Benefits Street

Mee

May I suggest that some may benefit from listening to Jonathan Freedland's latest episode of The Long View on the working poor. It shows how the behaviour of the well meaning and employers both helped perpetuate the existence of the working poor, and poverty from the Speenhamland system (1795) onwards, and includes much discussion about parallels with current debates exhibited here.

gadgetmind

silvercar wrote: »

Removing the dependence doesn't make people independent.

It's necessary but not sufficient.

Old lady walks with zimmer frame, remove the frame and she falls over .

I had to use a walking frame when I shattered a leg. Of course, I could have just sat in a chair for the rest of my life, or clung to the frame forever. Instead I used the frame/crutches when I needed them, but then I worked hard, slowly gained strength and finally got myself walking unaided again.

This is how benefits should work.

Mee

gadgetmind wrote: »

It's necessary but not sufficient.



I had to use a walking frame when I shattered a leg. Of course, I could have just sat in a chair for the rest of my life, or clung to the frame forever. Instead I used the frame/crutches when I needed them, but then I worked hard, slowly gained strength and finally got myself walking unaided again.

This is how benefits should work.

I like the analogy used to explain the principle.
And using it I ask myself how does the system deal with those for various reasons have problems (e.g., pre-existing conditions (underlying illness, repeated fractures etc.)) which may delay the recovery, or mean that some may never walk unaided, or fully unaided again. I have no solutions and I sympathise with those who try to deal with such a complex problem.

BigAunty

springdreams wrote: »

It did not seem to dawn on her at all that she could be the one to go out to work.

When she said into the phone (to be a benefits organisation or landlord, I assume) that he was a 'house husband' that got me shouting at the screen. The reality is that they are unemployed but they simply feel as if they are full time stay at home parents. What a terrible mentality which runs like this

'the reason why we don't work is that we have kids so that's why we can't go out and financially support them because bringing them up means we both ought to stay at home with full time'....

Mee

BigAunty wrote: »

When she said into the phone (to be a benefits organisation or landlord, I assume) that he was a 'house husband' that got me shouting at the screen. The reality is that they are unemployed but they simply feel as if they are full time stay at home parents. What a terrible mentality which runs like this

'the reason why we don't work is that we have kids so that's why we can't go out and financially support them because bringing them up means we both ought to stay at home with full time'....

I was also annoyed by that comment. However, they are locked into a certain way of thinking (or universe) where they seemingly know nothing else or haven't experienced anything else...

thegirlintheattic

Twisted_Cherry wrote: »

Mark and Becky - a prime example as why some people should not have / deserve children.

To be fair, by the end the woman did seem to be trying. Though I was :eek: at the lack of parenting all round. "Oh, let's let my 5 year old out at night and let them hang around with drunks".

juliep58

im sorry if this has already been raised but its tea time and I don't have time to read all the posts.
If people are at home all day why are their houses such tips, im not talking about the latest designer homeware but plain clean soap and water and even a bit of bleach. why do the kids look like they haven't seen a damp flannel in months and the carpet hasn't been brushed in months either. we didn't have carpet for a long time but the tiles were brushed as was the carpet when we were given it by an aunt.
surely there's no excuse for filth.

Gordon_Hose

juliep58 wrote: »

im sorry if this has already been raised but its tea time and I don't have time to read all the posts.
If people are at home all day why are their houses such tips, im not talking about the latest designer homeware but plain clean soap and water and even a bit of bleach. why do the kids look like they haven't seen a damp flannel in months and the carpet hasn't been brushed in months either. we didn't have carpet for a long time but the tiles were brushed as was the carpet when we were given it by an aunt.
surely there's no excuse for filth.

The young lad, Calum I think, had a bath, but I think that was only because the social worker was coming round.

gadgetmind

Mee wrote: »

how does the system deal with those for various reasons have problems

Ideally in a very different way to how it treats those who simply can't be bothered working for a living. Currently that isn't the case.

SnooksNJ

zarf2007 wrote: »

of course they wont work if 'asked' to, thats why a government that would say 'either work or starve' would motivate them....

unfortunately the last labour government (which I voted for) seriously screwed up on benefits and immigration and I cant see an easy way to fix it...

As an immigrant who entered the UK during the last Labour Administration, works, pays taxes, follows the laws, doesn't force Thanksgiving down people's throats how am I such a problem?