How long can the bottom of the food chain handle austerity

homelessskilledworker

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-19724284

Just slightly off topic, as much as I welcomed austerity when the word was first introduced, I cannot help feeling that some are being made to suffer more, and the main worry is, how long can some people go on for? how much more can they take.

All countries(including the UK) are now making cuts, with more to come for some. In some countries they are scavenging in bins and there are people begging who were once proud hardworkers. It seems like the lowest end of the food chain is being hit the hardest. I know these cuts are all relative, and that in one form or another many people are being parted with their dosh. But when those at the bottom are having their income drastically reduced it is far more unbearable than multi millionares/Billionares who are losing a few million/billion, it hardly effects them at all, and if media reports are to believed many are just stashing/hiding it away.

Every social group was probably at fault in some way, whether it be welfare fraud, speculation or uncontrolable spending, but you can only make people suffer for so long for their crimes.

I am hearing stories about Spain and Greece in particular from people who have been out there or have family(more so Greece) there, how long can those poor sods take the pain for??

somethingcorporate

What does it look like when they can no longer take it?

DpchMd

What austerity?

Loughton_Monkey

DpchMd wrote: »

What austerity?

More to the point... what is austerity?

Loughton_Monkey

homelessskilledworker wrote: »

Just slightly off topic, as much as I welcomed austerity when the word was first introduced, I cannot help feeling that some are being made to suffer more, and the main worry is, how long can some people go on for? how much more can they take.

OK. Please give your advice on exactly how we can ensure that we can all be made to suffer by exactly the same amount of 'pain'.

homelessskilledworker wrote: »

All countries(including the UK) are now making cuts, with more to come for some.

When these countries were (and still are) spending massive amounts more than they are bringing in, don't you think 'cuts' form part of a viable solution?

homelessskilledworker wrote: »

In some countries they are scavenging in bins and there are people begging who were once proud hardworkers.

Even in the most affluent times, there are scavengers and beggars. Always have been. Always will be. Try an experiment. Take 100 people at random. Take away all their possessions, give them £80, and ask them to feed themselves for a month. I can guarantee that you will find 95 or so, all of whom will manage it, but with varying degrees of difficulty. Then there will be 1 or 2 who will steal from others (or Tesco) to supplement their food. 1 or 2 will scavenge in the bins to see if any extra is available. And then 1 or 2 will keep badgering the others with sob stories and ask for a loan or donation.

homelessskilledworker wrote: »

It seems like the lowest end of the food chain is being hit the hardest. I know these cuts are all relative, and that in one form or another many people are being parted with their dosh.

So you say they are 'relative', but still maintain the lowest end are hit the hardest? If you class those living on state pension/benefits as the 'lowest end' of the food chain, then how can you possibly claim they are hit the hardest when (so far at least) all their income has been index linked, while most of those in work have had pay freezes?

Alternatively, if you define the lowest paid workers (rather than those solely on benefits) as the 'lowest end', then explain, please, why there shouldn't be further examination of why total unemployment puts you higher up the 'food chain' than does working.

homelessskilledworker wrote: »

But when those at the bottom are having their income drastically reduced it is far more unbearable than multi millionares/Billionares who are losing a few million/billion, it hardly effects them at all, and if media reports are to believed many are just stashing/hiding it away.

That may be your own opinion on the 'bearability' stakes. But what if I was penniless 20 years ago. I invested, and built up a company with years of hard work. I am now worth £140 million. Through no fault of my own, the company is suffering... bad debts... I have put my house into it to try and rescue... it all goes belly up and tomorrow the liquidators will turn me out of the house with £100 to my name. A little bit difficult to 'bear' isn't it?

But what if my business is still sound and I do have £25 million legally invested in a Swiss Bank. On what basis is it right to use this money to reduce the government deficit, or pay more money to a low paid worker?

homelessskilledworker wrote: »

Every social group was probably at fault in some way, whether it be welfare fraud, speculation or uncontrolable spending, but you can only make people suffer for so long for their crimes.

Really? I blame individuals for welfare fraud (not social groups). I blame individuals in government (not social groups) for uncontrollable spending. I blame nobody for speculation since this is perfectly legal and without it we wouldn't survive. But I blame individuals (and not social groups) for 'reckless speculation'.

But blame doesn't get us very far. Blame the uninsured driver that hit you by all means, but you still have to pay to mend your car, and you still have to 'live' with a broken arm for a few weeks.

homelessskilledworker wrote: »

I am hearing stories about Spain and Greece in particular from people who have been out there or have family(more so Greece) there, how long can those poor sods take the pain for??

I really don't know. But the article is about those who have the luxury of a job causing further damage to the Greek economy. I suspect they can 'take the pain' of the loss of one day's wages. It's the poor sods who's lives and wealth are interrupted and damaged further as a consequence of this selfish action that worries me a bit more than it does you, it seems.

Percy1983

So surely the answer is those at the bottom should work harder?

I work harder then the average chav and feel less pain, sounds fair enough to me.

wotsthat

Percy1983 wrote: »

So surely the answer is those at the bottom should work harder?

I work harder then the average chav and feel less pain, sounds fair enough to me.

Yes the answer is for chavs to work harder - they'll get immense benefits both socially and economically - you know that and I know that.

I'm fairly sure you don't need to persuade many here either - how do you persuade your chav though because they clearly don't see it the same way.

Norfolk_Jim

It is essential that a link be restored between benefits and work. Getting benefits for doing nothing is immoral in my opinion. After a fair time to find work, receipt of benefit should require you to do something in return and that something should be sufficiently demanding that it is undeseriable as a long term lifestyle choice.
There are people related to me who have gone out of their way to make themselves unemployable as they like their present benefit supported lifestyle just fine. THats wrong - Benefits should be there to help you when your in trouble, not become an alternative lifestyle you'll do anything to hang on to.
I don't see that being comparable to whats happening in Greece, Spain etc - thats the inevitable result of the mad socialist experiment to try and create and United States of Europe - not the average working person in those countries.
To think the Greeks were paid to get rid of their olive trees to the benefit of others - now they can't afford cooking oil - isn't that the EEC at its best for you?

chewmylegoff

wotsthat wrote: »

Yes the answer is for chavs to work harder - they'll get immense benefits both socially and economically - you know that and I know that.

I'm fairly sure you don't need to persuade many here either - how do you persuade your chav though because they clearly don't see it the same way.

i doubt the "chavs" who don't work are actually the ones feeling pain. seems to me it's far more likely to be people who do actually work but are not paid very much and have had their salaries frozen for several years (rather than their benefits increased by at least the rate of inflation) who are most likely to suffer the consequences of austerity - a situation which creates even greater disincentives for the non-working class to surrender their benefits and venture out of their paid for accomodation.

thus, take the benefits away from people who can work but don't work and give them to people who do.

for instance, when someone first claims e.g. income related job seekers' allowance, you could say "that's fine, we will pay you £50 a week" or whatever it is. and then just never increase it. the longer you go without getting a job, the greater the incentive to get into the workplace, as your benefits become progressively worth less and less.

then, take the money that you save by doing that, and instead use it to reduce the amount of tax and/or NI paid by those on incomes below, say, £25,000.

wotsthat

chewmylegoff wrote: »

i doubt the "chavs" who don't work are actually the ones feeling pain. seems to me it's far more likely to be people who do actually work but are not paid very much and have had their salaries frozen for several years (rather than their benefits increased by at least the rate of inflation) who are most likely to suffer the consequences of austerity - a situation which creates even greater disincentives for the non-working class to surrender their benefits and venture out of their paid for accomodation.

thus, take the benefits away from people who can work but don't work and give them to people who do.

for instance, when someone first claims e.g. income related job seekers' allowance, you could say "that's fine, we will pay you £50 a week" or whatever it is. and then just never increase it. the longer you go without getting a job, the greater the incentive to get into the workplace, as your benefits become progressively worth less and less.

then, take the money that you save by doing that, and instead use it to reduce the amount of tax and/or NI paid by those on incomes below, say, £25,000.

I'm all for allowing benefits to be reduced in real terms.

The point I'm making is that it's generally attitude that makes someone want to do better for themselves but clearly plenty don't have it. If the first time they notice that non-work isn't viable only after inflation has eroded their benefits for a few years that's not really desirable. By that time they've probably got nothing out of the education system and spent a few years on benefits - hardly going to make it onto an employers 'most wanted' list.

It's not easy and it requires money to be spent on the 'undeserving' - a tough sell.

Percy1983

How about putting them in heated accomodation and givings them only food vouchers.

I will let them have 14" portable TVs I suppose, saves them going into landfill.