[Brit_Miller]

There is no way I would work for 8 or so years to get a phD and go work in McDonalds. The whole point of working so hard is to work in your desired field for a respectable wage.

[Mr Dangermouse]

(Original post by JoeLatics)
So unemployed Physics PhDs should be flipping burgers at the first opportunity?

Yup. Whilst looking for jobs in the physics field, of course.

[Patriot Rich]

I couldn't agree more. I don't think unemployed highly skilled workers should work in McDonalds at the first opportunity. For one it's unfair on Mcdonalds if they quit after a week or so, after finding a more highly paid job, during which time they've received training at McDonald's expense and someone else could have had the job. However after 6 months or so it's ridiculous for someone to claim benefits when there's another option available.

[Bonged.]

To be honest , it's not about whether it's acceptable or not, we live in a society of moral relativism. Which is bad obviously.

Also - it is actually more secure and comfortable to be on the dole than to work for minimum wage. Not just out of laziness, minimum wage gets taxed the **** out of, you take about half of your wages home, then you've got council tax and rent. Or you could just be on the dole and get free rent no council tax etc.

Not condoning anything, but that is the case unfortunately.

We have to change though, with our declining birth rates we can't afford to continue with the welfare state, unless we import even more immigrants than we are atm. I can't see this being popular with the ever so ignorant general public, considering flooding the labour market reduces wages and standards of living.

[Brit_Miller]

(Original post by Bonged.)
To be honest , it's not about whether it's acceptable or not, we live in a society of moral relativism. Which is bad obviously.

Also - it is actually more secure and comfortable to be on the dole than to work for minimum wage. Not just out of laziness, minimum wage gets taxed the **** out of, you take about half of your wages home, then you've got council tax and rent. Or you could just be on the dole and get free rent no council tax etc.

Not condoning anything, but that is the case unfortunately.

We have to change though, with our declining birth rates we can't afford to continue with the welfare state, unless we import even more immigrants than we are atm. I can't see this being popular with the ever so ignorant general public, considering flooding the labour market reduces wages and standards of living.

It's completely unfair on people that genuinely need it too. My girlfriend lost her job a month ago, and she's not allowed to claim job seekers because apparently I earn too much having a £6.5k student loan! My rent is £6k a year alone, how the fook am I supposed to pay for her too!

[inadilemma]

I'm on a gap year. I've been on JSA since October. I have applied for jobs and have been actively looking for work since then. There have been so many jobs I've been rejected from because I either don't have enough experience or just no explanation given. I applied for a job at KFC and got rejected. I have very good A Level results (AAA) and have only just this week been given an interview from a job I applied to recently (my first job interview).

[Piko_Piko]

(Original post by Bonged.)
To be honest , it's not about whether it's acceptable or not, we live in a society of moral relativism. Which is bad obviously.

Also - it is actually more secure and comfortable to be on the dole than to work for minimum wage. Not just out of laziness, minimum wage gets taxed the **** out of, you take about half of your wages home, then you've got council tax and rent. Or you could just be on the dole and get free rent no council tax etc.

Not condoning anything, but that is the case unfortunately.

We have to change though, with our declining birth rates we can't afford to continue with the welfare state, unless we import even more immigrants than we are atm. I can't see this being popular with the ever so ignorant general public, considering flooding the labour market reduces wages and standards of living.

No, you pay no tax at all on the first £155 per week. The tax man takes a fifth of what you earn after that. Plus, for a minimum wage job, roughly £12 per week for national insurance.
IMHO that's not an awful lot, considering what it's spent on. Plus it's still much more money that you'd receive from benefits, if you don't have children.

I agree with all the points OP made, except one: The 10% or so unemployed may in fact, not be unemployed due to laziness. The number of jobs is far fewer than the number of people wanting them.

[Bonged.]

(Original post by Piko_Piko)
No, you pay no tax at all on the first £155 per week. The tax man takes a fifth of what you earn after that. Plus, for a minimum wage job, roughly £12 per week for national insurance.
IMHO that's not an awful lot, considering what it's spent on. Plus it's still much more money that you'd receive from benefits, if you don't have children.

I agree with all the points OP made, except one: The 10% or so unemployed may in fact, not be unemployed due to laziness. The number of jobs is far fewer than the number of people wanting them.

There's still rent, council tax etc (excrutiatingly high in london and south east). That doesn't exist on dole.

Which we wont see again.

Agreed. The labour market is absolutely flooded, meaning that people will accept worse wages and working conditions out of desperation as there are so few jobs.

[travoot]

I'm reluctant to enter into a dialogue about the morality of welfarism with an American. Your nation is a disgrace.

[Bonged.]

(Original post by travoot)
I'm reluctant to enter into a dialogue about the morality of welfarism with an American. Your nation is a disgrace.

Not necessary. It is unsustainable. Our birthrates are too low.

Just so you know, I'm a poor person that would individually benefit from welfare, but I can see it is unsustainable.

[Harrifer]

(Original post by JoeLatics)
So unemployed Physics PhDs should be flipping burgers at the first opportunity?

Well yes, why not? In this economic climate, you certainly wouldn't be the only one with a degree.

JSA is for people who can't find a job, not people who won't. I have no sympathy for people who feel they're entitled to a top job on the basis that they have a degree.

[Felchingman]

(Original post by JoeLatics)
So unemployed Physics PhDs should be flipping burgers at the first opportunity?

Flip burgers while actively looking for a job in the mean time. Perfectly doable and it saves the state lots of money.

[Joe-89]

Can't actually believe there are a couple of people disagreeing with this. I don't care if you have PhD in physics, you're probably not gonna jump straight from that into your dream job. Obviously you should be applying for the best jobs that you're qualified to do, but, in the meantime, "flipping burgers" makes you a much more decent person than someone who spends their time scrounging off the state and crying that they're too good to do certain jobs.

[SEHughes]

I've never met a benefits claimant who saw a job as beneath them, only ones who were either better off on benefits or unemployable for various reasons.

[Brit_Miller]

(Original post by Joe-89)
Can't actually believe there are a couple of people disagreeing with this. I don't care if you have PhD in physics, you're probably not gonna jump straight from that into your dream job. Obviously you should be applying for the best jobs that you're qualified to do, but, in the meantime, "flipping burgers" makes you a much more decent person than someone who spends their time scrounging off the state and crying that they're too good to do certain jobs.

It's not so much the job is beneath a person, it's not what they're qualified to do. At the job centre, you explain your qualifications and they match you to the best suited jobs. Clearly a person with a phD in physics isn't going to be suited to flipping burgers and not ideal for whoever is employing either - nor, I doubt, would they apply for those types of jobs. Plus living off of benefits usually isn't far off working a 37 hour week on minimum wage - where's the incentive?

I would personally wait until I found a job relevant to what I want to do, and let those who want those jobs to have them. But that's from me who has paid into the system.

[hypercaine.]

Some people dont get employed because theyre over qualified, as a student I find it quite hard because the company id be working for see me as someone who isnt a long term employee; theyd train me for quite a high cost and then id work for them for a year or two until I graduate in which case it isnt worth them employing me.
A company wont employ someone whos highly qualified for a non-skilled job, again theres no point; theyll only be looking for somebody else in the next few weeks/months when said person finds an appropriate job which requires their qualifications.

Obviously if you have a handful of GCSEs then it cant really be below you considering technically no job will be. But in answer to your question, yes it is acceptable and sometimes its not a matter of it being acceptable to the employee but more to the employer.

[Joe-89]

(Original post by Brit_Miller)
It's not so much the job is beneath a person, it's not what they're qualified to do. At the job centre, you explain your qualifications and they match you to the best suited jobs. Clearly a person with a phD in physics isn't going to be suited to flipping burgers and not ideal for whoever is employing either - nor, I doubt, would they apply for those types of jobs. Plus living off of benefits usually isn't far off working a 37 hour week on minimum wage - where's the incentive?

I would personally wait until I found a job relevant to what I want to do, and let those who want those jobs to have them. But that's from me who has paid into the system.

It's not a case of being qualified though is it? I don't think you need to pass an exam to serve people burgers (though maybe you do to flip them ).

I'm a chemistry graduate who went straight onto JSA after graduating and, after a couple of months, got myself a job working on the tills in M&S. It's barely above minimum wage but preferable to staying on benefits IMO. I'm not going to sit around on benefits and wait for a job that's suited to my degree to fall into my lap...though admittedly in my case it's more to do with the fact that I have absolutely no idea what I want to do career-wise!

37 hours at minimum wage is over £200 per week (after tax), compared to £53(?) per week on JSA. While I've not taken into account other benefits, in most cases you would probably be better off working than not. Apart from that, the incentive is that you're doing something productive instead of sponging. Not to mention that having a large gap in your CV is surely much worse than "McDonald's Cashier". At least that shows to potential physics-related employers that you're willing to work.

[Beebumble]

(Original post by doggyfizzel)
We need to get back to the point where claiming benefits was something to be ashamed of.

Some people can't help being on benefits you know? Imagine you have a really good job then bam companies goes into decline you're sent on your way? What are you supposed to do then? Refuse benefits and starve because 'it's not the right thing to do'.

My Mum was on benefits for a very short amount time because her boss very royally screwed her over out of any money she was entitled to from the company and she had to move out of the area thanks to an abuse Ex trying to kill her. She applied for literally anywhere whilst claiming and hated being at home all day but it was extremely difficult because she never had time for her O'level's at 15 because guess what? She had to concentrate on her job (she got her last job back in the days where qualifications weren't needed as much) so she's worked since she was 15, spent more years paying into the system then you've been born, but should feel ashamed because through no fault of her own she had to use benefits she had paid into. Eventually she did find a job and grabbed it with both hands despite it being very low paid, in a place with no heating and so far away she spends nearly half her wages on travel!

You see not every benefit claimers are money grabbing chavs just normal people who need to get by because for some reason or another they're unwillingly out of work. For some people saying 'you should be ashamed to be on benefits' is as ridiculous as saying 'you should be ashamed to have a broken leg'. In these times there are more jobs then people so obviously there are going to be some people out of work and a lot of people just got the short straw and are unlucky it's them.

[doggyfizzel]

(Original post by Beebumble)
Some people can't help being on benefits you know? Imagine you have a really good job then bam companies goes into decline you're sent on your way? What are you supposed to do then? Refuse benefits and starve because 'it's not the right thing to do'.

My Mum was on benefits for a very short amount time because her boss very royally screwed her over out of any money she was entitled to from the company and she had to move out of the area thanks to an abuse Ex trying to kill her. She applied for literally anywhere whilst claiming and hated being at home all day but it was extremely difficult because she never had time for her O'level's at 15 because guess what? She had to concentrate on her job (she got her last job back in the days where qualifications weren't needed as much) so she's worked since she was 15, spent more years paying into the system then you've been born, but should feel ashamed because through no fault of her own she had to use benefits she had paid into. Eventually she did find a job and grabbed it with both hands despite it being very low paid, in a place with no heating and so far away she spends nearly half her wages on travel!

You see not every benefit claimers are money grabbing chavs just normal people who need to get by because for some reason or another they're unwillingly out of work. For some people saying 'you should be ashamed to be on benefits' is as ridiculous as saying 'you should be ashamed to have a broken leg'. In these times there are more jobs then people so obviously there are going to be some people out of work and a lot of people just got the short straw and are unlucky it's them.

Based on the bits I've highlighted, it clearly doesn't apply to your mum does it? She is already doing all she can and she clearly would prefer to be working. In my post it says specifically "For most people it still is" I never even hinted everyone on benefits was was loving it and had no desire to work.

[Beebumble]

(Original post by Chumbaniya)
It's a difficult one because it obviously makes absolutely no sense (indeed it would actually be economically damaging) to force highly qualified individuals into the first open position regardless of its suitability, but at the same time long-term unemployment waiting for the perfect job isn't productive for either the benefits agency or the job-seeker. So it seems like you're looking to find a balance.

To those who think that any unemployed individual seeking benefits should always accept a job no matter how overqualified they are - presumably you're worried about wasting more taxpayer money on their benefits than is strictly necessary. But in that case, what is your view on the often considerable amount of taxpayer money that was spent on educating these people? In terms of the health of the economy as a whole, I don't think it makes a great deal of sense to ignore the investment that we make in education.

Exactly! You've also got to remember that for every person who gets the job there are probably about 10 other people who's got rejected for it. So someone not taking a job they're overqualified isn't exactly going to make a difference because the role will be filled by someone else on JSA.