Unemployed to work for benefits.

[Phil Pascoe]

This policy is aimed at the long term unemployed ie. that have not worked for at least two years.
If a migrant worker can come over here and gain employment then why cant this group of unemployed ?
People have got to start accepting responsibility for their own lives

I stopped reading the sun after they hacked into a dead child's phone to get a story

So you admit to reading the Sun in the first place?

 

[Phil Pascoe]

As mentioned before, the elephant in the room is that there will never, ever again be full employment. This is nothing to do with politics, the world has moved on - the employers of masses of innumerate illiterates no longer exist, nor will they ever again. The big question is what to do with people who will probably never work, and whether it is correct that many of them pick up more in benefits than those working do in wages. That to me is quite wrong. The poorest working person should be richer than richest unemployed one.

 

[Kalimna]

Nice summary, Phil.p, completely agree with you.

Adam

 

[t8hants]

the employers of masses of innumerate, illiterates no longer exist, nor will they ever again.

Can't agree with that, because down here that is exactly the type of job that still exists. It was the high skill, manufacturing jobs that have gone. I have been made redundant five time from both shipbuilding and aircraft industries (yes they still exist, but a ghost of their former selves) if I had been a tomato picker - job for life.

G

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Sorry, even fruit picking doesn't employ hundreds of thousands or millions.

 

[RogerS]

I don't really see the point. If there is a job to be done, employ someone. That will immediately cut the unemployment rate. If no one is prepared to pay a living wage (no matter how low) then it's quite obvious that the jobs don't exist. .......

That is not logical. A job can exist but there might not be the budget for it. I see no reason why those on long term unemployment not contribute something for the money that they get. After all, all those of us paying income tax are contributing.

Regarding migrant workers. There are many jobs such as crop-picking that many people in the UK don't want to do. So why not let migrant workers do it if they want to? One of the interesting things that is going to happen shortly is that the SWA is not being renewed. This was a mechanism for workers from places like Bulgaria and Roumania to come over on a short term basis to work crop-picking. Now with the impending arrival of them in the EU, they will be able to apply with greater ease for other better paid and less onerous jobs. But the SWA is not being replaced or offered to other migrant groups. The result will be that a lot of crops that we take for granted now simply won't be grown because there will be no-one available to pick them. Mind you, the Government that brought in legislation to prevent food being flown in to the UK from places like Peru would get my vote.

 

[Jacob]

As mentioned before, the elephant in the room is that there will never, ever again be full employment. This is nothing to do with politics, the world has moved on - the employers of masses of innumerate illiterates no longer exist, nor will they ever again. The big question is what to do with people who will probably never work, and whether it is correct that many of them pick up more in benefits than those working do in wages. That to me is quite wrong. The poorest working person should be richer than richest unemployed one.

I agree more or less.
The whole point of industrialisation, increased productivity, the computer, rationalisation, etc etc is that less work needs to be done for a particular outcome. Unemployment is the whole idea and purpose and widely seen as desirable.
The inconvenient detail is that the first to be made redundant are usually the least responsible for the new efficiencies - so the inventor of a washing machine doesn't lose his job but hundreds of washer women do.
In an ideal world this should mean comfortable early retirement for millions of washerwomen and their families for generations to come.
But what happens in reality is the newly redundant have to find another way of earning a living. Easy in an expanding economy but difficult vice versa. Economies can't expand forever so provision has to be made for the redundant.
In an ideal world large numbers of unemployed people living a good quality of life would be seen as success.
I'm all for it! Full employment is a sacred cow which should have got the chop a long time ago.

And I think benefits should be high enough to provide a good quality of life and minimum wages should be even higher.
Taxation would be higher too, but that's the price of civilisation.

 

[Jacob]

.... It was the high skill, manufacturing jobs that have gone. I have been made redundant five time from both shipbuilding and aircraft industries (yes they still exist, but a ghost of their former selves) if I had been a tomato picker - job for life.

G

What held you back? Highly enjoyable occupation, look at these Spaniards here:

NB this is a tomato festival http://www.valenciatrader.com/valencia/ ... s/tomatina I thought I'd better point this out incase anybody thinks it involves nudity, violence, bloodshed etc. :roll: It's just tomatoes.

 

[davic]

Reported

 

[markturner]

If some of the people who are able bodied and otherwise fit for work, but are unlucky enough to not be in employment were able to do something useful for some period of their free time, in return for the state handouts they live on, then why is that a bad thing? There is plenty of voluntary work, local stuff like helping the local elderly or infirm, etc that could be worked around different abilities and suitabilities. Its not slave labour - is that what you call all the work done by genuine community volunteers? It's doing the right thing, not being a leech, giving something back, and we should ask all those able, whether they are happy to do this. The answer would soon show the feckless and idle ones. I cant think of one valid, suitable reason why this is not a good idea. It should not however be forced or compulsory and it needs careful planning etc, but........... it could be a great way to make these people feel part of society instead of marginalised from it. And people like me whose taxes support them might feel better about it.........

As someone who has worked mostly 70 - 80 hour minimum weeks and been self employed for my whole 30 year working life, there is nothing I hate more than people who take advantage of our over generous welfare system because they are simply too lazy or think they are too good for the jobs out there...

 

[hazel]

what I can't understand is if these jobs exist to force those on benefits to do: then why can I not find more than 4 hours work a week????

 

[Jacob]

If some of the people who are able bodied and otherwise fit for work, but are unlucky enough to not be in employment were able to do something useful for some period of their free time, in return for the state handouts they live on, then why is that a bad thing? There is plenty of voluntary work, local stuff like helping the local elderly or infirm, etc that could be worked around different abilities and suitabilities. I........

What makes you think people don't do this? There is a massive amount of unpaid voluntary work done by the unemployed of all varieties. There is also a huge amount of care work done for abysmally low wages often involving rip offs from agencies dodging the minimum wage. This is done by people who would rather work for peanuts than not at all.
The main issue is shortage of jobs - made worse by the various benefit traps which make flexible working so difficult and appallingly low wages at the bottom end.

 

[powertools]

If some of the people who are able bodied and otherwise fit for work, but are unlucky enough to not be in employment were able to do something useful for some period of their free time, in return for the state handouts they live on, then why is that a bad thing? There is plenty of voluntary work, local stuff like helping the local elderly or infirm, etc that could be worked around different abilities and suitabilities. Its not slave labour - is that what you call all the work done by genuine community volunteers? It's doing the right thing, not being a leech, giving something back, and we should ask all those able, whether they are happy to do this. The answer would soon show the feckless and idle ones. I cant think of one valid, suitable reason why this is not a good idea. It should not however be forced or compulsory and it needs careful planning etc, but........... it could be a great way to make these people feel part of society instead of marginalised from it. And people like me whose taxes support them might feel better about it.........

As someone who has worked mostly 70 - 80 hour minimum weeks and been self employed for my whole 30 year working life, there is nothing I hate more than people who take advantage of our over generous welfare system because they are simply too lazy or think they are too good for the jobs out there...

That is what I think but could not have explained it as well as you.
For a society to work it needs people to put in what they can and take as little as they can.

 

[wizard]

In the 1950 sweeping the roads and digging ditches was a high paid job so the not so bright people were better off working than sitting at home

 

[Sheffield Tony]

Its not slave labour - is that what you call all the work done by genuine community volunteers?

This is the key. We are not talking about making voluntary work [My emphasis] available for the unemployed should they want it We are talking about denying people access to benefits unless they do whatever menial job they are told to do. There would be a real temptation to use such a scheme as a cheap alternative to real public sector jobs, and in these days of local authorities desperately seeking to cut costs, how would they resist ?

And when the incapable, unsuitable or idle fail to turn up for their coerced work, what then ? Do we really think it is a good idea to withdraw their benefits and leave them to turn to crime ?

 

[powertools]

The biggest problem we have at the moment is that local authorities are not desperately seeking to cut costs but are trying to find ways of increasing income to continue the waste of resources at the expense of those who in their eyes are best able to support the gravy train .

 

[heatherw]

It's probably only since the Industrial Revolution that most of society has had 'jobs' as such. Formerly nearly everyone was self employed or training to be self employed ( the old medieval apprenticeships and journeymen schemes led to this) except for agricultural workers, I suppose.

I remember seeing a couple of years ago a news item about a school that was training 16 year olds to be entrepreneurs, with a real success rate, around 20% were leaving school with a viable business. The people who ran the course were convinced that there would be no other outlet for the majority of school leavers within a few years time.

I think we're going to have to return to this in the end; we could look upon the mass employment system as a small hiccup in the history of mankind, along with, (and probably owing to) the exploitation of fossil fuels.

 

[finneyb]

I stopped reading the sun after they hacked into a dead child's phone to get a story

I never started reading the Sun, why would you read a Murdoch gutter rag with a reading age of 8 years.
Been almost banned in Liverpool since Hillsborough - because they are lying b***ards just to sell the paper.
( And I'm not a football fan in any shape or form)

A Liverpool Tesco cashier tells a customer not to buy the Sun (26 Sept 2013) - is supported by the Leader of the Council and keeps her job. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-me ... e-24282609

It should go the same was as the NoW - down the pan.

Just my thoughts

Brian

 

[nanscombe]

Currently we are still paying people to live in their own homes, each paying individual utility and grocery bills etc.

Individual living spaces, with shared amenities like a canteen and laundry, might be a damn sight cheaper. It might go someway to helping the housing shortage as well.

But people don't want to go back to the likes of workhouses.

 

[Jacob]

Currently we are still paying people to live in their own homes, each paying individual utility and grocery bills etc.

Individual living spaces, with shared amenities like a canteen and laundry, might be a damn sight cheaper. It might go someway to helping the housing shortage as well.

But people don't want to go back to the likes of workhouses.

And being unemployed and skint isn't a crime - to be punished.