Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2011/11/28 12:57:27
Subject: Re:Further to the "Do we provide acceptable levels of social care" debate...
Just pointing out that the claimant Matty has used as an example had family members as 'carers'. So the fraud extends further.
As for £40k being generous. Is this money taxable? If my salary was £40,000 pa then i would get a heck of a lot less to live on after taxes and NI. And still have to pay for my housing etc. Even allowing for carers thats a load of dosh going directly into someones back pocket. Obviously this depends on the level of care needed, but I would assume that someone who is genuinely incapacitated would have different needs depending on the circumstances.
Again, this comes back to the public sector workers not being held accountable for the work they are paid to perform. It's no good reforming part of the system, the entire network needs a radical overhaul and a total rethink of how welfare services are monitored and provided for.
The current checks and balances rely solely on tick boxes on claim forms.
2011/11/28 13:45:40
Subject: Further to the "Do we provide acceptable levels of social care" debate...
Orlanth wrote:Wrong, first its still money stolen.
I'm not talking about fraudulent cases FFS, I'm talking about genuine cases, so you're calling me wrong on things I haven't argued. People who defraud the system should be imprisoned. I think we can all agree the money obtained by deception is criminal and undeserved, yes? No one is arguing that people obtaining money by deception are entitled to it.
Mattyrm wants to cuts benefits to genuine claimants - the majority of claimants are not fraudulent. When people pick on someone and say 'that person is disabled and gets £40K or £50K a year more than I earn' they are missing the point. As someone said over the last page, £40K in benefits is a lot, justified or not, which is what I was responding to. Genuine claimants on disability benefits are not rich, and that although the amounts of money they get seem large they don't see most of it because it goes towards genuine costs which are high. In general, the cost of housing benefit paid out can seem high, but again is largely determined by landlords trying to push it to the limit. It's not typically the benefits claimant wringing it for money, they don't get that money.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/11/28 13:49:46
2011/11/28 13:58:44
Subject: Re:Further to the "Do we provide acceptable levels of social care" debate...
For the most deserving cases the amounts available are spot on but you are still left with even genuine claims which persist because it's easy to stay on them.
2011/11/28 14:37:15
Subject: Further to the "Do we provide acceptable levels of social care" debate...
Howard A Treesong wrote:The problem with saying "wwwaaaahhh, that person gets £40K a year in benefits" is that the person in question doesn't see most of that money because it goes to other people like the wages of full time carers. It's not for buying them freebies.
I don't think that anyone said that was the case, I certainly didn't. Disabled people and those with specific learning difficulties DO get freebies, though. Students who are dyslexic or who have ADHD (etc.) at our University get £1000 to buy a laptop and accessories, plus free books, a digital dictaphone... I personally know a girl with ME who was given the use of a specially-adapted car (fuel costs met), a newly-refurbished house in a nice area (again, costs met by the taxpayer), not to mention a top-of-the-range wheelchair, all the pain meds she can eat and a 3 month stay in a specialist pain spa clinic in Bath, as well as tax relief and Disability Living Allowance. She could probably work, but where's the incentive? That is an extraordinary level of profligacy on the welfare state's part, and we do it so we can feel good about ourselves. When you get down to it, that's the reason.
For example some people complain about the high amount of money paid in housing benefits. But that it related to the cost of the rent, the benefit claimant doesn't see that money. £100 a week, £200 a week, it doesn't matter because they don't see the money, often it is paid direct to the landlord. To the benefit claimant it's just numbers on a piece of paper, they never get to hold that money and they don't get an say in how to spend it.
That the recipient doesn't directly see that money isn't necessarily a valid argument - a large amount of my income is taken up by costs of living. The difference is, I meet those costs myself. And your claim that they don't get a say in how the budget is spent, I think, is not strictly accurate. Part of having a personal care budget is being able to decide where that budget is spent, and presumably you are allowed to decide which area you live in. This should not be the case - if you are utterly reliant on the state to survive, you shouldn't be entitled to luxuries you haven't earned, one of which is getting to decide where you live.
So instead of attacking the benefits and making it more difficult for people to pay their rent and feed their families...
See, this a common rhetorical tactic by the Left in this country- by painting that as the motivation for cuts, you're being intellectually dishonest. You know full well that the motivation for wanting to reduce the amount of money we spend on welfare (which is huge) is NOT to make it 'more difficult for people to pay rent and feed their families'. This not about attacking the poor, and the constant attempts by the current Labour leadership and their sympathisers to paint it as such are incredibly childish. We have a very real problem with welfare dependency in this country. It's damaging to society, not to mention horrendously expensive - we spend tens of billions on welfare. We spend more on welfare than almost any other component of our national budget:
The Telegraph wrote:According to an official Treasury forecast, benefits will cost £170.9 billion in 2010/11. That is equal to what the Government will spend on the NHS, schools and universities combined.
Mr. Burning wrote:Just pointing out that the claimant Matty has used as an example had family members as 'carers'. So the fraud extends further.
Oh yeah I forgot that part, the story said that both of his parents are now here as well, and it was they that were acting as his carers.
Isnt my suggestion a fair one? Boris Johnson said something similar with regards to housing benefits and was unfairly lambasted. You remember, when he said something along the lines of "we are not going to have Kosovan style ethnic cleansing in London"
I mean, is anyone AGAINST the £400 a week cap in housing benefit? It was just one of many pieces of Tory legislature that has had my full support.
gak, id have put it 400 lower!
If your rent is over £1200 a month, and you want the tax payer to look after you, move.
Is that really such an intolerant thing to suggest?!
We are arming Syrian rebels who support ISIS, who is fighting Iran, who is fighting Iraq who we also support against ISIS, while fighting Kurds who we support while they are fighting Syrian rebels.
2011/11/28 14:48:51
Subject: Further to the "Do we provide acceptable levels of social care" debate...
mattyrm wrote: I think few people would disagree with that mate. It's not like its your fault if you wind up in a wheelchair or something.
Seriously, so if the guy in your OP link was telling the truth (ie was actually the invalid he claimed to be) you'd be ok with him getting the money he did right? We're all against fraudsters getting money. Where exactly is the debate?
I believe that was exactly the point he made in the OP.
Albatross wrote:
Yeah, I mean, they're brown aren't they? They're bound to be Muslims.
I get the facetiousness but this is still racist. Everyone knows brown people are from South America.
Joey wrote:
Presumably you'd prefer dumping the infirm in the street?
"This person suffering from hereditary defects costs the community 60,000 Reichsmark during his lifetime. Fellow German, that is your money, too."
Pretty sure the message here was to encourage euthanasia or eugenics.
Joey wrote:
Jihadin wrote:Was your Grandfather legally selling or illegally selling? What was he selling to them?
Army equipment, entirely illegal. Not guns or bullets obviously, but general army wear. Cloth, equipment, etc.
Just a very informal creaming off of equipment, the kind of thing that goes on in the army today, as well as private businesses. I'm sure most people know someone who works in a restaurant who can get very cheap high quality steaks.
Jihadin wrote:So he was a military surplus seller. No issue then.
I'm pretty sure he means that Grandad was a supply sergeant or similar and was selling government equipment for personal profit.
dogma wrote:
Albatross wrote:
It's my opinion that people in receipt of state benefits are not in a position to 'demand' anything from society as a whole....
Eh, not so much. All people are in position to demand things of any other person or group of people, especially if the group suffering demands is either averse to violence, or aspirant to democracy. You live in the West, so that's an affirmative response to both.
I suppose you can argue that anyone can demand anything they want. I can "demand" your wallet, that doesn't mean I should or that you should give it to me. Demand is a word with a lot of connotations, when you're sucking at the teat of government and you "demand" more what you are rally doing is begging without the cardboard sign.
Avatar 720 wrote: You see, to Auston, everyone is a Death Star; there's only one way you can take it and that's through a small gap at the back.
Powder Burns wrote:what they need to make is a fullsize leatherman, like 14" long folded, with a bone saw, notches for bowstring, signaling flare, electrical hand crank generator, bolt cutters..
2011/11/28 14:51:20
Subject: Further to the "Do we provide acceptable levels of social care" debate...
Albatross wrote:
See, this a common rhetorical tactic by the Left in this country- by painting that as the motivation for cuts, you're being intellectually dishonest. You know full well that the motivation for wanting to reduce the amount of money we spend on welfare (which is huge) is NOT to make it 'more difficult for people to pay rent and feed their families'. This not about attacking the poor, and the constant attempts by the current Labour leadership and their sympathisers to paint it as such are incredibly childish. We have a very real problem with welfare dependency in this country. It's damaging to society, not to mention horrendously expensive - we spend tens of billions on welfare. We spend more on welfare than almost any other component of our national budget:
This.
The number one reason I am against throwing money at the problem is because it just doesnt work. People become dependant on it.
I honestly think the kinder thing to do is motivate people to care for themselves. If you just endlessly throw cash at people there is no incentive at all to better yourself. And that is why you get career wellfare recipients, they live shorter lives, they tend to drink too much, they think they are pulling a fast one but what we are doing to them is detrimental to their health! If you give ten grand to some work-shy family that exist on wellfare, will they invest the cash into an ISA or put it aside to send the kids to college, or will they spend it on scratch cards and special brew?
We need to help people to help themselves. Endlessly throwing cash at the poorer members of our society isn't doing them or us any favours at all. I'm interested in promoting greater social mobility, not getting people addicted to wellfare so I can feel better about myself when I toss them some scraps.
We are arming Syrian rebels who support ISIS, who is fighting Iran, who is fighting Iraq who we also support against ISIS, while fighting Kurds who we support while they are fighting Syrian rebels.
2011/11/28 15:48:41
Subject: Further to the "Do we provide acceptable levels of social care" debate...
I do see the issue with the welfare dependency. Oddly, when I worked in a working class disadvantaged school in Dublin, I didn't see that attitude as much as I do here in a reasonably affluent area of the UK. I think the welfare culture is more embedded over here.
Last year, coming to the end of my year 11s time in school, I was chatting to a few of them about what they wanted to do after school. The lack of aspiration was really depressing. A whole bunch of them had a plan of signing on to benefits and then sitting at home.
I reckon part of that has to be the fact that they feel a bit paralysed by having to be a grown up, but man, it's not going to help them later in life. Once they get stuck in long term unemployment they are boned. I headed to uni when I was 17 and worked pretty hard to get myself through. (I was a disorganised pleb in first year and distracted by having a real social life for the first time in second year, but I pulled it out at the end.) I still found it really difficult to find a job, and it's a major challenge even with the skills I have acquired just to not-suck at it. I just feel like these kids don't have a hope.
mattyrm wrote: I mean, is anyone AGAINST the £400 a week cap in housing benefit? It was just one of many pieces of Tory legislature that has had my full support.
gak, id have put it 400 lower!
They should introduce rent controls meaning that housing is cheaper for everyone. Cheaper for the state to pay benefits, cheaper for people renting out of their own pocket.
See, this a common rhetorical tactic by the Left in this country- by painting that as the motivation for cuts, you're being intellectually dishonest. You know full well that the motivation for wanting to reduce the amount of money we spend on welfare (which is huge) is NOT to make it 'more difficult for people to pay rent and feed their families'.
It may not the purpose, but it is a consequence. Ultimately the purpose of all cuts is to reduce the national debt, although there's definitely an ideological aspect to the way the Tories approach things. Generally people don't want to squeeze the poor, but broad cuts achieve just that. Certainly don't be afraid to nail the fraudulent claimants but a lot of genuine claimants are coming under pressure, people who have little hope of employment due to serious conditions. Why is it that benefits and public services are being cut, while there's colossal amounts of unpaid tax outstanding from large companies? Funny how some people are expected to pay and not others - 'we're all in this together' as the conservatives are always telling us.
Welfare dependency has been created largely in part dur to the fact that there are whole areas of the country in which industry has been destroyed. What are people supposed to do? It's a huge social problem in some areas which become sinks for the unemployed and slide into utterly hopeless depressing places with drugs and crime. I somehow think there are more constructive approaches than cutting their benefits... if anything that gives me the impression they are writing these people off and just trying to make it cheaper to do so.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/11/28 15:56:19
2011/11/28 16:08:16
Subject: Further to the "Do we provide acceptable levels of social care" debate...
Albatross wrote:
See, this a common rhetorical tactic by the Left in this country- by painting that as the motivation for cuts, you're being intellectually dishonest. You know full well that the motivation for wanting to reduce the amount of money we spend on welfare (which is huge) is NOT to make it 'more difficult for people to pay rent and feed their families'. This not about attacking the poor, and the constant attempts by the current Labour leadership and their sympathisers to paint it as such are incredibly childish. We have a very real problem with welfare dependency in this country. It's damaging to society, not to mention horrendously expensive - we spend tens of billions on welfare. We spend more on welfare than almost any other component of our national budget:
This.
The number one reason I am against throwing money at the problem is because it just doesnt work. People become dependant on it.
I honestly think the kinder thing to do is motivate people to care for themselves. If you just endlessly throw cash at people there is no incentive at all to better yourself. And that is why you get career wellfare recipients, they live shorter lives, they tend to drink too much, they think they are pulling a fast one but what we are doing to them is detrimental to their health! If you give ten grand to some work-shy family that exist on wellfare, will they invest the cash into an ISA or put it aside to send the kids to college, or will they spend it on scratch cards and special brew?
We need to help people to help themselves. Endlessly throwing cash at the poorer members of our society isn't doing them or us any favours at all. I'm interested in promoting greater social mobility, not getting people addicted to wellfare so I can feel better about myself when I toss them some scraps.
I have to admit I find the logic here very convincing.
That ME person who has the free laptop and car will no doubt pretty quickly cure herself by force of will if her benefits are cut off.
Seriously though, there is a debate to be held around what constitutes an acceptable, affordable and fair level of welfare to relieve various different types of social distress.
It can't be advanced by slagging off the other side as being intellectually dishonest. They have votes and you need to engage with them in order to get to a solution.
Kilkrazy wrote:
Seriously though, there is a debate to be held around what constitutes an acceptable, affordable and fair level of welfare to relieve various different types of social distress. It can't be advanced by slagging off the other side as being intellectually dishonest.
Thankfully, no-one could accuse you of that....
I have to admit I find the logic here very convincing.
That ME person who has the free laptop and car will no doubt pretty quickly cure herself by force of will if her benefits are cut off.
...Ah, looks like I spoke too soon.
Once again, I didn't say that but I can see why you would find that easier to argue against. What I said was that this person could do some work, but that there is currently no incentive for her to do so, as claiming the maximum amount of support available to her from the state provides her with a quality of life that she wouldn't otherwise have, or more accurately, that she would only have if she worked hard. That's a non-choice. What we should be doing is providing the disabled with a level of support inversely proportionate to their ability to work - in theory, we are supposed to be doing that, but from my perspective it seems that a person is 'signed on the sick' and removed from the employment pool, whereupon they become the state's responsibility. The disabled should be just be treated like any other jobseeker. They should be given specialist support in order to find work suitable for them, and their benefits should be contingent upon that. The expectation that people should 'earn' their benefits is not inhumane.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Howard A Treesong wrote:
It may not the purpose, but it is a consequence.
The consequence does not invalidate the purpose, and it's not the only potential consequence. Unless of course you believe that a person's only recourse when their benefits are cut off is to starve to death. There is another option: Get a fething job!
Ultimately the purpose of all cuts is to reduce the national debt, although there's definitely an ideological aspect to the way the Tories approach things.
There is an ideological component to the way that everyone approaches everything, not just in politics.
Generally people don't want to squeeze the poor, but broad cuts achieve just that. Certainly don't be afraid to nail the fraudulent claimants but a lot of genuine claimants are coming under pressure, people who have little hope of employment due to serious conditions. Why is it that benefits and public services are being cut, while there's colossal amounts of unpaid tax outstanding from large companies? Funny how some people are expected to pay and not others - 'we're all in this together' as the conservatives are always telling us.
Yes, but we are dealing with tax avoidance, plus it was our previous (slightly spurious) 'socialist' government that greatly contributed to the problem of tax avoidance in the City. Funny thing is, the poor of the UK didn't complain as much during the days of 'Cool Britannia' because their mouths were being stuffed with government money.
Welfare dependency has been created largely in part dur to the fact that there are whole areas of the country in which industry has been destroyed.
That's not quite true, is it? Failing nationalised businesses being put out of their misery 20+ years ago isn't quite the same thing as 'destroying' industry - manufacturing is still one of largest parts of our economic output. It doesn't employ the same numbers of people as it used to, but I'm not in favour of paying people to dig ditches just so they have something to do. The focus of our economy has diversified over the last 30 years - you can't fight progress.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2011/11/28 17:10:31
Albatross wrote:Once again, I didn't say that but I can see why you would find that easier to argue against. What I said was that this person could do some work, but that there is currently no incentive for her to do so, as claiming the maximum amount of support available to her from the state provides her with a quality of life that she wouldn't otherwise have, or more accurately, that she would only have if she worked hard. That's a non-choice. What we should be doing is providing the disabled with a level of support inversely proportionate to their ability to work - in theory, we are supposed to be doing that, but from my perspective it seems that a person is 'signed on the sick' and removed from the employment pool, whereupon they become the state's responsibility. The disabled should be just be treated like any other jobseeker. They should be given specialist support in order to find work suitable for them, and their benefits should be contingent upon that. The expectation that people should 'earn' their benefits is not inhumane.
This may seem off-topic, but bear with me.
I read a fair number of webcomics. Several of them are done by people living in London, trying to humorously depcit life on the dole because they have medical or mental conditions that make it very difficult to work. And while there are light-hearted moments, by and large the life depicted seems very, very bleak. They aren't happy with their situation, their lives, or even themselves. Fighting depression seems to be a pretty common theme.
And here I can empathize. I've been unemployed, forced to live off of my wife's earnings (I live in America, so when I walk into the unemployment office they classify me as 'white, male, employable, get-the-@*$^-out-of-here-you-lazy-bum) for almost a year once. Nearly got my backside thrown out too, before a job FINALLY came along (granted, back to flipping burgers). But what surprised me was how much better I felt about myself once I was doing something productive... even if it was a crap restaurant job making 40% of my previous pay.
So this whole 'earn your benefits' might be a good thing on more levels than the obvious - that is, getting people working for even part of their upkeep instead of simply collecting it from the government - especially the ones with mental issues like severe depression and social anxieties. I'm not saying we should just cut them off - nowhere close to that. These people have real problems and need real help. But everyone might be surprised how much having something useful to do might help them.
The trick is to find them things to do to earn their pay that they can do within the capabilites of their individual infirmities. Maybe... new hires for government bureacracies should come out of the welfare pool? How much physical capability does it take to sit a a desk and do paperwork? If full-time is beyond what they can do, get two or three can do it together?
That it could be done that way, I'm pretty certain. That it will be done that way... not so much.
CHAOS! PANIC! DISORDER!
My job here is done.
2011/11/28 17:23:37
Subject: Further to the "Do we provide acceptable levels of social care" debate...
A little more than a year ago, on the day after the GOP regained control of the House of Representatives, Speaker-to-be John Boehner said one of the first orders of business after he took charge would be the repeal of health care reform.
"I believe that the health care bill that was enacted by the current Congress will kill jobs in America, ruin the best health care system in the world, and bankrupt our country," Boehner said at a press conference. "That means we have to do everything we can to try to repeal this bill and replace it with common sense reforms to bring down the cost of health care."
Boehner is not the first nor the only Republican to try to make us believe that the U.S. has the world's best health care system and that we're bound to lose that distinction because of Obamacare. I've heard GOP candidates for president say the same thing in recent months, charging that we need to get rid of a President who clearly is trying to fix something that doesn't need fixing, something that isn't broken in the first place.
Well, those guys need to get out more. Out of the country, in fact. They need to travel to at least one of the many countries that are doing a much better job of delivering high quality care at much lower costs than the good old USA.
If they're not interested in a fact-finding mission abroad, then perhaps they might take a look at two recent reports before they make any other statements about the quality of American health care.
Last week, the 34-nation Organization for Economic Cooperation (OECD) released the results of its most recent study of the health care systems in its member countries, including the U.S., plus six others, for a total of 40. And those results are illuminating.
If Boehner and his fellow Republicans had characterized the U.S. system as the most expensive in the world, they would have been right on target. But they would have been way off base by calling it the best.
The OECD report is just the most recent evidence that Americans are not getting nearly as much bang for the health care buck as citizens of most other developed countries -- and even some countries in the developing world.
The OECD found that the United States spends two-and-a-half times more on health care per person than the OECD average. The U.S. even spends more than twice as much as France, which many experts contend has one of the best health care systems on the planet.
The average expenditure per person in the U.S. is $7,960, a third more than in Norway, the second highest. The OECD average, by comparison, is just $3,233. (It is $3,873 in France.)
Here are some reasons why: Hospital spending is 60 percent higher than the average of five other relatively expensive countries (Switzerland, Canada, Germany, France and Japan); spending on pharmaceuticals and medical goods is much higher here than any of the other countries; and administrative costs are more than two-and-a-half times the average of the others.
It was not all bad news for us. We're number one in the five-year breast cancer survival rate and number two (behind Japan) in the five-year colorectal cancer survival rate. We're also number one in costly knee replacements and number two (again behind Japan) in the number of MRI units per million people.
But we rank 29th in the number of hospital beds per person and 29th in the average length of a stay in the hospital. And we have high rates of avoidable hospital admissions for people with asthma, lung disease, diabetes, hypertension and other common illnesses.
When it comes to access to physicians, we're also near the bottom of the pack. We rank 26th in the number of physicians, especially primary care or family doctors, per 1,000 people.
In terms of life expectancy, we rank 28th, just behind Chile. The average age of death in the U.S. is 78.2, well below the average of 79.5 years in the other OCED countries.
The OECD study backs up the results of a report released by the Commonwealth Fund in October, which showed that the U.S. is actually losing ground to other countries in assuring that its citizens have equal access to affordable, efficient care.
The Commonwealth Fund "scorecard" found that the U.S. is failing to keep up with gains in health outcomes made by other nations. We now rank last out of 16 countries in the Commonwealth Fund study when it comes to deaths that could have been prevented by timely and effective medical care.
A big reason for the dismal results is the fact that more and more Americans are falling into the ranks of the uninsured and underinsured. As of last year, according to the Commonwealth Fund, 81 million adults in the U.S. -- 44 percent of all adults under age 65 -- were either uninsured or underinsured at some point during the year, up from 61 million as recently as 2003.
So the next time you hear a politician claim that the U.S. has the best health care system in the world, be aware that he or she is trying to get you to believe something that is demonstrably not true, undoubtedly for no reason other than to advance their political agenda. We deserve better -- in both rhetoric and results.
"I hate movies where the men wear shorter skirts than the women." -- Mystery Science Theater 3000
"Elements of the past and the future combining to create something not quite as good as either." -- The Mighty Boosh
Check out Cinematic Titanic, the new movie riffing project from Joel Hodgson and the original cast of MST3K.
See my latest eBay auctions at this link.
"We are building a fighting force of extraordinary magnitude. You have our gratitude!" - Kentucky Fried Movie
2011/11/28 17:34:02
Subject: Further to the "Do we provide acceptable levels of social care" debate...
That, I can also sympathise with. I had to lie and play down my qualifications to get work after a period of a few month's unemployment. It was desperation to work that did it for me.
Though, I guess, counterargument is, I had been screwed by the welfare office so I wasn't getting any benefits. Starvation or impending homelessness was what impelled me to lie about myself to get work. (As it happened, despite my degree I was perfectly capable of working as a shop security guard. Who'da thunk it?)
Albatross wrote:There is another option: Get a fething job!
Stop pretending that people can just walk off benefits and into a job.
I dont think he was pretending that, but its not too far off the mark. If you are genuinelly attempting to do so, you can find work Howard.
Well, most can.
I left the marines and found work inside two weeks, its not like Ive got a degree or anything, and needless to say Snipers haven't got any relevant experience for civvy jobs!
We are arming Syrian rebels who support ISIS, who is fighting Iran, who is fighting Iraq who we also support against ISIS, while fighting Kurds who we support while they are fighting Syrian rebels.
2011/11/28 17:49:23
Subject: Further to the "Do we provide acceptable levels of social care" debate...
The big problem with western countries is that they are not generating the demand for labour to create lots of jobs. This has been happening for several decades. The growth of government jobs disguised it but has led us (the UK) to the situation we are now in.
Kilkrazy wrote:Everyone can't simply "go and find a job".
The big problem with western countries is that they are not generating the demand for labour to create lots of jobs. This has been happening for several decades. The growth of government jobs disguised it but has led us (the UK) to the situation we are now in.
Well yeah KK clearly not everyone can, and Im not trying to be a proper bastard about it and say "everyone on the dole is lazy!" but the point is, some people can try a little bit harder. Im sure that some of the 1 million youth unemployed are just being ridiculously fussy. There was a big debate about it on Radio York and overwhelming consensus was that its not just the governments fault and as you might expect, its somewhere about the middle ground where you find the truth of it.
One of the guests was an employer and he said when he advertised for 3 apprentices, he got more interest from mothers and grandparents saying "Oh that job would be perfect for my Alan!" but not as much enthusiasm from Alan! He said that many of them made ridiculous demands, expected larger salaries, or flat out seemed to have been forced to attend an interview by someone else because they said things like "Im not really interested in this type of work if I am honest..."
As always there are two sides to every story. I sympathise with those that are really really trying and have some gak luck, but some of the young scamps out there whinging really need to put some more effort in, maybe expect a little less, and meet the prospective employers half way!
As I said, im not spectacularly qualified, and I didnt struggle upon leaving the Marines with my "feth it Ill do anything!" attitude.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/11/28 18:21:06
We are arming Syrian rebels who support ISIS, who is fighting Iran, who is fighting Iraq who we also support against ISIS, while fighting Kurds who we support while they are fighting Syrian rebels.
2011/11/28 18:23:39
Subject: Further to the "Do we provide acceptable levels of social care" debate...
Albatross wrote:There is another option: Get a fething job!
Stop pretending that people can just walk off benefits and into a job.
I dont think he was pretending that, but its not too far off the mark. If you are genuinelly attempting to do so, you can find work Howard.
The easy going jobs have hundreds of applicants for any position. There's a lot of people desperate to get out of unemployment, they aren't all feckless scroungers. go into the job centre and I see a mix of people who have freeloaded since school and other people desperate for something. I saw a guy the other week as good as told that because he was over 40 and laid off they couldn't do much for him. I saw the Christmas Temps list at the job centre, from here to Cardiff they only had enough to cover a side of A4. I thought it was a joke, you have a city the size of Cardiff and the surrounding area for 20 miles and they can only rummage up a list of jobs about 20 long for the christmas period??
Mainly for Mattrym...
Spoiler:
I'll tell you my situation. I'm unemployed as of the middle of October and I feel fething awful half the time. In order to bring in some sort of income towards the end of my studies my wife moved in with a friend in London because she couldn't find full time work here. We don't have the means to drop a large deposit on a rental and both live in London unless I have a job too, so I live with my parents until I get one there. I spend most of my day searching for jobs in London, filling out application forms and writing cover letters. I have to go for a range of technical jobs, some better than others... I would be hard pushed to lie about my qualifications and play them down while getting references, what do I tell them I've been doing for the last 4 years if not my PhD? Prison or stranded on a desert island is about all I can think of.
I get nothing for being unemployed because the other half is working full time and is my wife. Yeah, apparently when I was doing a PHD and effectively working full time I was earning too much for her to claim JSA when she was unemployed, but because of the non-taxable nature of most of my government grant I'm still entitled to nothing because to the tax man I'm no better than someone having put their feet up for the last 4 years. And get this, if we weren't fething married, I could claim! I'm being fething shafted because we did that stupid thing the Tories are always going on about which is being socially responsible and getting married and all it's done is repeatedly deny us money. It's a sad, fething joke.
I can't win. It's like you can't claim JSA as an undergraduate because your loan covers the full 52 weeks of the year. Yet when I applied for the hardship fund they took the yearly loan and divided it up into 30 weeks or whatever for assessment because that's what you have on a weekly basis during term time.
No doubt if I was a liar and a twister I could claim all sorts of benefits but I won't do that, I guess I'm a mug.
It does mean I've had the time to paint some models recently, which is something I've hardly done in the last 2 years because I've been too stressed and tired. That's the only up shot. Not living with my wife and living in this employment limbo isn't so good. So if you think I have much time for people getting anything more than their share you're wrong. Because whatever the government do regarding cuts, I get nothing anyway. I don't even count as 'youth unemployed', I'm too fething old.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2011/11/28 18:26:04
2011/11/28 18:29:37
Subject: Further to the "Do we provide acceptable levels of social care" debate...
No doubt if I was a liar and a twister I could claim all sorts of benefits but I won't do that, I guess I'm a mug.
Yes you could mate, but you wont and I respect you for it immensely. I dont think your a mug when you have too much pride in yourself to talk complete gak just to get some cash.
Im the same, and it gets you down sometimes. I get up for work when its pissing down with rain and sometimes I think "Would I really be that worse off if I lived in a council flat and didn't go to work?"
We are in extremely tough times, and for what its worth I do wish you luck on your search for employment. I can imagine it's frustrating as feth.
We are arming Syrian rebels who support ISIS, who is fighting Iran, who is fighting Iraq who we also support against ISIS, while fighting Kurds who we support while they are fighting Syrian rebels.
2011/11/28 18:38:51
Subject: Further to the "Do we provide acceptable levels of social care" debate...
mattyrm wrote:
We are in extremely tough times, and for what its worth I do wish you luck on your search for employment. I can imagine it's frustrating as feth.
Sometimes I shake with anger at it. I don't know why, I'm just really angry at myself/jobs/recruiters/the world.
2011/11/28 18:41:21
Subject: Further to the "Do we provide acceptable levels of social care" debate...
Howard, that is seriously rough. I hope you find something soon.
If it helps you any, when I said I had no qualifications, the dudes didn't even really ask for references or anything. I said I'd been working in a lab as a technician but hated it and wanted to change careers. I mean, that might not work for a lot of jobs and it's risky to try, so I'm not recommending it or anything.
I hear you on getting screwed by the system too- my PhD (what I'd done of it) wasn't counted as "work" or "experience" either.
I'm in a similar boat. My two year degree made me "over-qualified" for most low-end jobs, and yet I still don't qualify for any decent ones yet.
So I basically literally have no choice but to keep up with college as far as employment goes anyway.
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
2011/11/28 19:17:11
Subject: Further to the "Do we provide acceptable levels of social care" debate...
mattyrm wrote: I think few people would disagree with that mate. It's not like its your fault if you wind up in a wheelchair or something.
Seriously, so if the guy in your OP link was telling the truth (ie was actually the invalid he claimed to be) you'd be ok with him getting the money he did right? We're all against fraudsters getting money. Where exactly is the debate?
I believe that was exactly the point he made in the OP.
Did you read the OP in this thread when you came to that conclusion? Looks like you didn't.
mattyrm wrote: I think few people would disagree with that mate. It's not like its your fault if you wind up in a wheelchair or something.
Seriously, so if the guy in your OP link was telling the truth (ie was actually the invalid he claimed to be) you'd be ok with him getting the money he did right? We're all against fraudsters getting money. Where exactly is the debate?
I believe that was exactly the point he made in the OP.
Did you read the OP in this thread when you came to that conclusion? Looks like you didn't.
Did you?
mattyrm wrote:Following on from the somewhat heated debate last week whereby I said I felt as though the UK government provides more than adequately for the impoverished, disabled, special needs.. comes this heartwarming story.
bolded portions of the following article pointed out that he received a masters degree, tax free money, and a ground level handicap acceding flat at government expense. Good luck on your crusade.
Avatar 720 wrote: You see, to Auston, everyone is a Death Star; there's only one way you can take it and that's through a small gap at the back.
Powder Burns wrote:what they need to make is a fullsize leatherman, like 14" long folded, with a bone saw, notches for bowstring, signaling flare, electrical hand crank generator, bolt cutters..
2011/11/28 19:32:05
Subject: Further to the "Do we provide acceptable levels of social care" debate...
... which is saying he thinks they get too much money.
They being the impoverished, the disabled, thos with special needs, etc.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/11/28 19:33:08
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
2011/11/28 19:36:06
Subject: Further to the "Do we provide acceptable levels of social care" debate...
AustonT wrote:
I suppose you can argue that anyone can demand anything they want. I can "demand" your wallet, that doesn't mean I should or that you should give it to me. Demand is a word with a lot of connotations, when you're sucking at the teat of government and you "demand" more what you are rally doing is begging without the cardboard sign.
I'm not really speaking to what should be done, because I generally believe that people should always do what is in their best interest, irrespective of morality. I'm merely saying that people in Western democracies have quite a bit of leverage when it comes to extracting benefits from the government.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
2011/11/28 19:36:26
Subject: Further to the "Do we provide acceptable levels of social care" debate...
Powder Burns wrote:what they need to make is a fullsize leatherman, like 14" long folded, with a bone saw, notches for bowstring, signaling flare, electrical hand crank generator, bolt cutters..
2011/11/28 19:50:21
Subject: Further to the "Do we provide acceptable levels of social care" debate...
Melissia wrote:I'm in a similar boat. My two year degree made me "over-qualified" for most low-end jobs, and yet I still don't qualify for any decent ones yet.
So I basically literally have no choice but to keep up with college as far as employment goes anyway.
I was in that situation, and ultimately had to trade on my experience in sports to get a job. My degree was essentially worthless in terms of employment, though I knew this while getting it, and amounted to a 4 year application to graduate school. Coming off my PhD I have basically 5 options:
1) Work for the US government (my preference).
2) Work for a different government.
3) Work for a think tank.
4) Go back to personal training.
5) Teach (shudder).
Anything outside that set is likely to reject me for being either unqualified or overqualified.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/11/28 19:53:33
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
