UK must be getting near to the limit for creating new non-jobs - although having said that it's possible to split any job into ever smaller parts with each part being done exclusively by one person (then there's the potential to do jobs twice or three times etc etc).

It used to be called restrictive practice and it's not that long ago that people were being told by politicians (lots of them Conservatives) that it was the road to ruin. It is a sort of rebalancing of the economy :rolleyes:

Edited by billybong
Link to post
Share on other sites

If a country was a village of 30 people everyone would have a valuable role to play and a work shy villager wouldn't exist.

Disagree. Although I have never spent time in a kibbutz, my partner has. People were ejected when they didn't put in the effort, and this happened fairly regularly. I think we may have different views of human nature. If the community carried on supporting the workshy in the end you'd have half the village sitting under the tree doing nothing.

What we have in the UK is a village of 30 people that asks 5 people from the next village to come and do the jobs of 5 of its own villagers and then proceeds to jeer at and throw stones at the 5 villagers who have nothing to do. Then it threatens to stop feeding them.

What we have is a scenario where the Labour party inherited a healthy economy with Tony Blair promising to reform the welfare state - which is easier to do in boom times - and who, for the purposes of buying votes and taking the easy route, kept on handing out the benefits while importing cheap labour. Indeed a Labour Minister said so in more or less as many words on Question Time one week. Easy to ignore in the boom years.

Which, you'd think, would mean that lifelong Labour supporters would turn on that party for holding down their wages and job opportunities. Cue Northern sounding voice "Ahve always voted Laaaber". Of course, the Tories are "the nasty party". "It woz Facher wot robbed us". Er, you weren't even alive when Thatcher was in power in some cases. Tribalism 1, independent thinking nil.

Personally, I've always found that the people most opposed to long term benefits for the unemployed are those who are the poorest paid. Because they see the effect of where their taxes go in their neighbourhoods directly.

Although hard to ignore the wider economic context of where we are now, I come back to the point that nobody is being forced to do anything, but we've built such a dependency culture now that even the Tories find it hard to dare to try and unwind it, not least because the country is always nearly bankrupt when they come to power.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Disagree. Although I have never spent time in a kibbutz, my partner has. People were ejected when they didn't put in the effort, and this happened fairly regularly. I think we may have different views of human nature. If the community carried on supporting the workshy in the end you'd have half the village sitting under the tree doing nothing.

What we have is a scenario where the Labour party inherited a healthy economy with Tony Blair promising to reform the welfare state - which is easier to do in boom times - and who, for the purposes of buying votes and taking the easy route, kept on handing out the benefits while importing cheap labour. Indeed a Labour Minister said so in more or less as many words on Question Time one week. Easy to ignore in the boom years.

Which, you'd think, would mean that lifelong Labour supporters would turn on that party for holding down their wages and job opportunities. Cue Northern sounding voice "Ahve always voted Laaaber". Of course, the Tories are "the nasty party". "It woz Facher wot robbed us". Er, you weren't even alive when Thatcher was in power in some cases. Tribalism 1, independent thinking nil.

Personally, I've always found that the people most opposed to long term benefits for the unemployed are those who are the poorest paid. Because they see the effect of where their taxes go in their neighbourhoods directly.

Although hard to ignore the wider economic context of where we are now, I come back to the point that nobody is being forced to do anything, but we've built such a dependency culture now that even the Tories find it hard to dare to try and unwind it, not least because the country is always nearly bankrupt when they come to power.

IMO you can`t compare a globalised economy to kicking someone out of a kibbutz, or a shared flat, because they won`t do the dishes. In your imagined village people are on first name terms and live pretty intimately, that doesn`t happen in society, it is easier to bung certain people money for fags and booze to keep them happy, and of course many people can`t find work for genuine reasons. Once you start moving the task above scrubbing graffiti many employers will still want the Polish worker over the UK chav who would rather be watching Jeremy Kyle?

Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO you can`t compare a globalised economy to kicking someone out of a kibbutz, or a shared flat, because they won`t do the dishes. In your imagined village people are on first name terms and live pretty intimately, that doesn`t happen in society
I find these things easier to think about if you imagine them in a more personalised, localised context."Benefits" are a form of "enforced charity".If people would not give charitably to certain recipients - for instance in the example I gave - then such people should not be in receipt of benefits. That's the "rule" I apply.
, it is easier to bung certain people money for fags and booze to keep them happy
Easier, yes. Morally correct, no. How can it be right to take money from someone who earns, say, 14k a year and give that to someone else to sit on their backside? How does even a "left-winger" justify that?
, and of course many people can`t find work for genuine reasons
Not for three years, barring physical handicap/disability.This is actually the first Conservative policy I find myself wholeheartedly agreeing with since they came to power.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Firstly, as I understand it, the policy compels nobody to do anything.

If the policy were "everyone without a job must work for the State" then I'd be against it.

But that's not it. It doesn't compel anyone to do a single hour's work. They only need to do it if they want access to the fruits of others' labour.

If the country were a village of 30 people in some isolated spot, you can bet there would be one or two workshy residents.

And you can bet they would be booted out of said community or told to shape up if they wanted feeding and clothing.

If the community supports them, this then sends a clear message to everyone else in the community that work doesn't really pay. You can get by without it, just sit under a tree doing what you like and everyone else will chip in for you.

So for anyone opposed to this policy - a serious question:

For how long should someone be in receipt of Other People's Money?

A year? Three years? Thirty years? Indefinitely?

State policy has helped to remove the very jobs that the state is now forcing people to do for less.

A much better solution would be to stop preventing the market from creating low paid jobs. Sure, low paid work isn't ideal, but it is much more preferable than this help to work crap.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Firstly, as I understand it, the policy compels nobody to do anything.

If the policy were "everyone without a job must work for the State" then I'd be against it.

But that's not it. It doesn't compel anyone to do a single hour's work. They only need to do it if they want access to the fruits of others' labour.

If the country were a village of 30 people in some isolated spot, you can bet there would be one or two workshy residents.

And you can bet they would be booted out of said community or told to shape up if they wanted feeding and clothing.

If the community supports them, this then sends a clear message to everyone else in the community that work doesn't really pay. You can get by without it, just sit under a tree doing what you like and everyone else will chip in for you.

So for anyone opposed to this policy - a serious question:

For how long should someone be in receipt of Other People's Money?

A year? Three years? Thirty years? Indefinitely?

I hope you end up doing 30 hours a week for £56 one day, it seems you have no empathy for people who have fallen out of the (clearly broken) economic system so this is the only way for you to understand what it's like.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You pay your insurance, your house burns down, you claim on it. Do you think about it being other peoples money then?

Drives me mad this, NI is paid separately to tax, the clue is in the name: insurance, it's quite specific. Now, if the government want to open a conversation with me about what that means now and if I want to opt out of paying for something that won't pay out...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope you end up doing 30 hours a week for £56 one day, it seems you have no empathy for people who have fallen out of the (clearly broken) economic system so this is the only way for you to understand what it's like.

I sometimes think people get low paid work to do, facilities, food and bills paid for in a jail....people who are punished for doing wrong doing community service........what is the difference? treated as a crime because there is not a living wage job to do. :unsure:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear God, I just read about the latest pilot (or wheeze) announced by IDS at the conference, mandatory 35 hour attendance at the job centre, job searching, week in, week out, from the very start of your unemployment.

Be a good deal if they've got the heating on.

A tacit admission that they won't even be able to find slave labour for people to do, eh?

Edited by Tonkers
Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear God, I just read about the latest pilot (or wheeze) announced by IDS at the conference, mandatory 35 hour attendance at the job centre, job searching, week in, week out, from the very start of your unemployment.

Be a good deal if they've got the heating on.

A tacit admission that they won't even be able to find slave labour for people to do, eh?

this will lead to a whole new industry of Job Clubs....Whole office blocks looking filled with executives looking for work...they will need PCs, security, Canteens, Diversity Officers, a full Administration and attendance centre....indeed, nobody needs to actually have a job, as their job will be looking for a job or those doing so.

Smacks really of the government dont need workers any more...they dont need our taxes, they can just QE the money they need to pay for the illusion they care.

Wouldnt take much for a Tyrannical mind set at the start of a new term to reason to do away with us altogether.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope you end up doing 30 hours a week for £56 one day, it seems you have no empathy for people who have fallen out of the (clearly broken) economic system so this is the only way for you to understand what it's like.

I fear you may extrapolate too much.

I'm self-employed and have been through difficult times myself on a number of occasions since my income is not "fixed" at any particular level.

So, how long - one year, three years, thirty years....?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I fear you may extrapolate too much.

I'm self-employed and have been through difficult times myself on a number of occasions since my income is not "fixed" at any particular level.

So, how long - one year, three years, thirty years....?

Your views would have weight if the government hadn't spent the past 50 years outsourcing every single job to Asia and/or importing immigrants to do the jobs that can't be outsourced.

There are no jobs left in this country, there are no jobs left in Europe. What is there? Call centres, retail and public sector. There are no big employers any more

I read that one of these ipad factories in China employed 100k people, 100 HUNDRED THOUSAND. Just one of those in the UK would make a difference to this country so large you cannot begin to describe it. But hipsters might have to pay £200 more for their ipad in order for steve jobs to maintain his profit margins, so incredibly much of the general public think its the best way to go - destroy society to spend a few hundred less on luxury items which are then paid for by the Government which has agreed to bankrupt itself to continue the outsourcing

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have just read in one of your posts that actually you seem to touch on this.

Anyway its over and nothing can be done to save it anymore, Britain starting a war with Germany in 1939 was the biggest mistake ever made and Europe has voluntarily handed over power to the East ever since, I don't for one second believe that the people at the top didn't realise what they were doing

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, how long - one year, three years, thirty years....?

My opinion is that everybody should be able to access basic food and shelter at all times in a country as wealthy as the UK. If you think people with no income or assets should go and starve on the street after some arbitrary time period, then good luck to you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

this will lead to a whole new industry of Job Clubs....Whole office blocks looking filled with executives looking for work...they will need PCs, security, Canteens, Diversity Officers, a full Administration and attendance centre....indeed, nobody needs to actually have a job, as their job will be looking for a job or those doing so.

Smacks really of the government dont need workers any more...they dont need our taxes, they can just QE the money they need to pay for the illusion they care.

Wouldnt take much for a Tyrannical mind set at the start of a new term to reason to do away with us altogether.

Brilliant thousands of jobs created helping people to find real worthwhile jobs that don't exist. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Time to get rid of migrant workers, lets face it the UK is not a European dustbin for everyone else just because they cannot get work in their own countries, get rid of the migrants and let those [brits] out of work get those jobs.

Simples

Quite simply, you've never worked abroad and you have no idea of how the economy works

Just about everywhere in the world it's the immigrants who are the backbone of production work. There's no way to get rid of migrant workers. You live in your world totally separated from reality. OMG have you got a real job? I'm pretty sure you scrounge off some sort of disability pension for the retarded.

Edited by sombreroloco
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.



×
×
  • 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.