Benefits/Welfare.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-09-2012, 04:17 PM
RE: Benefits/Welfare.
(25-09-2012 04:01 PM)Hughsie Wrote:  Jobs will be easier to come by because none will be taken by people coming out of education.

The problem isn't that the jobs are been taken by school leavers, the problem is the lower paying jobs that school leavers used to get, are still being held by people who left education years before because they cant get a job in the field they trained for or went to uni to be able to qualify for, so hang onto their old jobs or take the low paying jobs, and are hired because they have the experience a new school leaver lacks, and can't get since noone will employ them.

(25-09-2012 04:01 PM)Hughsie Wrote:  It will work out better when you remove all the other benefits and tax breaks that accompany jobseekers. Plus, I think a lot of the people on jobseekers would go out and look for actual jobs if faced with the prospect of working a full week either way.

Most people on job seekers are in fact out looking for work, only a handful are in it for a free ride. So the talk of they need an incentive to work is nonsense for most cases. But if they really want an incentive they should be raising minimum wage.
There were weeks when I used to work that i would have earned more money if I quit and signed on because my employer wasn't giving out regular hours.

Behold the power of the force!
[Image: fgYtjtY.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-09-2012, 11:51 PM
RE: Benefits/Welfare.
(25-09-2012 04:01 PM)bemore Wrote:  Thank you for detailing your views to me BryanS.... I was quite reactionary to some of your short opinionated posts but now I feel that I understand your side of thinking a bit more.

Ive took on board some of the things you have said and im gonna let them roll round my head tommorow at work as I like to sometimes gives these things a little room.

Im particulary interested in what you said about the welfare reforms in the 90s and how it reduced poverty under Clinton.... its something I will have to look into myself to understand where you are coming from a bit more.

Ill get back to you tommorow with some quoted answers on what I think. Thumbsup


The Heritage Foundation (conservative think tank ) has some good data:
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports...-good-news

There is a discussion about the effects of the economy on the rates of poverty. The article discusses the periods of economic expansion and contraction and shows quite starkly with graphs of various measures of poverty, some going back decades where the data is available. One of the measures, income assistance, has in fact gone up some recently. But case loads as a percent of population are still on the order of half what they were immediately before welfare reform despite Great Depression II
http://www.ofm.wa.gov/trends/budget/fig404.asp


It is so hard to predict the full results of these programs, and the side effects often do more harm to the intended beneficiaries of the programs. Whether it is subsidies towards housing that cause prices to raise more than inflation leading to a bubble and crash, subsidies to education that caused the education costs to skyrocket, the cash-for-clunkers program that gave tax breaks to the rich while screwing the poor--these are example of government efforts that have had effects which harmed people despite good intentions. The welfare state that Europeans seem to like so much (and the left in the US) creates a cycle of dependency which perpetuates poverty for generations among the poor.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-09-2012, 07:47 AM (This post was last modified: 26-09-2012 08:05 AM by Luminon.)
RE: Benefits/Welfare.
I recommend you to read The abolition of work, this article influenced me a lot.

There is also a new RSA speech Why creativity is the new economy, which I suspect is a similar line of thought. Any stupid array of automatic machines can do repetitive work and be million times better at it than Einstein, Tesla and Wolfgang Amadeus combined. So there is something very wrong with trying to work. We didn't evolve all these millions of years just to work 9-5, trying to outrun bills. Outrun lions, maybe. Outrun boredom. But not even the cruelest wielders of economic whips (except Margaret Thatcher perhaps) meant this to be forever. Nope, this must end. But how?

I think there should be a basic welfare system for everyone, setting the lower standard of living below which nobody can fall.
There is a way to design a well-working system that can provide for everyone. There is nothing revolutionary about it, we see the same principles in technology and nature. It's just specifics that need tuning according the place of application.

The less money people need, the happier they are. We can achieve it two ways, either make a lot of money and create a terrible inflation any time we use it and other countless problems, or to decrease the need for them.
The better choice is to decrease the role of money in society, by providing the basic services that you normally need money for.

However, this is not a solution, this is just a first necessary part of the whole society transformation. For example, there must be laws that confine the market, that forbid local business to move abroad or sell itself to foreign subjects. Physical persons must not have foreign bank accounts or to be disgustingly rich in terms of private property. Money must not be allowed to bleed out of local system into a place in the world where the state pressure is lower.
OTOH, local business must be stimulated by state investments and protected from being destroyed or bought by a foreign competition. If competition, then among locals, whoever wins, the profit stays home. There must be no competition between states! Business as a fixture of local, regional and state economy, always paying the taxes to the place where it takes people and resources from, nowhere else.

- Equality does not mean that everyone are equally rich or poor. Equality means a society in which both richer and poorer have their basic needs met by a standard of public services and so both have a dignified life, regardless of money.
(for example, in one city in Brazil there are cheap city-sponsored restaurants using food directly from farmers, in which both poor and rich people come to eat) Then the relative inequality in money is a positively motivating factor, to work and earn more than just the basic welfare, if they really want to.

- The basic idea is, that middle class is the most healthy and productive of classes and least criminal. Poor and rich people are pathologic phenomena. Corporations may be worth millions and billions (they need the money to do large projects) but their owners and managers (private persons) must not be millionaires and billionaires. (at least not through the business profits) Furthermore, there should be a tax on monetary transactions, to motivate the business to exchange resources instead of inflating the currency.
There would be surely a change in corporation policies, if they were mostly non-profit. I'd say a basic salary with bonuses depending on how the company is doing, in direct proportion.
If you get the idea, nobody has the right to accumulate large amounts of money for private ownership. We all need a finite amount for our real needs without consumerism, state's job being to ensure further inflow of money. So people could control millions and billions, but not own them or use them exclusively and for selfish purposes.

- Whenever a direct barter or transfer resources is possible, it should be done. Avoid monetary transactions and middlemen. Build most of local business to use products, byproducts and waste of another local business.

- Financial business must be banned and generation of money forbidden, including the charging of interest, if possible. The state should create, destroy and lend all money as needed. All monetary institutions must be public. Money and commodities must be strictly divided cathegories.

- Another basic idea is, that people are not primarily meant to work (to produce goods and services, that is). Work is a strain on the economy (inflation), environment and people and it should be maximally automatized by tireless machines. If machines do most of the work, not people, then people can not earn money, so we must tax the machines for the people's benefit.

- If work (employment, etc) is not the primary purpose and necessity of mankind, we must completely re-think what does it mean to live. We must be educated to spend our free time constructively. We must learn to create our own purpose and activity in life. Regardless if a hobby, charity or still a side income, the attitude towards work will totally change. Many people will actually create more than they ever did as employees, because the area they choose will be totally satisfying. I'd work to exhaustion almost every day doing what I like, but I wouldn't want to even break a sweat doing something that I don't want. Only money can force us to do something we don't want. But money can be obtained by other means, hence money motivate people to be immoral.

If you claim there are nuances to principles, there are no nuances to getting arrested or shot for disobeying the power.
The Venus Project
FreeDomain Radio - The greatest philosophy show on the web!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-09-2012, 07:00 PM
RE: Benefits/Welfare.
@Hughsie.

The problem with getting everyone to work a 40hour week or even work just in general is that what you describe people already do.
There is already graffiti removal companies, there is already people that drive around in those neat little street sweeping vehicles etc.. etc.. so you don't solve anything by putting those people out of work. Not to mention that unemployment is at what, 5-8%? Take a city of say half a million people, that's like 25,000 - 40,000 people. That is a lot of people to do tasks that currently maybe only 500 or so do.
Plus you have people who couldn't physically work 40hours let alone 40hours hard labor. Plus what about single moms on unemployment?
The whole idea is slavery.
Sure you can put things in place like if you turn down two job offers that you were right for you lose your benefit, but even that they have a choice in which jobs to apply for.

@Luminon

Firstly, that would never happen. The only way that would happen is with an upsurge revolution that pretty much kills off all rich people (could see a few people on this forum leading that riot..., bemore Tongue ). And that wouldn't happen because there is a decent middle class in America or UK or whatever that wouldn't allow that happen.
You gotta remember, middle class want to protect what they have as well, they worked for it and so want to protect it.
You'd basically need like a 90% really poor population. I mean take the French Revolution for example, you'd need circumstances like that and that just isn't the case.
Secondly, if that was ever too happen those with the power afterwards are not going to lesson themselves if they have the power to be the next 1%.
Thirdly, it wouldn't be sustainable. No competition, no foreign trade, no profit etc.. there's no incentive for technological progress. Why should I invent the new car engine that runs on dead babies when I'm not going to profit for it.
Sure some progress may be made, but the point is that competition, foreign trade etc.. rapidly increase progress and innovation.
People think that NASA and it's rockets built all this amazing innovative things (and so we get stupid arguments for stupid things like the Enterprise being built, IT NOT GONNA GET BUILT!), it's because they had too. They had serious competition from the Soviets. Hell, the Soviets already beat them in the important race (satellites).
Now people for whatever reason think that the only way to move forward is to build the next spaceship, ahh no, because they were different times people. There was little global trade back then, little competition from major companies around the world. Unlike today where there is heaps which drives innovation and progress. This is why spaceships are stupid waste of money, because all that can be innovated that effects our lives is being innovated by companies competing.
I think I went a little off topic just then, but you get my drift.

[Image: 3cdac7eec8f6b059070d9df56f50a7ae.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes earmuffs's post
26-09-2012, 07:10 PM
RE: Benefits/Welfare.
(26-09-2012 07:00 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  @Hughsie.

The problem with getting everyone to work a 40hour week or even work just in general is that what you describe people already do.
There is already graffiti removal companies, there is already people that drive around in those neat little street sweeping vehicles etc.. etc.. so you don't solve anything by putting those people out of work. Not to mention that unemployment is at what, 5-8%? Take a city of say half a million people, that's like 25,000 - 40,000 people. That is a lot of people to do tasks that currently maybe only 500 or so do.
Plus you have people who couldn't physically work 40hours let alone 40hours hard labor. Plus what about single moms on unemployment?
The whole idea is slavery.
Sure you can put things in place like if you turn down two job offers that you were right for you lose your benefit, but even that they have a choice in which jobs to apply for.

I can find something for these people to do. There's no end to useful stuff I can have people doing for the good of the country. From picking litter to helping maintain public buildings, there'll always be something.

I was replacing jobseekers allowance, not the entire benefits system. If single moms are on jobseekers it suggests to me they are looking to work, if they wanna come work for part-time benefits that's fine with me. I'll work around what they need.

It's not slavery. No-one has to do any work, they only have to work if they want to get their benefits. Unless the idea of making people earn money instead of giving handouts is slavery then that's not what I'm suggesting at all.

Best and worst of Ferdinand .....
Best
Ferdinand: We don't really say 'theist' in Alabama. Here, you're either a Christian, or you're from Afghanistan and we fucking hate you.
Worst
Ferdinand: Everyone from British is so, like, fucking retarded.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-09-2012, 07:24 PM
RE: Benefits/Welfare.
(26-09-2012 07:10 PM)Hughsie Wrote:  
(26-09-2012 07:00 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  @Hughsie.

The problem with getting everyone to work a 40hour week or even work just in general is that what you describe people already do.
There is already graffiti removal companies, there is already people that drive around in those neat little street sweeping vehicles etc.. etc.. so you don't solve anything by putting those people out of work. Not to mention that unemployment is at what, 5-8%? Take a city of say half a million people, that's like 25,000 - 40,000 people. That is a lot of people to do tasks that currently maybe only 500 or so do.
Plus you have people who couldn't physically work 40hours let alone 40hours hard labor. Plus what about single moms on unemployment?
The whole idea is slavery.
Sure you can put things in place like if you turn down two job offers that you were right for you lose your benefit, but even that they have a choice in which jobs to apply for.

I can find something for these people to do. There's no end to useful stuff I can have people doing for the good of the country. From picking litter to helping maintain public buildings, there'll always be something.

I was replacing jobseekers allowance, not the entire benefits system. If single moms are on jobseekers it suggests to me they are looking to work, if they wanna come work for part-time benefits that's fine with me. I'll work around what they need.

It's not slavery. No-one has to do any work, they only have to work if they want to get their benefits. Unless the idea of making people earn money instead of giving handouts is slavery then that's not what I'm suggesting at all.

And slaves could simply run away. Following your logic that then isn't slavery.

It's slavery in the sense of "do as I tell you or you're fucked". And there is some good ways to that and some bad ways to do that. This, is a bad way.
Something like refusing to continue unemployment benefit if you refuse XX amount of job offers is a good way, because those people still have a choice in what job they take in the sense that if you don't wanna work there, don't put your CV in there.

And again, people already pick up liter. People already maintain government buildings. If there is such a large job opening available (a huge demand in street sweepers for example) that warrants 5-8% of the population, then the local council is doing an awful job in maintaining their city and should create more jobs (that would get people off the benefit as opposed for working for it).
There is a shortage of work, that's why these people are unemployed. You couldn't find enough work for these people.

Plus again, what about those that couldn't physically work 40hours? And further, you expect these people to work 8hours a day for 5 days a week and still be able to put in the hours of job search???? I don't know about you but I use to do 40hour+ weeks, use to do 60hour+ weeks and after long hours the last thing you wanna do is then work related shit.
Plus what about those that do shit work anyway, there is literally zero incentive for them to search for work.

[Image: 3cdac7eec8f6b059070d9df56f50a7ae.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-09-2012, 07:35 PM
RE: Benefits/Welfare.
(26-09-2012 07:24 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  And slaves could simply run away. Following your logic that then isn't slavery.

It's slavery in the sense of "do as I tell you or you're fucked". And there is some good ways to that and some bad ways to do that. This, is a bad way.
Something like refusing to continue unemployment benefit if you refuse XX amount of job offers is a good way, because those people still have a choice in what job they take in the sense that if you don't wanna work there, don't put your CV in there.

And again, people already pick up liter. People already maintain government buildings. If there is such a large job opening available (a huge demand in street sweepers for example) that warrants 5-8% of the population, then the local council is doing an awful job in maintaining their city and should create more jobs (that would get people off the benefit as opposed for working for it).
There is a shortage of work, that's why these people are unemployed. You couldn't find enough work for these people.

Plus again, what about those that couldn't physically work 40hours? And further, you expect these people to work 8hours a day for 5 days a week and still be able to put in the hours of job search???? I don't know about you but I use to do 40hour+ weeks, use to do 60hour+ weeks and after long hours the last thing you wanna do is then work related shit.
Plus what about those that do shit work anyway, there is literally zero incentive for them to search for work.

All jobs have that "do as I say or you're fucked" aspect. I work because I need the money, not because I enjoy it, doesn't make me a slave.

I wanna remove the idea that people without jobs can be picky. People who have no job but refuse to even consider anything that pays under £12 an hour do my head in, I'm trying to prevent that.

An average street may currently have a litter pick every week. I can increase that to every hour if I want. How often do you walk through a park and see people in there working to maintain it? Rather than fixing it up once every few years I can have people in there every day. I know of plenty of train stations and bus stops that are dumps but never have any work done because they still serve their purpose, I can have them fixed up. There literally is no end to stuff I can find. Especially stuff that isn't essential and so often gets forgotten.

People who are physically unable to work would come under incapacity benefit, not jobseekers, so wouldn't be affected.

See what you mean about lack of incentive though. Would have to think about that. I did toy with the idea of having a second stint of national service for the long term unemployed earlier, maybe that would work.

Best and worst of Ferdinand .....
Best
Ferdinand: We don't really say 'theist' in Alabama. Here, you're either a Christian, or you're from Afghanistan and we fucking hate you.
Worst
Ferdinand: Everyone from British is so, like, fucking retarded.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-09-2012, 07:41 PM
RE: Benefits/Welfare.
The thing with national service..... what happens if your a pacifist and dont agree with the war machine???

How would that work???

For no matter how much I use these symbols, to describe symptoms of my existence.
You are your own emphasis.
So I say nothing.

-Bemore.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-09-2012, 07:44 PM
RE: Benefits/Welfare.
(26-09-2012 07:41 PM)bemore Wrote:  The thing with national service..... what happens if your a pacifist and dont agree with the war machine???

How would that work???

I'd have to look into ways it's been dealt with previously.

Best and worst of Ferdinand .....
Best
Ferdinand: We don't really say 'theist' in Alabama. Here, you're either a Christian, or you're from Afghanistan and we fucking hate you.
Worst
Ferdinand: Everyone from British is so, like, fucking retarded.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-09-2012, 09:07 PM
RE: Benefits/Welfare.
Quote:All jobs have that "do as I say or you're fucked" aspect. I work because I need the money, not because I enjoy it, doesn't make me a slave.

Completely different.

Quote:I wanna remove the idea that people without jobs can be picky. People who have no job but refuse to even consider anything that pays under £12 an hour do my head in, I'm trying to prevent that.

I know, I get that, me too. But I'm saying there is a better less authoritarian way of doing it.
My country is implementing a law as we speak that states that if you are offered a job that you have the capacity to do (so someone with a phd can still work at mcdonalds for example), if you refuse two job offers like that then you will have your unemployment cut.

This is a better way then forcing people into work as at least (just like you working now) have the choice as to what jobs to apply for etc..

Quote:An average street may currently have a litter pick every week. I can increase that to every hour if I want. How often do you walk through a park and see people in there working to maintain it? Rather than fixing it up once every few years I can have people in there every day. I know of plenty of train stations and bus stops that are dumps but never have any work done because they still serve their purpose, I can have them fixed up. There literally is no end to stuff I can find. Especially stuff that isn't essential and so often gets forgotten.

Are you kidding? You can't have someone picking up rubbish in the same spot every hour on the hour, they would literally be walking around bored out their mind. You might as well have them watch paint dry. Remember, 5-8% of the population.
That is time they could be using productively to find a job and what you are saying is that it would be better for them to walk around doing nothing.

You're point about the run down shit is noted but forcing unemployment people to clean it isn't the answer. Maybe the council and the government need to get together and decide that the council needs to make more jobs in and the government will increase funding, BUT even then it wouldn't be such a huge number to solve the problem.

And with people who can't work I mean not everyone can work 40hours a week. Some people are just physically not fit enough, some people may be perfectly suitable to work in an office environment but get them doing manual labor for 40hours a week and they'll shut down.
You're causing more problems if anything.

Quote:People who are physically unable to work would come under incapacity benefit, not jobseekers, so wouldn't be affected.

What I'm saying is that there are people are perfectly capable of working but unable to do the sort of work you're talking about.
example: Little tiny fragile lady. Perfectly capable of being a secretary or a teacher (though maybe not, kids these days are wild), but put a water blaster in her hand and you'll knock her over or have her walking around 40hours a week and she'll collapse.
Not everyone is 20 something physically fit male ya know.

Quote:I did toy with the idea of having a second stint of national service for the long term unemployed

As if forcing people to walk around all day wasn't enough, you wanna force them into the military?




Son, we don't live in the 30's any more. This 2012.

[Image: 3cdac7eec8f6b059070d9df56f50a7ae.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes earmuffs's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: