Corbynomics: A Dystopia

chucknorris

GreatApe wrote: »

what if any policy change would have meant they would have had decent fulfilling lives without your wife support?

for the avoidance of doubt its a genuine question, the left have the narrative that they are the kind party that any and all problems will be fixed by them. While it sounds good is it true?

I don't know, unfortunately I don't have the answers, Diane Abbot highlighted the extent of this issue when she stated that even a £25 computer could not solve this problem. I probably sounded quite left wing in my posts above, but I'm not. My guess would be to differentiate more between those who genuinely can't help themselves and those that can (but won't). One of the biggest problems is that when on benefits the financial motivation to work can be low. Maybe giving more to those who really need it, by reducing it to those that don't. Now I am probably going to sound very right wing:

In the hierarchy of disposable income, I would try and place people who genuinely can't work at about the same level as low earners (maybe slightly higher), but those who can work, but don't, below them. Maybe something along the lines of this:

1. Give families on benefits, who are healthy and fit to work (I know the identification process is in itself going to be an issue) 3 years to find work, if they don't then their housing benefit should be reduced to only cover a type of shared/clustered accommodation. But not B&B, that costs the tax payer too much, some investment would be needed here to provide cheaper units of accommodation, and definitely in cheaper areas too, no one has the right to a house in an expensive area. This would provide motivation, the problem here might be, how would they find work if moved to an area without work, maybe trailer parks is the answer, they don't have to be slums, there are plenty of decent mobile home parks where respectable retired people have downsized to.

2. Some of the money that is saved could be re-directed to those genuinely in need, who can't look after themselves.

3. A proper type of working for benefits system, that actually helps people get back into work (not simply provides cheap labour for employers), benefits shouldn't be seen as 'free money'. Low earners shouldn't have to pay tax to pay for people on benefits, who get benefits equivalent to their wages.

Some of the above has in one form or another already been tried, so I guess there is no magic wand, but I think the main thing is to try and create motivation to those on benefits to work.

chucknorris

GreatApe wrote: »

I had an offer to read physics at St Catherine's College, Oxford.
But I did not go there I went to a London university instead.

Did you stick with physics?

ukcarper

GreatApe wrote: »

I dont buy your premise that things are worse today, I think things are pretty good today in the UK

We live in a developed country with lots and lots of opportunity for those able and willing. Surely you do not dispute that?

The next question is how good is life and opportunity for those not able or not willing?
Even on that metric I think things are reasonable and perhaps even good. These people will never be kings so the question should be can a poor but functional family live a decent worthwhile life in the uk? I think the answer is yes

So who exactly has great problems you think need fixing and that a left wing government can fix them? Like I keep saying I know lots of people with big problems but most of them are not related to government policy or action. Alcoholism gambling and family feuding problems would be at the top of the list of things I would get rid of if i could. More money to write off student loans wouldn't come close to any of those problems.

Perhaps you are not old enough although I didn't live in council accommodation until I was 16 (house I lived in would be considered a slum now if not then) most of my friends and relatives did and then they were not the undesirable places they become.

The facts are there if you are poor your prospects are worse and social mobility is worse even though education is better. I don't believe the left have the answer to the problems it probably needs a unified approach including more support for the people who need it, better policing and enforcement in the bad areas and a re look at the benefit system and allocation of council houses.

ukcarper

chucknorris wrote: »

I don't know, unfortunately I don't have the answers, I probably sounded quite left wing in my posts above, but I'm not. My guess would be to differentiate more between those who genuinely can't help themselves and those that can (but won't). One of the biggest problems is that when on benefits the financial motivation to work can be low. Maybe giving more to those who really need it, by reducing it to those that don't. Now I am probably going to sound very right wing:

In the hierarchy of disposable income, I would try and place people who genuinely can't work at about the same level as low earners (maybe slightly higher), but those who can work, but don't, below them. Maybe something along the lines of this:

1. Give families on benefits, who are healthy and fit to work (I know the identification process is in itself going to be an issue) 3 years to find work, if they don't then their housing benefit should be reduced to only cover a type of shared/clustered accommodation. But not B&B, that costs the tax payer too much, some investment would be needed here to provide cheaper units of accommodation, and definitely in cheaper areas too, no one has the right to a house in an expensive area. This would provide motivation, the problem here might be, how would they find work if moved to an area without work, maybe trailer parks is the answer, they don't have to be slums, there are plenty of decent mobile home parks where respectable retired people have downsized to.

2. Some of the money that is saved could be re-directed to those genuinely in need, who can't look after themselves.

3. A proper type of working for benefits system, that actually helps people get back into work (not simply provides cheap labour for employers), benefits shouldn't be seen as 'free money'. Low earners shouldn't have to pay tax to pay for people on benefits, who get benefits equivalent to their wages.

Some of the above has in one form or another already been tried, so I guess there is no magic wand, but I think the main thing is to try and create motivation to those on benefits to work.

I'm not sure I agree completely with your post but I agree I don't think the benefit system as it now stands and allocation of social housing help. Brown tried to make work pay with tax credits etc but that has created more problems than it solved I suppose one of the problems is pay is so low. I don't think the left or right have the answers one thing I would do is limit the amount of child benefit paid to the unemployed to the number of children you have when you start claiming benefits.

chucknorris

ukcarper wrote: »

I'm not sure I agree completely with your post but I agree I don't think the benefit system as it now stands and allocation of social housing help. Brown tried to make work pay with tax credits etc but that has created more problems than it solved I suppose one of the problems is pay is so low. I don't think the left or right have the answers one thing I would do is limit the amount of child benefit paid to the unemployed to the number of children you have when you start claiming benefits.

The whole benefit system is that much of a mess, I'm not sure I would agree with my own post either, if I spent more time thinking about it, I'd probably start going in circles. My real answer is, I just don't know.

ukcarper

chucknorris wrote: »

The whole benefit system is that much of a mess, I'm not sure I would agree with my own post either, if I spent more time thinking about it, I'd probably start going in circles. My real answer is, I just don't know.

That's the problem there is no easy answer and the longer it goes on the harder it becomes to solve. But the problem is there and even if a large part of it is self inflicted it wasn't like that when I was young so something has changed and denying it exists doesn't help.

chucknorris

ukcarper wrote: »

That's the problem there is no easy answer and the longer it goes on the harder it becomes to solve. But the problem is there and even if a large part of it is self inflicted it wasn't like that when I was young so something has changed and denying it exists doesn't help.

One thing that I would like to see is financial education in schools, nothing too complicated, just simple things like:

Living on a budget
Compound interest
Yields
Savings
Shares
Bonds
Pensions
Renting v buying property
Living on benefits v working
Careers (including the typical salaries both at the start and end of careers, i.e. demonstrating it isn't your starting salary/wage that is important).

On the last one, students often ask me what career path pays the most, we have a common pathway in the first year of the degree where students can switch pathways, (between quantity surveyor (QS), building surveyor (BS), construction manager etc). I usually say concentrate on finding what you actually like doing, you might be doing it for over 40 years. So money isn't the only consideration, and anyway, if you like doing something, then you are more likely to excel at it. So for example even if QS's on average earned more than BS's, a more successful BS will earn more than an average QS.

economic

ukcarper wrote: »

That's the problem there is no easy answer and the longer it goes on the harder it becomes to solve. But the problem is there and even if a large part of it is self inflicted it wasn't like that when I was young so something has changed and denying it exists doesn't help.

probably part of the problem is immigration making the supply of low cost labour high nd bringing down wages at the lower end.

another part of the problem is the benefits system incentiving people not to work.

and another problem is the lower economic growth (and therefore lower real incomes) we have seen since WW2. it now takes 2 incomes to raise a family, mortgage etc. in the 50s it only took 1 income so the wife stayed at home to look after the kids and do house chores.

now of course birth rates are falling and people having kids later in life. people also dont move out of family homes now until they are in their 30s. its not out of choice. its simple economics. all this contributed by the lack of growth, real wages etc.

so i do feel things are improving in some ways (efficiency, technology, medical advances, freedom etc) however there are problems too of course as mentioned above.

GreatApe

chucknorris wrote: »

Did you stick with physics?

Yes but in hindsight I probably would advise myself not to have bothered with it. The level of study and mathematics was at such high levels I can't think of any time I've had to rely or recall any of it. We don't really need many people to study these subjects and if this country didn't have the city the engineers physicists and mathematicians that graduate from our universities would be screwed as the other employers of these people pay peanuts

Maybe a much shorter 1 year course would have been sufficient. Above A levels but below a BSci.

economic

GreatApe wrote: »

Yes but in hindsight I probably would advise myself not to have bothered with it. The level of study and mathematics was at such high levels I can't think of any time I've had to rely or recall any of it. We don't really need many people to study these subjects and if this country didn't have the city the engineers physicists and mathematicians that graduate from our universities would be screwed as the other employers of these people pay peanuts

Maybe a much shorter 1 year course would have been sufficient. Above A levels but below a BSci.

i studied maths at a top london uni. i feel the same as you. whilst it does make you more analytical in your thinking, i think 3 years was over kill. it ended up being memorising key questions as you were bound to get similar questions in the exams.