Work For The Dole

N1AK

Mallotum_X wrote:

The other issue is that some of those "workshy" will have children. If we provide nothing to the parent, then who feeds the child?

Any intervention that involves children is always going to be controversial. I guess my question would be what chance do the children have if their parent(s) are literally willing to let them starve rather than work?

There will be some people out there who would (depressing as that is) but there will be more who given that choice would start working. If we have to, in a tiny amount of cases where multiple other initiatives have failed, take children away from parents who refuse to provide for them then so be it.

The other alternative is to encourage more people to live off the state by choice and leave those children with parent(s) who refuse to provide for them and who will be terrible role-models.

N1AK

Here's a possible thought experiment. Imagine there is no state: no benefits, tax etc. Imagine that you live on your street and know there is a family down the road where the parents are capable of working but refuse to work and are allowing themselves and their children to starve.

What would you do?

Personally I would like to think I would try and work with other members of my street to provide them with support for a time and assistance getting work. If they continued to refuse then more pressure to find assistance would be applied. Eventually if they still refused then I'd advocate taking the children away and (because I think it's wrong to stand by and watch anyone die) provide the parents with a very meagre amount that they could just about live on.

The current solution via benefits appears to be to give them the money for doing nothing and require nothing from them in return.

CLAPTON

Mallotum_X wrote: »

I think that is the reality. There will be some who would choose not to take up menial work and lose their benefits. In such a situation some of those would increase in criminal activity - shoplifting and such like.

Whilst i think it would be great if we could force the workshy into paid work, I would expect that rather than force them into work a number would simple turn to/increase criminal activity.

Such a work for benefits idea is only going to work for some. The fact it wont work for everyone is not a reason not to try it. Perhaps it would be better to provide enhanced "benefits" to anyone who would engage with such a scheme rather than remove benefits from those who wont.

The other issue is that some of those "workshy" will have children. If we provide nothing to the parent, then who feeds the child?

people do menial jobs as permanent employment

maybe you should meet some and explain to them why you think it alright for them to do this sort of work and pay NI and a modest amount of tax, but you couldn't reasonable expect unemployed people to do this (demeaning) work

Prothet_of_Doom

A guy I work with is an Indian, clearly from a wealthy family, and in discussion, he mentioned his parents employment of 9 house hold staff members.

When I questioned the need for so many, he suggested that it was a moral undertaking in a country which doesn't really have an effective benefit system. It's the duty of people with money to employ people, so that they can help their families to survive.

John1993_2

CLAPTON wrote: »

people do menial jobs as permanent employment

maybe you should meet some and explain to them why you think it alright for them to do this sort of work and pay NI and a modest amount of tax, but you couldn't reasonable expect unemployed people to do this (demeaning) work

Why would he do that, he's never said that it is unreasonable to expect unemployed people to do it.

His view seems to match mine, that it's worth trying, but that we might find that we simply can't manage to make people do it, that the schemes coost more than they save. If we try (and we should), and it doesn't wrk, then it's not pragmatic to keep trying, in effect, to push a piece of string uphill.

CLAPTON

John1993 wrote: »

Why would he do that, he's never said that it is unreasonable to expect unemployed people to do it.

His view seems to match mine, that it's worth trying, but that we might find that we simply can't manage to make people do it, that the schemes coost more than they save. If we try (and we should), and it doesn't wrk, then it's not pragmatic to keep trying, in effect, to push a piece of string uphill.

one must set one's goals first

saving money short term may not be the goal


but the idea that some type of work is 'unworthy' is not a reason
for an able bodied person to do it in exchange for money

MacMickster

N1AK wrote: »

Personally I think there should be a 'grace' period first, purely to limit the churn on people joining the scheme and leaving soon after; but probably no more than a year.

I would say exactly the opposite.

If people planned ahead and had some rainy-day savings to allow them not to work whilst looking for their next permanent job then good for them.

For others, 12 hours work per week would prevent them from slipping into the rut of not working. After a year out of work people often become used to the "lifestyle" and wonder how they ever found the time to go out to work.

People could apply for the particular pool of work that they wanted - unskilled manual, clerical, telephone work etc. Hopefully those with skills could be found some relevant work to make use of those skills.

If I found myself out of work I would prefer the dignity of having some kind of paid employment available while I looked for a permanent job. Some of the responses seem to view the idea as some kind of punishment when it is, in fact, an opportunity for those temporarily between jobs to continue to support themselves and their families rather than the humiliation of having to seek charity from the taxpayer.

lvader

ruggedtoast wrote: »

A society is judged by how it treats its weakest members. Thank goodness the government is not run by the members of this grisly neo-liberal forum.

The young would have nowhere to live that didnt involve handing over a 5 figure cheque every year to a buy to let landlord. Everyone who didnt have a house would have to work 100 hours a week only to stop being told they were too lazy to have one, at which point they would then be told they were too stupid instead as they cant earn enough.

The unemployed would be forced to work as slaves, but the fatcat, banker, corporate welfare, hpi gravy train would roll on for everyone fortunate enough to be born at the right time or be in the right place.

It is shameful.

In order to pay this sort of welfare we are having to borrow huge sums of money from future generations. A bit like expecting your children and grandchildren to pay your debt, that is shameful.

ruggedtoast

lvader wrote: »

In order to pay this sort of welfare we are having to borrow huge sums of money from future generations. A bit like expecting your children and grandchildren to pay your debt, that is shameful.

The shame is on you ten times. Future generations would rather there was a welfare state, not a rewind to 1920 by the Daily Mail aficionados.

lvader

Yes, yes as long as we are all right, sod our children that won't have half the wealth and benefits we have using their money.