Should people on benefits do unpaid work?

Sounds like you haven't got a clue, do you normally say things about which you are clueless?

Well I'm glad you know the case of 100% of jobseekers. Thank god there are no unlucky individuals or individuals who are in the wrong area or wrongly skilled. I feel better knowing it's because they aren't looking and are just being lazy and loafing.

I just don't see your question as relevant, and by the fact you haven't clarified so when asked, you don't seem to either.


.

I asked which criteria you would use to determine what sorts of jobs are not really worth paying for but could be done by the unemployed but got no credible answers.

This says to me you either have no idea what the criteria are thus clueless in this case or you do but don't want to say because it reflects badly on you. Which one is it?

I wouldn't determine anything because I don't own any land or property in the UK. But whoever does can decide whether the job is important enough to employ someone with a living wage to do full time, or to submit that vacancy to the DWP so they can use that vacancy for one of their long term unemployed.

Not every landowner has a million pound in the bank, many have mortgages and non paying tenants (due to ridiculous government red tape preventing rent money going straight to landlords). Letting the lazy work for their benefits makes the place look cleaner for those who aren't in a position to put their hand in their pocket to do so.

Define lucky. If you've been unemployed for more than 6 months it is not unlucky. It is lack of trying. If you can't find work to match your skills then find unskilled work to hold you over while you search.

There are people who make do in countries without generous welfare systems and they don't complain so there is zero excuse not to get by in the UK nanny state.

I'll just take the dictionary's definition.

So once again, I'm glad to know that anybody <6 months is OK and everyone >6months is loafing around.
What if there is no unskilled work in one's area?

Also are the kind of people who live in corrugated steel shacks and scavenge in landfills for food.

Its your responsibility to move to an area that can cater for employment needs. If you can't secure a job where you are then you can apply to the council to be moved elsewhere.

Most (if not all) places have far less council houses and flats than the people in that area that need them and people from outside the area go way down the waiting list.

But not everyone can move in the hope they might get a job somewhere else. People have connections to an area other than jobs. They might have elderly relatives they need to look after. Or they might have children who they don't want to relocate constantly looking for jobs.

If they're looking after relatives you can get a carer's allowance which would exempt you from it. If they have children I would question why they chose to have children if they didn't have any long term prospect of the means to care for them.

What kind of thought process do you have?

He's probably just thinking that if you knew you couldn't support kids, you should have used contraception. Of course, the problem with that is that sometimes, people are just too impatient to go out and get contraception when they need it, so they have kids without meaning to. Also, some people want to scrounge off child benefits(I know people who actually do it), and though they should be punished for that; it's not fair to affect their kids with that punishment.

That is forced. They would be being forced to do something under threat of destitution. You're forcing people against their will to work for a safety net which they are supposed to be entitled to anyway. That's kind of the whole point of a safety net. This has been proposed before, and the hour requirements for those proposals meant that people would be "working" for a fraction of the minimum wage.

This whole idea is nothing more than a forced labour scheme, no matter how people try to dress it up. Unless of course you significantly increased benefits so the scheme was in line with the minimum wage. But there are other problems with it as well, such as undercutting those who already do that job and are paid for it - if businesses can get free labour from the welfare system, they'll go for that instead of paid staff where possible.