[Astronomical]

(Original post by Martyn*)
It's still not true. Welfare does not create an attitude of worklessness.

Yes it does. It may not make you take that attitude (although having said that, how long did you say you've been unemployed? ) but it often does to others.

(Original post by Martyn*)
If they have money left over from their benefits, which the law says is enough to live on, then what's your problem? I spend what's left of my JSA at the gym, sometimes I spend what's left on a computer game as a treat for the hard work I put in at the gym. You object to health? You object to someone improving their heath? Do you object to a little enjoyment?

I wholeheartedly object to you or anyone else having enjoyment at the cost of the taxpayer. Benefits should be enough to pay for the food that keeps you alive and thats its. You want enjoyment? Get a job and earn some enjoyment. A gym is also a luxury that should not be afforded to the unemployed; you can run outside for free, you can go and find some heavy rocks to lift up in a free park, but you should not be in a gym paid for by the taxpayer. As for your argument that "the Government says that it's enough to live on, therefore it is the right amount of benefits and not too much," you ought to remember that the Government is very wrong oftentimes.

[minimarshmallow]

(Original post by Astronomical)
I wholeheartedly object to you or anyone else having enjoyment at the cost of the taxpayer. Benefits should be enough to pay for the food that keeps you alive and thats its. You want enjoyment? Get a job and earn some enjoyment. A gym is also a luxury that should not be afforded to the unemployed; you can run outside for free, you can go and find some heavy rocks to lift up in a free park, but you should not be in a gym paid for by the taxpayer. As for your argument that "the Government says that it's enough to live on, therefore it is the right amount of benefits and not too much," you ought to remember that the Government is very wrong oftentimes.

So disabled people who actually can't work should just never enjoy themselves?
People who've lost their jobs through no fault of their own and are maybe competing with their old colleagues for new job vacancies so are struggling to find work should just sit there and do nothing in their free time because you don't think leisure is a necessity?

Do you know what that will probably lead to? Mental health problems. And who pays to treat those problems? Oh, the taxpayer. So instead of being okay with someone having maybe a few quid a week left over to save up for a game or to exercise or to spend maybe on a taxi home from the pub (don't have to drink, just stay there with your friends for a while) you'd rather pay quite a bit for GP's visits, psychiatrist's/psychologist's visits, anti-depressants and therapy and maybe not let the person get better, because of something beyond their control?

[Astronomical]

(Original post by minimarshmallow)
So disabled people who actually can't work should just never enjoy themselves?
People who've lost their jobs through no fault of their own and are maybe competing with their old colleagues for new job vacancies so are struggling to find work should just sit there and do nothing in their free time because you don't think leisure is a necessity?

Do you know what that will probably lead to? Mental health problems. And who pays to treat those problems? Oh, the taxpayer. So instead of being okay with someone having maybe a few quid a week left over to save up for a game or to exercise or to spend maybe on a taxi home from the pub (don't have to drink, just stay there with your friends for a while) you'd rather pay quite a bit for GP's visits, psychiatrist's/psychologist's visits, anti-depressants and therapy and maybe not let the person get better, because of something beyond their control?

People who have a genuine disability is a different subject. We're talking about people on jobseeker allowance.

So what if you lost your job? It's more of an incentive to look harder for a new one. It shouldn't be nice to live off benefits, it shouldn't be comfortable and it certainly ought not to be enjoyable - that defeats the objective of getting people working. There are always jobs available, people just put themselves above most of them for some reason unbeknownst to me. It's also ludicrous to suggest that everyone, even that a substantial number of people, would develop mental health problems. I think it's interesting also how you presume it's impossible to have something enjoyable to do without the taxpayer having to pay for it. What about going for walks? Going jogging? Drawing? Reading? Cycling? Having a laugh with your friends about how crap your life is? Or, unbelievable as it may seem, you could focus all your time and attention on getting employed. Shock. Horror.

The fact of the matter is that I could quite easily get a minimum wage job within two weeks, or three at most; the manner in which people make out that there are absolutely zero jobs anywhere is frankly just a poor excuse for them seeing many minimum wage jobs as below their "mighty" self. Ironic then, that these such lofty people can't even fund themselves.

[minimarshmallow]

(Original post by Astronomical)
People who have a genuine disability is a different subject. We're talking about people on jobseeker allowance.

So what if you lost your job? It's more of an incentive to look harder for a new one. It shouldn't be nice to live off benefits, it shouldn't be comfortable and it certainly ought not to be enjoyable - that defeats the objective of getting people working. There are always jobs available, people just put themselves above most of them for some reason unbeknownst to me. It's also ludicrous to suggest that everyone, even that a substantial number of people, would develop mental health problems. I think it's interesting also how you presume it's impossible to have something enjoyable to do without the taxpayer having to pay for it. What about going for walks? Going jogging? Drawing? Reading? Cycling? Having a laugh with your friends about how crap your life is? Or, unbelievable as it may seem, you could focus all your time and attention on getting employed. Shock. Horror.

The fact of the matter is that I could quite easily get a minimum wage job within two weeks, or three at most; the manner in which people make out that there are absolutely zero jobs anywhere is frankly just a poor excuse for them seeing many minimum wage jobs as below their "mighty" self. Ironic then, that these such lofty people can't even fund themselves.

You said 'I wholeheartedly object to you or anyone else having enjoyment at the cost of the taxpayer.' So either you're including those on disability benefits, of you're not saying that.

There's no point in giving people incentives to find jobs, if there aren't jobs to be had. I'm currently in education but my best friend with an NVQ Level 3 in childcare, a Level 2 in food and bar and experience in both of these was looking for 7 months to try and get a job. She applied for literally anything she was qualified for that she could reasonably get to (she couldn't do any driving jobs for example, because she can't drive but she applied to anything she could get to in 2 hours via public transport). Doesn't change the fact that according to the job centre, roughly 19 other people were also applying for those same vacancies. She applied to anything she had the required things to do, she didn't think anything was beneath her. Neither did the other 19 applicants. Only one of them can get the job, what do you think the other 19 do? Move onto the next job application while yet more people start looking for jobs and it becomes even harder?

Jogging/walking - needs appropriate footwear.
Reading - books cost money, as does transport to the library.
Drawing - wouldn't call it a leisure activity unless you're a particularly arty person, but even so you still need drawing materials.
Cycling - bikes cost money, as does maintaining them.
Where do you meet your friends? Most of my friends live at the opposite end of town, I'd have to walk an hour and a half each way or we'd both have to do 45 minutes each way to meet in the middle.
Put all your energy into getting employed? How many job vacancies do you think there are to apply to? Even if you searched all day and applied for everything you could find, that'll be it for a little while. The first day you'll have loads to do, after that you have to wait for positions to become available because you've already applied for them all. What do you do in the meantime?

I'm not saying it should be as enjoyable as working, or preferable to working. I'm saying you can't completely cut out leisure, because it's bad for you. And I can't think of a leisure activity that doesn't require at least a tiny bit of money.

[SnoochToTheBooch]

(Original post by Herr)
In recent years there sure seems to be lots of talk with regard to people on benefit that shouldn't be on benefits.

Today 1 in 6 children in Britain grow up in a workless household. It is estimated that around half of people who are claiming JSA have been doing so over the long term.

One rather interesting thing that happens in Switzerland, the moment we talk of people who abuse the welfare system, in our minds it conjures up image of a foreigner or immigrant family and for the most part even in countries where welfare benefits are rather generous like in Sweden or Denmark, usually the moment they think of people who abuse the welfare it is always some immigrant family from an Islamic country with a battalion of badly behaved children in tow..... but not in Britain where even junk like Daily Express would highlight native population being scroungers while it is usually the case that immigrants are the benefit fraudsters.

Interestingly, the left like to say there is a lack of jobs.... if that is indeed so why then has employment rates among the foreign born been on an ever increasing trend? You can't blame them being paid under minimum wage either as ONS stats doesn't cover those in work illegally and a very small minority of legal jobs pay under minimum wage, these are usually trade jobs anyway that are paid by per job basis rather than a flat hourly type salary.

What exactly is the root cause of the culture of worklessness in modern Britain and the sudden influx of benefit scrounging?

1 in 6 my sagging arse.

[Martyn*]

(Original post by SpiggyTopes)
Gym is a luxury, you can exercise without one you know! You shouldn't be spending other people's money like that. Yes, small treats but not expensive and unnecessary ones like the gym.

You should be thank full you get beinfits in the first place, some many people don't. Don't complain that you can't live a brilliant lifestyle. People work hard to fund what sounds like a cushy lifestyle for you. Lot's of taxpayers can't afford the gym!

At £1 each time? It's the cheapest gym in my area. It is besides the point anyway. The law does not stipulate on what I should spend the money I get. Some people don't get benefits? Like people who don't need them, right? Taxpayers CAN afford the gym if they delegate their money properly. Since the gym I use is just £1 each go, someone could easily give up cigarettes and use that money more wisely.

You cannot dictate what people spend the money on that they get from the state. It is the bare minimum so it must be used therefore to sustain a reasonable standard of living whilst out of work.

[Martyn*]

(Original post by Astronomical)
Yes it does. It may not make you take that attitude (although having said that, how long did you say you've been unemployed? ) but it often does to others.


I wholeheartedly object to you or anyone else having enjoyment at the cost of the taxpayer. Benefits should be enough to pay for the food that keeps you alive and thats its. You want enjoyment? Get a job and earn some enjoyment. A gym is also a luxury that should not be afforded to the unemployed; you can run outside for free, you can go and find some heavy rocks to lift up in a free park, but you should not be in a gym paid for by the taxpayer. As for your argument that "the Government says that it's enough to live on, therefore it is the right amount of benefits and not too much," you ought to remember that the Government is very wrong oftentimes.

You object to anyone having enjoyment it seems. People who don't work must also enjoy life too, in the way that they can given the circumstances. Of course, if you wish that people who are on benefits should just eat and sleep, then you run the risk of class war; 2 million unhappy people is not my idea of a civilised society. As for the notion that a gym is a luxury, the notion is absured. The gym costs £1 per session. It's hardly a luxury, and it is £1 towards good health (many people such as myself cannot run on pavement) which saves money on the NHS. Physical exercise also improves mood and outlook. But I suppose you want 2 million people chained to a rock so that they no freedom. Well, then, get a time machine and go back Nazi Germany. I'm sure they would accomodate you nicely.

[izpenguin]

Obviously most people on jsa are genuinely looking for work, but there are too many who aren't.
This happens because it's so easy: just keep having more kids and more money will come. So they have loads of kids to maximise profit, and then those kids may well go on to become benefit scroungers themselves.

[Martyn*]

(Original post by minimarshmallow)
You said 'I wholeheartedly object to you or anyone else having enjoyment at the cost of the taxpayer.' So either you're including those on disability benefits, of you're not saying that.

There's no point in giving people incentives to find jobs, if there aren't jobs to be had. I'm currently in education but my best friend with an NVQ Level 3 in childcare, a Level 2 in food and bar and experience in both of these was looking for 7 months to try and get a job. She applied for literally anything she was qualified for that she could reasonably get to (she couldn't do any driving jobs for example, because she can't drive but she applied to anything she could get to in 2 hours via public transport). Doesn't change the fact that according to the job centre, roughly 19 other people were also applying for those same vacancies. She applied to anything she had the required things to do, she didn't think anything was beneath her. Neither did the other 19 applicants. Only one of them can get the job, what do you think the other 19 do? Move onto the next job application while yet more people start looking for jobs and it becomes even harder?

Jogging/walking - needs appropriate footwear.
Reading - books cost money, as does transport to the library.
Drawing - wouldn't call it a leisure activity unless you're a particularly arty person, but even so you still need drawing materials.
Cycling - bikes cost money, as does maintaining them.
Where do you meet your friends? Most of my friends live at the opposite end of town, I'd have to walk an hour and a half each way or we'd both have to do 45 minutes each way to meet in the middle.
Put all your energy into getting employed? How many job vacancies do you think there are to apply to? Even if you searched all day and applied for everything you could find, that'll be it for a little while. The first day you'll have loads to do, after that you have to wait for positions to become available because you've already applied for them all. What do you do in the meantime?

I'm not saying it should be as enjoyable as working, or preferable to working. I'm saying you can't completely cut out leisure, because it's bad for you. And I can't think of a leisure activity that doesn't require at least a tiny bit of money.

Anyone who objects to another's happiness or enjoyment of life, no matter how small, is showing the fascist tendancy towards the curtailment of freedom.

[Martyn*]

(Original post by izpenguin)
Obviously most people on jsa are genuinely looking for work, but there are too many who aren't.
This happens because it's so easy: just keep having more kids and more money will come. So they have loads of kids to maximise profit, and then those kids may well go on to become benefit scroungers themselves.

There are a few who aren't.

[JamalAhmed]

(Original post by Herr)
In recent years there sure seems to be lots of talk with regard to people on benefit that shouldn't be on benefits.

Today 1 in 6 children in Britain grow up in a workless household. It is estimated that around half of people who are claiming JSA have been doing so over the long term.

One rather interesting thing that happens in Switzerland, the moment we talk of people who abuse the welfare system, in our minds it conjures up image of a foreigner or immigrant family and for the most part even in countries where welfare benefits are rather generous like in Sweden or Denmark, usually the moment they think of people who abuse the welfare it is always some immigrant family from an Islamic country with a battalion of badly behaved children in tow..... but not in Britain where even junk like Daily Express would highlight native population being scroungers while it is usually the case that immigrants are the benefit fraudsters.

Interestingly, the left like to say there is a lack of jobs.... if that is indeed so why then has employment rates among the foreign born been on an ever increasing trend? You can't blame them being paid under minimum wage either as ONS stats doesn't cover those in work illegally and a very small minority of legal jobs pay under minimum wage, these are usually trade jobs anyway that are paid by per job basis rather than a flat hourly type salary.

What exactly is the root cause of the culture of worklessness in modern Britain and the sudden influx of benefit scrounging?

Racist! you read the Daily Mail too much. Now stop talking about a country you don't live.

[minimarshmallow]

(Original post by Martyn*)
Anyone who objects to another's happiness or enjoyment of life, no matter how small, is showing the fascist tendancy towards the curtailment of freedom.

I agree with you. Although I don't think that those on benefits should get thousands of pounds for a track day or whatever because that is excessive, a few quid a week for basic leisure activities and the equipment that is needed or a TV licence or whatever is necessary to help prevent mental illness and actually treat people who are probably in a bad position that they don't want to be in through no fault of their own as what they are - human beings!

[izpenguin]

(Original post by Martyn*)
There are a few who aren't.

A few is too many. No-one should be living like that (except those who genuinely can't work for because of disability, but that's a different conversation altogether)

[Martyn*]

(Original post by minimarshmallow)
I agree with you. Although I don't think that those on benefits should get thousands of pounds for a track day or whatever because that is excessive, a few quid a week for basic leisure activities and the equipment that is needed or a TV licence or whatever is necessary to help prevent mental illness and actually treat people who are probably in a bad position that they don't want to be in through no fault of their own as what they are - human beings!

Who on benefits gets thousands of pounds for a track day? And even if that were true, what difference would it make to someone who just gets £71 per week, which is what the law stipulates you are entitled to get?

People who are unemployed are not empty vassals that can be filled on the day they start work. They are an individual with a life. Anyone who thinks otherwise should just go and join a Nazi convention or something.

[minimarshmallow]

(Original post by izpenguin)
A few is too many. No-one should be living like that (except those who genuinely can't work for because of disability, but that's a different conversation altogether)

Nobody is trying to say that they should, but the proposed 'solutions' that everyone keeps putting forward would punish the majority who aren't doing anything wrong for a very small minority of people who are. The money and the ideas should be trying to hunt out those people, not one solution that does more harm than good!

[minimarshmallow]

(Original post by Martyn*)
Who on benefits gets thousands of pounds for a track day? And even if that were true, what difference would it make to someone who just gets £71 per week, which is what the law stipulates you are entitled to get?

People who are unemployed are not empty vassals that can be filled on the day they start work. They are an individual with a life. Anyone who thinks otherwise should just go and join a Nazi convention or something.

No-one on benefits gets that is my point, but some people seem to think that's what we're trying to say when we say people on benefits are entitled to leisure activities.
I'm agreeing with you, why are you arguing with me?

[Martyn*]

(Original post by izpenguin)
A few is too many. No-one should be living like that (except those who genuinely can't work for because of disability, but that's a different conversation altogether)

I agree. No-one should be living like that. But what is to be done? We have lots of people who are clearly overworked and would love to enjoy more free time, and then we have lots of people who don't work at all. It is unhelpful to wax lyrical about who should and should not get benefits. If people are entitled to them then they should have them.

[Martyn*]

(Original post by minimarshmallow)
No-one on benefits gets that is my point, but some people seem to think that's what we're trying to say when we say people on benefits are entitled to leisure activities.
I'm agreeing with you, why are you arguing with me?

Oh I see. Okay.

[MTR_10]

(Original post by Herr)
In recent years there sure seems to be lots of talk with regard to people on benefit that shouldn't be on benefits.

Today 1 in 6 children in Britain grow up in a workless household. It is estimated that around half of people who are claiming JSA have been doing so over the long term.

One rather interesting thing that happens in Switzerland, the moment we talk of people who abuse the welfare system, in our minds it conjures up image of a foreigner or immigrant family and for the most part even in countries where welfare benefits are rather generous like in Sweden or Denmark, usually the moment they think of people who abuse the welfare it is always some immigrant family from an Islamic country with a battalion of badly behaved children in tow..... but not in Britain where even junk like Daily Express would highlight native population being scroungers while it is usually the case that immigrants are the benefit fraudsters.

Interestingly, the left like to say there is a lack of jobs.... if that is indeed so why then has employment rates among the foreign born been on an ever increasing trend? You can't blame them being paid under minimum wage either as ONS stats doesn't cover those in work illegally and a very small minority of legal jobs pay under minimum wage, these are usually trade jobs anyway that are paid by per job basis rather than a flat hourly type salary.

[B]What exactly is the root cause of the culture of worklessness in modern Britain and the sudden influx of benefit scrounging?

Hello again.

We had a conversation on here about life in Switzerland a while back.

I think there are key differences between British culture and Swiss and perhaps European in general. Here are some of my thoughts on the subject;

1) Switzerland, and other European countries in my opinion have generally more responsible leaders. By leaders, I don't just mean parliaments. I mean the powerful people - private enterprise. Swiss leaders value long term responsibility, stability, structure and planning, British businesses value short term profit and believe the market and money in general are the most important things in life. A few Europeans I have spoken to seem so relaxed about becoming wealthy which is strange compared to here, where it is all people think about (check out the abundance of Thatcherite tsr economics students hanging around). Maybe in Switzerland people are thinking about quality of life and wellbeing and how capitalism can run parallel to this in order to improve it? Here it's the mentality that money = quality of life and wellbeing if that makes sense? I think people are far too obsessed about becoming instantly wealthy in this country at the expense of all standards and that leads to all sorts of problems.

2)From the point of view of private enterprise it is better to employ immigrants because

i) they do not have to pay them a living wage. Natives need a living wage to pay rent/ mortgage and be able to sustain a reasonable lifestyles in the country in the long term. Immigrants are handed accommodation by the state so essentially the state picks up the bill for private enterprise workers (hence the public debt). Also, immigrants are more likely to tolerate sub standard accomodation because it is only temporary, whereas natives need long term stability and need to raise children etc. For proof of this, look into statistics which measure secong generations of immigrant parents. Trust me, from my own experience these people are more anti-immigration than natives and despite the irony, are not so quick to assume that immigrants work harder and are better than they are as their parents did, 30 years ago!!!

ii)it provides a quick fix solution for profit margins, which is valued over long term stable growth which we see in more sophisticated countries such as Switzerland, Germany, Sweden etc.

iii) They can get away with exploitation, bullying and maltreatment because of the power inbalance (not democratic but very profitablt for the select few).

iv)immigrants do not care about the wellbeing of the country in general - society etc. why would they? They couldn't care less if they ruin the labour laws for future generations, or the standards in the country for everyone else, they just want their buck to take back home, or a free house from the state. Private enterprise are more than happy for them to have this, and most of their leaders don't value society of the wellbeing of the country in general either.

3) The general attitude and approach of British style capitalism is not centred on working but exploiting the rules. For example, in school, the hard working students are torn to pieces, kicked around, bullied and forced into compliance with the cool, trendy, rebellious kids. underachieving is glamourous. This mentality also exists in the workplace where executives couldn't give a damn about putting in a solid shift of work or how their company is functioning or the impact it is having on others or as long as it satisfies the bottom line (profit). Sad but true. Conscientious and self aware are not terms that can be used to describe the vast majority of British executives. People who like working (craftsmen for example who derive a great deal of satisfaction from their work) are generally looked down as losers and their work inefficient, redundant and pointless. Again, the only thing that matters is money. Their is pressure everywhere in Britain to not work hard and put effort into your work but find ways of exploiting the system and bending the rules for your own instant selfish gain.

4) Industrialisation. This is the cause of a lot of unemployment in the UK, particularly among the working class. Many people feel a sense of anger towards the elite who have sold, outsourced and sacrificed stability for future generations, for short term profit. why should they work for them again if they are only a profit margin away from doing the same thing again? Once again, we come back to the idea that the leaders do not give a damn about anyone else and have no understanding of holistics and what it means to be a responsible human being.

5) Culture of entitlement. Bankers are entitled to bonuses when they fail, cheat and break the law? The unemployed are entitled to benefits without giving anything in return? Maybe this is something to do with our history but a lot of people in this country seem to think of themselves as superior in some way and that the world owes them something.

Please let me know what you think. It would be great hear from someone who has lived in both countries.

[ufo2012]

Maybe because jobs are too hard since consistent competition has made them this way by always asking for the best.

Since someone on JSA is unlikely to be considered the best, why bother trying to get off of it?

The attitude by some people (the general public at large) of it is too difficult to change.