Work For Dole

[BoomBoom]

If the UK land area were fairly distributed, we'd have around an acre each, much of it not particularly fertile or desirable: I've actually owned a couple of acres of Welsh hillside and I assure you that you would not be able to scratch a living on it. And a lot of the better stuff is under concrete and tarmac.

So not only are we near running out of land, we are some way past that point.

It does not need to be fertile. Nobody is suggesting that every single person grow crops. There are vast acres of land 'owned' by the decedents of robber Barons whose misdeeds are long forgotten.

[Injin]

If the UK land area were fairly distributed, we'd have around an acre each, much of it not particularly fertile or desirable: I've actually owned a couple of acres of Welsh hillside and I assure you that you would not be able to scratch a living on it. And a lot of the better stuff is under concrete and tarmac.

So not only are we near running out of land, we are some way past that point.

hmmmm

.....

[CrashConnoisseur]

Waste of taxpayer's money.

In a couple of years time there won't be enough jobs for people who want them -- absent £200 billion a year of borrowed money being injected into the economy -- nevermind for people who don't.

Here's Chris Dillow on 'Purnell's warped ideology':

http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/st...d-ideology.html

Now, let's be clear. This is not about saving the tax-payer money. Indeed, depending on family circumstances, the tax-payer might be worse off if someone moves from the dole to part-time work. If a single parent takes a part-time job at £120 a week, she actually costs the tax-payer £37.54 a week, because net tax credits are more generous than out-of-work benefits (Table 1.3d of this big pdf).

Of course, for some workers -- especially single people who aren't eligible for tax credits -- the tax-payer would save money. But many of these savings would be eaten up by the costs of harassing the out-of work: job advisors at doctors' surgeries, supervisors of community work, subsidies to firms who hire the long-term unemployed, the costs of "[filling] claimants' days with meetings and courses", not to mention the huge bureaucracy which would of course attend such a policy.

[...snip...]

And let's face it. If Purnell were serious about wanting a tax and benefit system that gave people incentives to work whilst also supporting the worst off, he'd investigate proposals for a citizens basic income, such as this big pdf.

[...snip...]

What we see here is New Labour as the party of business, happy to give away tax-payers money not to the unemployed, but to bosses.

Secondly, this is about manipulating people into becoming the characters New Labour wants -- people who want to make money. In contrast to John Stuart Mill, Purnell does see "the trampling, crushing, elbowing, and treading on each other's heels" as the most desirable lot of human kind. As he says: "I really admire people who have made money."

Such snivelling obsequiousness is loathsome in itself, not to mention inconsistent with the opinion of true economists. But to wish to impose this preference onto others -- at the expense of the tax-payer -- is alien to both decency and liberalism.

[huw]

hmmmm

.....

I'm not saying the distribution is equitable Injin, merely that there ain't enough to go around no matter what we do

[BoomBoom]

I'm not saying the distribution is equitable Injin, merely that there ain't enough to go around no matter what we do

Let's say that was the case (which it isn't). It hardly advocates having huge amounts of land in the grasp of the undeserving wealthy

[Injin]

I'm not saying the distribution is equitable Injin, merely that there ain't enough to go around no matter what we do

When that this body did contain a spirit,

A kingdom for it was too small a bound;

But now two paces of the vilest earth

Is room enough.

[Mr Nice]

I didn't realize you were communist injin, I had always had you down for more of an anarcho-capitalist.

[Injin]

I didn't realize you were communist injin, I had always had you down for more of an anarcho-capitalist.

I'm logical and non violent.

[BoomBoom]

Anway, this proposal has been given far too easy a ride by the press. The subtext is all to obvious and given the New Deal debacle one would think there would be a good deal more skepticism. This has nothing to do woth helping te unemployed and everything to do with creating a downward pressure on wages and furnishing big business with defacto slave labour.

[huw]

Let's say that was the case (which it isn't). It hardly advocates having huge amounts of land in the grasp of the undeserving wealthy

Which is not something I've said. But if a limited supply of land is shared out equally as a birthright, and if the population expands, then clearly the birthrights must be diminished, with those who do not breed losing out to the offspring of those who do. This must inevitably end in a gigantic 'tragedy of the commons' because of the perverse incentive system it embodies.

[huw]

Anway, this proposal has been given far too easy a ride by the press. The subtext is all to obvious and given the New Deal debacle one would think there would be a good deal more skepticism. This has nothing to do woth helping te unemployed and everything to do with creating a downward pressure on wages and furnishing big business with defacto slave labour.

Not even that IMO, because the labour is likely to be useless. It's about putting money in the pockets of the 'training' or 'work transition' companies, or whatever they're going to call them.

[Mr Nice]

I'm logical and non violent.

then ultimately, and in all seriousness, what kind of state or lack of state do you envision, if everything worked out the way you'd like it?

I don't disagree with a lot of your points, but the big problem isn't necessarily the system we have, but all of the people involved.

they are going to be with us no matter what we chose to do.

[BoomBoom]

Which is not something I've said. But if a limited supply of land is shared out equally as a birthright, and if the population expands, then clearly the birthrights must be diminished, with those who do not breed losing out to the offspring of those who do. This must inevitably end in a gigantic 'tragedy of the commons' because of the perverse incentive system it embodies.

Where did anyone advocate splitting the UK up into millions of small holdings? The point is that the majority of the population are squeezed onto a small percentage of the land mass of the country. This is because Lord Toffington the 16th has a few thousands acres, aqquired on the back of his ancestors slave trading business.

[pppeter]

hmmmm

.....

So how would you have the land distributed? Equally, according to lottery, according to skill, a land grab thingy like in that Tom Cruise film, most guns wins, just let the people do whatever they want wherever they want (ie. most guns wins), etc

[huw]

When that this body did contain a spirit,

A kingdom for it was too small a bound;

But now two paces of the vilest earth

Is room enough.

For most of us, it's the period when the body still contains a spirit that's a more urgent concern

[BoomBoom]

Not even that IMO, because the labour is likely to be useless. It's about putting money in the pockets of the 'training' or 'work transition' companies, or whatever they're going to call them.

You have bought into the very prejudices that allow schemes like this to slip under the radar, because it is assumed they only impact work shy cretins. Not everyone on the dole is a knuckle dragging simpleton, it's a cliche that is very much out of date.

[pppeter]

then ultimately, and in all seriousness, what kind of state or lack of state do you envision, if everything worked out the way you'd like it?

I don't disagree with a lot of your points, but the big problem isn't necessarily the system we have, but all of the people involved.

they are going to be with us no matter what we chose to do.

5-star posting. Excellent point.

[BoomBoom]

then ultimately, and in all seriousness, what kind of state or lack of state do you envision, if everything worked out the way you'd like it?

I don't disagree with a lot of your points, but the big problem isn't necessarily the system we have, but all of the people involved.

they are going to be with us no matter what we chose to do.

The system we have attracts the people we have involved.

[1929crash]

then ultimately, and in all seriousness, what kind of state or lack of state do you envision, if everything worked out the way you'd like it?

I don't disagree with a lot of your points, but the big problem isn't necessarily the system we have, but all of the people involved.

they are going to be with us no matter what we chose to do.

A state of one.

[huw]

Where did anyone advocate splitting the UK up into millions of small holdings?

Here

land is owned, by the ones who stole it, you are born into this world and have a right to land.

The logical consequence of this is that the land be divvied up among the population, presumably with the allocation changing constantly as people are born and die, meaning that the actual entitlement changes.

I'm not advocating splitting the UK up along those lines, I'm trying to demonstrate that to do so is completely impractical -- and that therefore, so is the idea of land-as-birthright.

The universe doesn't actually owe any of us anything, you know.

[crash2006]

Again iam seeing people all for this, then later on they regret it, think expand your mind and see its not what it seems.

[BoomBoom]

Here

The logical consequence of this is that the land be divvied up among the population, presumably with the allocation changing constantly as people are born and die, meaning that the actual entitlement changes.

I'm not advocating splitting the UK up along those lines, I'm trying to demonstrate that to do so is completely impractical -- and that therefore, so is the idea of land-as-birthright.

The universe doesn't actually owe any of us anything, you know.

Nope. What was said is that everyone has a right to some land, I agree. You introduced the idea of everyone getting an equal share of the landmass. I had in mind something more in the mould of an allotment. I think every family should have the opportunity to grow their own food if they desire.

[huw]

You have bought into the very prejudices that allow schemes like this to slip under the radar, because it is assumed they only impact work shy cretins. Not everyone on the dole is a knuckle dragging simpleton, it's a cliche that is very much out of date.

I agree, it's not the act of a simpleton to persuade someone else to earn his living for him. Quite the opposite in fact. (Which begs the question of where the slaves really are, in this system).

But the unemployed with a work-ethic can be helped back to work, so the repeat customers (= repeat profits) for these companies will indeed be the work shy ones. Or do you think that the companies will do their job, problem solved, and everyone can go home/to work?

[Mr Nice]

The system we have attracts the people we have involved.

I actually think it's we the people that attract the kind of system we have.

how many days out of the last year did you hear or read some story about some government program or scheme the just totally pissed away millions or billions of dollars?

it's a daily/weekly occurrence.

we don't demand responsibility from our leaders, so we really can't be too surprised when they act irresponsibly.

the parents blame the teachers, and the teachers blame the parents, meanwhile the children continue a downward slide in education.

special interest groups of citizens occasionally take action, but it is usually for groups like seniors or the unions whose solution isn't prudence, but just a blind demand for more more more.

until the citizens of the country/group take responsibility for themselves and their actions, no plan or system is ever going to work period.

Edited July 19, 2008 by Mr Nice

[Injin]

For most of us, it's the period when the body still contains a spirit that's a more urgent concern