The recession, benefits, the safety net, and the learning curve

mardatha

Re the talk in here about homes - If you're out of work and can't afford to eat, what the h*ll does it matter how much houses are selling for ? And even if you did decide to sell it and move into a cheaper place then they would take any profit off your benefits anyway ! The benefit system is all wrong & that's what he's talking about in here !

Oldernotwiser

ceridwen wrote: »

The famous "British understatement" methinks....."a bit harsh" to be forced to sell ones house because of a (hopefully temporary) spell of unemployment. Can I phrase that in more "international" language? How about "b****y outrageous" - I think that sums up it more accurately...
.

I wouldn't advocate this either but in a less welfare conscious society like the States that's exactly what you'd have to do. Many benefits aren't available to people there unless they've sold house and spent the equity.

Oldernotwiser

bendix wrote: »

Why should government legislate to cancel a person's contractual obligation, solely because they have become unemployed, and where do you draw the line?

A mobile phone contract? SKY tv? Credit card repayments? A mortgage? Car repayments?

If that is the case, what is to stop widespread abuse of the system. I work in a law firm of 1000+ people, 80 of whom are currently in consultation for redundancy. What's to stop any of them - most of whom are on six figure salaries - going out today, buying bigger homes, a new porsche, upgrade Sky and even putting a holiday or two on their credit card, knowing full well they can take voluntary redundancy and get a nice minimum six month redundancy package?

It's palpable nonsense.

Surely the idea of allowing someone who became unemployed to cancel Sky/mobile contracts would be that they would lose the services? I don't think that anyone was advocating cancelling the contract and still receiving the goods!

harryhound

As current government policies are the road to Argentina, what are our long term prospects?

There is going to be an interesting stand off between those paid out of government funds and those in the failing capitalist part of the economy.
The one obvious effect will be the rolling back of the over investment in property.
Traditionally overcrowding was defined as more than 1.5 persons per habitable room and in vast areas of the "developing" (read failing) world even 1.5 persons per room is a luxury level of living.
If you look at governments in trouble they have all got people living at slum densities and sharing facilities.
Perhaps multi-generational homes will return. Blind eyes will be turned to those "garden offices" where we are putting up the poor relations?
More "trailer trash" sites appearing round our towns?

Harry.

ceridwen

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

I wouldn't advocate this either but in a less welfare conscious society like the States that's exactly what you'd have to do. Many benefits aren't available to people there unless they've sold house and spent the equity.

....and then what would happen to them? The U.S. Govt covering the cost of their rental? Not up on the U.S. system to know....

Guess that explains why so many Americans have the "dream" of homesteading - so they have enough land around their home to be pretty self-sufficient (well - its a good bit better bet than going cold and thieving your food and hoping not to get caught:rolleyes:).

Thinks....goes off wondering what I personally would do if in America - think I'd probably go the homesteading route too - giving up my house wouldnt even feature "on the table" as an option no matter what.:p Some things are non-negotiable and carrying on owning my house is one of them whatever society I'm in.

I think many of us are in the category that there ARE only two ways we would ever leave a house we own:
- "feet first" (ie not needing a house anymore IYSWIM)
- or to move to a better one

ceridwen

harryhound wrote: »

As current government policies are the road to Argentina, what are our long term prospects?

There is going to be an interesting stand off between those paid out of government funds and those in the failing capitalist part of the economy.
The one obvious effect will be the rolling back of the over investment in property.
Traditionally overcrowding was defined as more than 1.5 persons per habitable room and in vast areas of the "developing" (read failing) world even 1.5 persons per room is a luxury level of living.
If you look at governments in trouble they have all got people living at slum densities and sharing facilities.
Perhaps multi-generational homes will return. Blind eyes will be turned to those "garden offices" where we are putting up the poor relations?
More "trailer trash" sites appearing round our towns?

Harry.

Actually Harry...if you read the blog of Sharon Astyk (Casaubon's Book) you will see that this is very much one of her "themes". This is exactly one of the things that she is telling her "readers" to get used to - she is one of America's foremost "Peak Oil" bloggers - in regard to the standpoint she is coming from and thats how she sees things panning out.

We are in a different society here - and one still civilised enough not to try and force people to give up their home (assuming they have put themselves in the position of owning it outright).

If our own society dropped that civilised standard - then, it would happen pretty quickly. But with the increasing number of people who expect to be home-owners - but are being forced by houseprices to rent instead and with the "short shrift" given to them by landlords if they get thrown onto benefit - then - yep -multi-generational households could WELL happen here too. We are already seeing many of the younger generation staying put in the parental home at a time when my (ie baby boomer) generation had moved out.

I'm with you on the cynical thoughts about whether some "garden offices" really WILL be "offices". I have been anticipating for the last couple of years the possibility of "shanty town" style housing growing up around urban centres and I think we have seen a few signs of "yer average person in the street" (ie foreign workers) "camping out" already to some extent.

I do have a concern as to whether many empty buildings might end up squatted in. Dont care about the squatting per se - as long as the occupants look after the place and I know some would. What concerns me is those that wouldnt...I dont condemn squatting of itself - because I'm aware its always been a little "safety net" option in the back of my mind should I ever need to - but, fortunately, I've managed to house myself without having to do that.

ceridwen

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

Surely the idea of allowing someone who became unemployed to cancel Sky/mobile contracts would be that they would lose the services? I don't think that anyone was advocating cancelling the contract and still receiving the goods!

Personally...when I advocate a "parachute" of bringing back the earnings-related element of the Dole for at least the first few months - it is so that the person themselves directly can use that element of extra cash to "smooth out" the transition to a possible longer term on the Dole. That is very different to bringing in legislation allowing people to renege on any contracts they are locked into. I do believe strongly in people keeping to agreements they have made - yep...even just verbal ones - and am only too well aware that the companies would instantly turn round and charge the rest of us more if they werent allowed to lock people into contracts anymore.

mewbie_2

ceridwen wrote: »

Personally...when I advocate a "parachute" of bringing back the earnings-related element of the Dole for at least the first few months - it is so that the person themselves directly can use that element of extra cash to "smooth out" the transition to a possible longer term on the Dole.

Well at least your parachute has strings attached.

ceridwen

mewbie wrote: »

Well at least your parachute has strings attached.

Ummm....maybe its the glass - or two - of Friday night wine...but am not following this??

harryhound

As I adjust to the more than 2 score postings from "Pastures......." on this thread, and the "petite" information; can I just ask where the expression "Working for the man......" comes from?

It triggered an image, long buried in my mind, of two 16 year old girls discussing the new super group called "The Beatles":

- I still prefer Roy Orbison.

- Yes but you would not scream for him!

- Well I would..............

Happy memories

Harry.

PS Are we all agreed that we are going to need to learn to duck and dive? Yes even some MP's; you just never know when you could lose your job.
Having a "partner" registered or otherwise, and a skill on the side, is a useful backup.
I'm not sure that my previous advice for staying mobile and funded: Get a "hire car" or "white van" job, as an alternative to JSA still works in this depression.