Benefit claimants will be made to work for their Benefits claims Osburne.
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Moosferatu
If people in this country are so hard-working and respectable then why do immigrants take minimum wage jobs? Surely it must be because immigrants are just better and our own people lack the mettle to grasp the nettle? .
If people in this country are so hard-working and respectable then why do immigrants take minimum wage jobs? Surely it must be because immigrants are just better and our own people lack the mettle to grasp the nettle? .
Fail!
It is because of wage arbitrage.
A person from a poor country from THEIR point of view is not working for minimum wage.
Take for example Poland where the average (mean) wage is £308 a MONTH.
A min wage job @ 40 hours a week will net somebody £217 a WEEK or £868 a month.
Which doesn't sound a lot. But on the face of it they can earn nearly a months pay if taken back to Poland in a week.
Somebody who is stupid will now say but they have the same living costs as British people they don't. They live 10-20 to a house, £1000 a month rent split between 10-20 people is nothing.
My parents in the 1950s were the same. 2 families PER room in a two up two down terrace house.
We used to see Australians and New Zealanders do exactly the same thing, a bud of min Bob came to London to work as he could earn 3 years of Australian wages in 9 months if he worked in the UK, all things considered.
Original post by Moosferatu
I'm going to play devil's advocate here and wheel out an opinion I don't necessarily agree with.
If people in this country are so hard-working and respectable then why do immigrants take minimum wage jobs? Surely it must be because immigrants are just better and our own people lack the mettle to grasp the nettle? Somehow this logic means that unemployment is a mere character flaw, right? Taxpayers should not provide for people who refuse to work, after all.
If people in this country are so hard-working and respectable then why do immigrants take minimum wage jobs? Surely it must be because immigrants are just better and our own people lack the mettle to grasp the nettle? Somehow this logic means that unemployment is a mere character flaw, right? Taxpayers should not provide for people who refuse to work, after all.
I understand the devil's advocate position. I don't think the answer is straightforward.
There are companies out there who prefer to hire immigrants, because there are immigrants (definitely not all of them, I must stress!) who are less likely to complain and more likely to work for low wages and in undesirable conditions. Some immigrants come to another country and they'll share accommodation with other immigrants. They don't live very good lives. The aim is to either save up and return to their country of origin, or seek something better. Meanwhile, the conditions they live in drives down the cost.
This is not just something I have read about in newspapers. It's from discussions with immigrants, who are far from overjoyed with their lot, but they're willing to put up with it because needs must.
Now, someone who was made redundant is up against that kind of competition. With lots of people applying for minimum wage positions at the moment - sometimes hundreds of applications to stack shelves in supermarkets - I don't think British people don't have the will, or the drive. There simply aren't enough jobs for everyone.
Not jobs that many people can survive on, anyway. Zero hour contracts where you may have twenty hours of work one week, and a couple of hours the next, with additional support lagging weeks behind, won't sustain a family. Especially not when those contracts prevent a person from making up extra hours elsewhere.
Are there some people who don't have the drive to work? Probably. I have never met one. I doubt that's something that's unique to Britain, though.
I'm perfectly happy to put in some hard work for my JSA. But I expect to receive at least minimum wage for the hours I put in and to be paid by the person I'm doing the work for. And while they're at it, why not just call it a job...
The old they work harder is because they are paid more as above.
Why else would you leave your home country to earn exactly the same/less as you would back home?
Do we see masses of British people going to Ethopia to work? or Sudan?
Remember humans are TOP TIER predators and thus inherently lazy look at cats, they are top tier predators in their food chain, they lay around and do nothing.
Humans if they could would ALL do this.
There doesn't exist anywhere on the planet where British people can go overseas and earn £30 an hour in UK purchasing power. But Britain exists where Poles can come and get 42Zloty of purchasing power when they take it home per hour.
Why else would you leave your home country to earn exactly the same/less as you would back home?
Do we see masses of British people going to Ethopia to work? or Sudan?
Remember humans are TOP TIER predators and thus inherently lazy look at cats, they are top tier predators in their food chain, they lay around and do nothing.
Humans if they could would ALL do this.
There doesn't exist anywhere on the planet where British people can go overseas and earn £30 an hour in UK purchasing power. But Britain exists where Poles can come and get 42Zloty of purchasing power when they take it home per hour.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by Kittiara
Now, someone who was made redundant is up against that kind of competition. With lots of people applying for minimum wage positions at the moment - sometimes hundreds of applications to stack shelves in supermarkets - I don't think British people don't have the will, or the drive. There simply aren't enough jobs for everyone.
Not jobs that many people can survive on, anyway. Zero hour contracts where you may have twenty hours of work one week, and a couple of hours the next, with additional support lagging weeks behind, won't sustain a family. Especially not when those contracts prevent a person from making up extra hours elsewhere.
Are there some people who don't have the drive to work? Probably. I have never met one. I doubt that's something that's unique to Britain, though.
Now, someone who was made redundant is up against that kind of competition. With lots of people applying for minimum wage positions at the moment - sometimes hundreds of applications to stack shelves in supermarkets - I don't think British people don't have the will, or the drive. There simply aren't enough jobs for everyone.
Not jobs that many people can survive on, anyway. Zero hour contracts where you may have twenty hours of work one week, and a couple of hours the next, with additional support lagging weeks behind, won't sustain a family. Especially not when those contracts prevent a person from making up extra hours elsewhere.
Are there some people who don't have the drive to work? Probably. I have never met one. I doubt that's something that's unique to Britain, though.
Many UK jobs do not make economic sense.
Through my 20s I worked in jobs where after bills I was left with £13 in my pocket, after busting my balls for 45 hours. And no I wasn't living a life of luxury didn't even have a TV.
This makes no sense for a lot of people. Why would you go and do this?
A lot of people are making perfectly sane (if short term) rational choices.
Original post by Justpin
Fail!
It is because of wage arbitrage.
A person from a poor country from THEIR point of view is not working for minimum wage.
Take for example Poland where the average (mean) wage is £308 a MONTH.
A min wage job @ 40 hours a week will net somebody £217 a WEEK or £868 a month.
Which doesn't sound a lot. But on the face of it they can earn nearly a months pay if taken back to Poland in a week.
Somebody who is stupid will now say but they have the same living costs as British people they don't. They live 10-20 to a house, £1000 a month rent split between 10-20 people is nothing.
My parents in the 1950s were the same. 2 families PER room in a two up two down terrace house.
We used to see Australians and New Zealanders do exactly the same thing, a bud of min Bob came to London to work as he could earn 3 years of Australian wages in 9 months if he worked in the UK, all things considered.
It is because of wage arbitrage.
A person from a poor country from THEIR point of view is not working for minimum wage.
Take for example Poland where the average (mean) wage is £308 a MONTH.
A min wage job @ 40 hours a week will net somebody £217 a WEEK or £868 a month.
Which doesn't sound a lot. But on the face of it they can earn nearly a months pay if taken back to Poland in a week.
Somebody who is stupid will now say but they have the same living costs as British people they don't. They live 10-20 to a house, £1000 a month rent split between 10-20 people is nothing.
My parents in the 1950s were the same. 2 families PER room in a two up two down terrace house.
We used to see Australians and New Zealanders do exactly the same thing, a bud of min Bob came to London to work as he could earn 3 years of Australian wages in 9 months if he worked in the UK, all things considered.
DA again: Isn't that what British families should be doing? Living together? What makes British people so much better that they don't have to live in cramped conditions together? Life isn't fair, there's no such thing as a free lunch, that's the real world. British people expect too high a quality of life, much more than what they're good for.
Original post by Justpin
In the USA in New York, the mass transit (Subway system) did exactly this.
They started using workfare welfare claimants, to 'assist' in cleaning of New York metro stations.
Shortly afterwards many of the paid employees were sacked on spurious reasons and only the supervisors remained.
The entire cleaning staff are workfare staff.
They started using workfare welfare claimants, to 'assist' in cleaning of New York metro stations.
Shortly afterwards many of the paid employees were sacked on spurious reasons and only the supervisors remained.
The entire cleaning staff are workfare staff.
See, that doesn't surprise me. From a council's, or a company's point of view, it's perfect. They get their staff subsidised by the taxpayer. Perhaps they're even paid an incentive to supply placements. And they'll have staff who won't stand up for their rights too much, because they risk sanctions.
To everyone else, it just looks like a deeply flawed plan, displaying an utter lack of morals. Because that's what it is.
Original post by Moosferatu
DA again: Isn't that what British families should be doing? Living together? What makes British people so much better that they don't have to live in cramped conditions together? Life isn't fair, there's no such thing as a free lunch, that's the real world. British people expect too high a quality of life, much more than what they're good for.
I never said they were better. I suppose it comes from a certain expectation that life in the future will be better than it was in the past.
South Koreans for example, after the Korean war most of them were happy to have a roof over their head and food to eat. By the 1980s the Korean economy had floundered as they found the Korean children wanted more than their parents lives of slaving away in a factory and sleeping on the floor.
Same thing happened in Japan and is happening in China.
It is already happening BTW, UK living standards are back to 2001 levels. It goes back to mid 1980s level via money printing and lack of jobs and most people will be living with parents.
Original post by Moosferatu
much more than what they're good for.
Dunno that's kinda offensive, the money you're paid or not paid is not an accurate indicator of a persons worth. Youtube for example is packed with incredible talented musicians, yet they are working in not very good jobs. It is packed with people who are incredibly good at things like teaching maths.
While we have talentless manufactured popstars, politicians and civil servants who get paid lots yet can't describe what their job is.
Maybe they were not in the right place at the right time? AS Roger Moore put it, luck is everything.
Original post by Kittiara
See, that doesn't surprise me. From a council's, or a company's point of view, it's perfect. They get their staff subsidised by the taxpayer. Perhaps they're even paid an incentive to supply placements. And they'll have staff who won't stand up for their rights too much, because they risk sanctions.
To everyone else, it just looks like a deeply flawed plan, displaying an utter lack of morals. Because that's what it is.
To everyone else, it just looks like a deeply flawed plan, displaying an utter lack of morals. Because that's what it is.
Yes it is self defeating.
The kicker is this, if companies save money by slashing jobs or by taking on workfare people (I wont use the word employees). Then people will not have money to buy their stuff.
Corporates seem to forget that their employees are also their customers.
The old joke.
A car factory owner goes gives a union rep a tour of his automated car plant.
"I'd like to see these robots go on strike," the factory owner smugly says to the union rep.
"I'd like to see a robot buy a car." The union rep retorts.
Original post by Justpin
Many UK jobs do not make economic sense.
Through my 20s I worked in jobs where after bills I was left with £13 in my pocket, after busting my balls for 45 hours. And no I wasn't living a life of luxury didn't even have a TV.
This makes no sense for a lot of people. Why would you go and do this?
A lot of people are making perfectly sane (if short term) rational choices.
Through my 20s I worked in jobs where after bills I was left with £13 in my pocket, after busting my balls for 45 hours. And no I wasn't living a life of luxury didn't even have a TV.
This makes no sense for a lot of people. Why would you go and do this?
A lot of people are making perfectly sane (if short term) rational choices.
Yeah, I've been there. I'm still there now, in a way. I don't have a TV, my clothes are from Ebay, hand-me-downs or from secondhand shops, and my computer is seven years old and secondhand at that!
But then, I don't have a family to feed. I reckon that people who have children want, and need, some economic stability. It's okay when you place yourself in that situation and you don't know where your next meal will come from at times, but when you have kids, and you've lost your job, you're going to look for something that offers some measure of security, because the last thing you want is to run out of diapers or have your children go hungry.
Anecdotal evidence, I know, but one of my friends was in that position. Marriage broke down due to him being abusive. Left with her young daughter. All the child benefit she received naturally went to her daughter - clothes, food, and so on, but my friend, trying to make end meet, often had to skip meals. She ended up being malnourished. All because of trying to do the right thing and wanting to be as little of a burden to the state as possible.
Original post by Kittiara
See, that doesn't surprise me. From a council's, or a company's point of view, it's perfect. They get their staff subsidised by the taxpayer. Perhaps they're even paid an incentive to supply placements. And they'll have staff who won't stand up for their rights too much, because they risk sanctions.
To everyone else, it just looks like a deeply flawed plan, displaying an utter lack of morals. Because that's what it is.
To everyone else, it just looks like a deeply flawed plan, displaying an utter lack of morals. Because that's what it is.
There is a better solution, but the elites and the wealthy won't like it.
It simply involves cuts to BOTH sides of the equation. I.e. the benefits AND the subsidies that artificially inflate the price.
I'll expand later, have a lecture to get to and a lot of traffic to fight through!
Original post by Kittiara
Yeah, I've been there. I'm still there now, in a way. I don't have a TV, my clothes are from Ebay, hand-me-downs or from secondhand shops, and my computer is seven years old and secondhand at that!
But then, I don't have a family to feed. I reckon that people who have children want, and need, some economic stability. It's okay when you place yourself in that situation and you don't know where your next meal will come from at times, but when you have kids, and you've lost your job, you're going to look for something that offers some measure of security, because the last thing you want is to run out of diapers or have your children go hungry.
But then, I don't have a family to feed. I reckon that people who have children want, and need, some economic stability. It's okay when you place yourself in that situation and you don't know where your next meal will come from at times, but when you have kids, and you've lost your job, you're going to look for something that offers some measure of security, because the last thing you want is to run out of diapers or have your children go hungry.
Again lecture soon! So I'll make this short!
The thing is your life, my life peoples' lives like this, for a short period it might be ok or tolerable and delaying children might be a possibility too.
But will you think the same way when you're 30? 40? 50?
Original post by Justpin
Yes it is self defeating.
The kicker is this, if companies save money by slashing jobs or by taking on workfare people (I wont use the word employees). Then people will not have money to buy their stuff.
Corporates seem to forget that their employees are also their customers.
The old joke.
A car factory owner goes gives a union rep a tour of his automated car plant.
"I'd like to see these robots go on strike," the factory owner smugly says to the union rep.
"I'd like to see a robot buy a car." The union rep retorts.
The kicker is this, if companies save money by slashing jobs or by taking on workfare people (I wont use the word employees). Then people will not have money to buy their stuff.
Corporates seem to forget that their employees are also their customers.
The old joke.
A car factory owner goes gives a union rep a tour of his automated car plant.
"I'd like to see these robots go on strike," the factory owner smugly says to the union rep.
"I'd like to see a robot buy a car." The union rep retorts.
Good point, and well made
.People who have at least some disposable income, will purchase stuff, and therefore stimulate the economy. This allows the economy to grow, therefore creating more jobs.
As you're pointing out, these plans are counterproductive.
Original post by Justpin
Again lecture soon! So I'll make this short!
The thing is your life, my life peoples' lives like this, for a short period it might be ok or tolerable and delaying children might be a possibility too.
But will you think the same way when you're 30? 40? 50?
The thing is your life, my life peoples' lives like this, for a short period it might be ok or tolerable and delaying children might be a possibility too.
But will you think the same way when you're 30? 40? 50?
Exactly
.Thanks for the discussion. Hope you'll enjoy your lecture!
Original post by ckingalt
They may not be the majority but there are a significant number of people who have no intention of doing any real work ever in their lives. I'll bet near every person reading this thread personally knows at least one or two people who fit this description. For these people programs like JSA serve as the perfect enablers. There is nothing wrong with trying strike a balance that would discourage the deadbeats while still providing much needed assistance to those actually need/deserve it.
The perfect JSA program would be one that is sufficient to provide the minimum necessary resources for someone between jobs. It must also a impose upon the applicants to ensure they meet their obligation to adequately attempt to find work. Then there is a third principle here which seems to be the one people are taking exception to. Any welfare assistance should be structured so that in some way it is such a burden as to only be be and absolute last option.
Is there a way to structure social welfare so that the burden and inconvenience of utilizing it would be bearable to the truly needy, but not to the simply lazy? The only way I can think of, is if some kink of work is involved. That is the thought behind the process anyway. I can understand the drawbacks already mentioned.
The perfect JSA program would be one that is sufficient to provide the minimum necessary resources for someone between jobs. It must also a impose upon the applicants to ensure they meet their obligation to adequately attempt to find work. Then there is a third principle here which seems to be the one people are taking exception to. Any welfare assistance should be structured so that in some way it is such a burden as to only be be and absolute last option.
Is there a way to structure social welfare so that the burden and inconvenience of utilizing it would be bearable to the truly needy, but not to the simply lazy? The only way I can think of, is if some kink of work is involved. That is the thought behind the process anyway. I can understand the drawbacks already mentioned.
I'm not sure why this post is being completely ignored. In bold is exactly why anyone not disabled who is receiving benefits should be required to do some kind of work.
I agree with the idea, but 30 hours is not acceptable. 8 hours work / week for JSA reasonable.
Original post by falseprofit
I'm not sure why this post is being completely ignored. In bold is exactly why anyone not disabled who is receiving benefits should be required to do some kind of work.
I'd say genuine assistance would be the way to go about it. For those who are lacking education, education is key. For those who have a good level of education and relevant skills, skill upgrades where needed through courses and suitable training. Apprenticeships offering at least minimum wage to allow people to support themselves, with the prospect of a job at the going rate for that line of business at the end of it.
This way, people will have something useful and meaningful to do. They'll have a goal. They'll have their dignity, because they're working to better their lives. They'll be doing something that best employs their skills.
It would soon throw up those who don't want to work and better their lives. Those are the ones who'll make a lot of trouble, and don't participate without a genuine reason.
It won't lower the unemployment rate.
Original post by Moosferatu
I'm going to play devil's advocate here and wheel out an opinion I don't necessarily agree with.
If people in this country are so hard-working and respectable then why do immigrants take minimum wage jobs? Surely it must be because immigrants are just better and our own people lack the mettle to grasp the nettle? Somehow this logic means that unemployment is a mere character flaw, right? Taxpayers should not provide for people who refuse to work, after all.
If people in this country are so hard-working and respectable then why do immigrants take minimum wage jobs? Surely it must be because immigrants are just better and our own people lack the mettle to grasp the nettle? Somehow this logic means that unemployment is a mere character flaw, right? Taxpayers should not provide for people who refuse to work, after all.
I worked with immigrants that work in those jobs, and there are several reasons as to why they would happily do minimum wage jobs. For one, the economic situation in countries they came from (in this case Baltic countries) is even worse than here, and the choice is either starving or working in near inhuman conditions here, in cheapest accommodation so they can save something for when they come back. There is also the fact that the basic living wage here is much higher than there, so they when they work here, they can support their families there. They can also take advantage of benefits like tax credit and children's benefits, which also isn't available in their countries. Which is why working in some ****ty chicken factory doing repetitive tasks in freezing rooms, receiving trauma due to appalling conditions in the workplace is seen as lesser evil to quietly starving somewhere in Latvia.
YES YES YES YES!
This is completely the right thing to do. Anyone who disagrees is blinded by their own liberalism. Finally, make the jobless work. It happens in other countries. And, it's not free labour at all you morons.
This is completely the right thing to do. Anyone who disagrees is blinded by their own liberalism. Finally, make the jobless work. It happens in other countries. And, it's not free labour at all you morons.
(edited 10 years ago)
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Mature Student.
- Petition to STOP student loans going down
- My son was expelled from uni
- Why has my work coach change when signing on? I'm dreading meeting the new one
- Parents are upset I've not found a bf and had a baby yet at 19
- [Official Thread] Chancellor Jeremy Hunt to deliver Autumn Statement on Wednesday
- What is it like using the Job centre?
- What is working in insurance claims like?
- 2024 Budget: Chancellor Jeremy Hunt under pressure to cut taxes
- Universal credit help
- AQA A-level Law Paper 2 (7162/2) - 6th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- Child Dependant Grant
- Rishi Sunak pledges to remove benefits for people not taking jobs after 12 months
- Working after leaving a course for a short time.
- Can i receive student finance while on Universal credit and PIP?
- ESA parent and Student finance
- Can anyone help? Benefits and student loan
- Claiming Benefits and Studying
- claiming JSA and working part time? Help?
- DWP EO Work Coach Training
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
