housing association apologies to 'horrified' residents

[realBabelfish]

Groen - where are all these jobs coming from? even if we forced everyone into a job. there isnt enough jobs by a long way.

 

[elmarko]

<waffle>

Nice avoidance (in that you didn't reply to a single point).

If welfare is the cause of the problem,

How do you explain the following.

1. Unemployment isn't magically higher in nations which more generous welfare (see Norway/Sweden).

2. Unemployment isn't magically lower in nations with less generous welfare states - (see USA).

3. How do you compensate for a system in which we have more people than jobs?, as if reducing welfare was the solution to getting people into work you would need enough jobs for them to go into (which we don't anyway).

You have been watching too much "free market libertarian propaganda" - I bet you think Ron Paul is the greatest man on earth.

Two Question (this should be funny).

1. Do you believe in the invisible hand?
2. Do you think unregulated business would result in cartels & price fixing?

 

[phil675]

What do we do with these people, you know, the ones that contribute nothing, take up housing and cost the council £25k+ a year?

Because it can't go on forever, the amount of people living like this is only going to get bigger as the kids carry on this lifestyle and the NHS prolongs the life of the older generation.

 

[anything I don't mind]

or the CEOs taking home millions of pounds should maybe reduce their income a little?

if we removed min wage then the gov would force people into £1 an hour jobs or remove benefits.

what about those people who cannot find work - there are not enough jobs to give every unemployed person one. last week it was said that on average 10 people are applying for every vacant position (with better jobs having many more applicants). so this implies 1 vacancy for every 10 unemployed people.

you also have to realise that many hard working people in the recession lost their jobs due to inept governments and banks. banks their tax money (and ours) was used to bale out. these banks are now screwing people left right and centre

my bank (natwest), owned by US. is charging 18% on overdrafts. this is 36x the actual bank of england rate. and they are lending money that was given to them by the tax payer, to help the tax payers.

i recently transferred all my savings (£30k) to natwest for when we bought the new house. i had that £30k in there a few months and was earning around £30 a month in interest. contrast that with a year ago when i was £4k overdrawn and paying around £60 a month for that. something is very wrong and the banks are ****ing us all over whilst we pay them for the privilege

What has the salary of potentially hard working individuals in the productive half of the economy have to do with people on welfare who apparently can not find work?

If we removed minimum wage it would open up the opportunities for low paying jobs that currently are in china or some other low currency country where they can produce that good at a cheaper rate than they can in the uk. So it might appear to start with that people are being underpaid for their work, be it at a factory. It is all about entering the productive half of the economy. Before you know the guy on the factory line has enough experience to start his own business or move up within the factory to higher paid jobs. Instead we have a minimum wage cap which means those jobs never exist.

People need to live with family or seek third party assistance, live in a shelter or shared accommodation. That is their problem to solve, not the governments and not the tax payers. What about before the welfare state which is only about 80 years old at most. Those 1000s of years before the government redistributed wealth to other people? did they moan about not having enough work or did they go out and make work for themselves and innovate etc? maybe if they were in such a position, they wouldn't have 3 kids and thus be in a better position to look after themselves.


The problem of government bailing out banks is a different topic entirely and has nothing to do with government welfare. The problematic people on welfare who i am moaning about have probably never paid tax anyway. The people that were working but lost their job and are temporary on welfare or the disabled people who get government assistance is not the problematic people on welfare.

I am against the bailout and i think the banks should have failed and been sold off as a normal bankrupt businesses. I still fail to see how the corrupt government and bailouts etc has anything to do with a discussion on the economic problems of the welfare state.

 

[kkelly]

Silly comment for them to make, that should if offered help with budgeting to their clients due to the new changes.

 

[Biohazard]

But there is an alternative to being forced to work for money. Stop receiving the government handouts. As anyone knows if you accept money from someone you are indebted to them and essentially their "slave". If someone accepts money from the state then they are a dependant and they are at the will and mercy of the government. The alternative is to not accept the government money, simple.

That is an alternative, but the outcome will be the same. Penury homelessness and in many cases death.

We should encourage growth, fasciliate employment, not discard sections of society onto the scrap heap or keep them in perpetual slavery.

 

[Gogl]

The message of the letter need to be told to those needing to hear it, those who know it was not intended for them will have taken no offence, those making the most noise have a guilty conscience to salve and some are just to stupid to know which camp they fall into. So it wasn't the most eloquent, boo bloody hoo.

Just for the record though, I do actually take quite an active interest in the state of social science on this issue and have attended a few local lectures on the subject (I work at a university) when time allows.

The problem with psychological approaches to things is that they tend to be based in the simple premise of find a solution that does no harm. When in fact realistic and practical solutions never fit with the idealistic bases of the theories.

Did any of the lectures mention any particular initiatives? I Would like to read up on either ones that failed despite good intentions or ones that despite being sound in theory, cannot be put into practice because of public perceptions. Doesn't matter if not, I don't expect you came away with notes.

Just to be clear, given what you have said you are aware of regarding the situation of families living on benefits, are you saying it is a lifestyle choice, and if so can you determine a reason for the vehement denial of a situation you know exists from first hand experience? Did any of the lectures cover the motivations of those that hold such a viewpoint?

Sorry if that seems somewhat loaded but this is GD so...

 

[div0]

But there is an alternative to being forced to work for money. Stop receiving the government handouts. As anyone knows if you accept money from someone you are indebted to them and essentially their "slave". If someone accepts money from the state then they are a dependant and they are at the will and mercy of the government. The alternative is to not accept the government money, simple.

Comical, quite simply comical. I'll have some of what ever you're smoking.

So anyone receiving any money from the state is 'dependant' on the state and therefore a 'slave' to the state?

This is just so ridiculous I don't actually know where to start.

The problem is that people on welfare do not offer skills to a high enough level within the productive half of the economy that would make going to work a better option than receiving government welfare.

And another sweeping generalisation by Groen.

So anyone who's ever claimed JSA, or even been made unemployed is someone who doesn't have a skill set to make employment viable?

Surely even you can't believe this ****.

Unemployment is caused by a varied reasons and not solely a result of a welfare state or lack of a welfare state. But the welfare state contributes to unemployment by distorting incentives as i already explained.

While this may be true, you seem to completely miss the actual point of the welfare state, as demonstrated in your above posts.

I think forcing people in to a situation where they have to work is better than just paying them money and claiming to have solved the problem of poverty.

You seem to be implying that people need to be 'forced' into work.

I think you'd find that there are a lot of people on JSA who would choose to work if they could. But finding a job is not always as easy as some people like to make out.

I really wonder if some people have ever been in the unfortunate situation of being made redundant and having to look for a new job, to pay their mortgage. Or if their only experience of 'benefits', is what they read in the Daily Mail.

Yes, I agree that there needs to be an incentive to stop some people choosing to stay on benefits. But you're making the same mistake as the letter in the OP and assuming that you can lump anyone on benefits into the same basket and talk to them like they're chav scum.

I honestly don't get how you can't see that as offensive.

 

[elmarko]

Did any of the lectures mention any particular initiatives? I Would like to read up on either ones that failed despite good intentions or ones that despite being sound in theory, cannot be put into practice because of public perceptions. Doesn't matter if not, I don't expect you came away with notes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias says hello.

 

[s0ck]

It's probably a good thing.
No doubt, some of these poor souls rely on fags/booze/sky to let some light into their life. Take that away, we should get a nice little uprising with people actually turning out to local elections.

I wonder what will happen to all those comfy council seats?

 

[Pawnless Endgame]

i would class virgin tv and broadband as a luxury, every console under the sun and a powerful rig as a luxury.

I wouldn't class broadband as a luxury in recent years. Firstly, a net connection is getting more and more essential for jobhunting, and secondly, dial-up was so crap even back in the 90s that getting broadband for £25/month in 2002 onwards simply made sense.

I would consider a tablet with 3G a luxury though because it's an extra device and and extra ISP to what you already have.

 

[Orionaut]

Hmm, While Fags and Booze are bit of a no-no if you are on a limited budget (Mind, One could always try homebrew! )

I have always thought that a Sky sub might actually represent a sensible allocation of resources if you have a limited budget and a lot of time on your hands!

Ten quid a week or so for a sky sub compares favourably to any other sort of entertainment and is the equivalent of only a couple of packets of fags/week or a couple of four-packs of reasonably drinkable beer!

While there are plenty of things about benefit culture/sytem I could get all DM about. The Sky subs issue is not one of them!

 

[oldbag]

This is a symptom of a country in austerity - those who are drawing any form of benefit are instantly labelled thieving scum by the middle class, whilst the rich get richer. It's funny what money does to people.

 

[fez]

This is a symptom of a country in austerity - those who are drawing any form of benefit are instantly labelled thieving scum by the middle class, whilst the rich get richer. It's funny what money does to people.

Of course people don't think like that but unless you take a day to cover every aspect of the issue for every different group in every situation, you tend to deal in generalisations.

My biggest problem is those that don't try to help themselves. The ones that only get up to complain about how they are being targeted. I really dislike the prevailing opinion that regardless of your choices in life you are entitled to everything you want. Happiness is not dependent on possessions and money.

If I was on benefits, I wouldn't think of complaining unless the amount I received wasn't enough to survive on. I wouldn't expect any luxuries at all. When I was younger we got about £100 / year spent on us for birthdays and christmas and we got clothes pretty much for both. We maybe had another £100 spent on clothes for us over the year when we needed other things like sport kit or school clothes. That had absolutely 0 negative effect on me yet so many people think that they are on the breadline whilst spending £70 on a pair of trainers.

I have no idea why we think the government should be actively "teaching" people how to cook etc. If they really were in trouble they would learn themselves rather than buying expensive substitutes. Its never the good families on benefits that are whinging about welfare so I don't see why theres an issue with these cuts. Its only the bad ones that are complaining or as someone else put it, those with a guilty conscience because they know that they are taking the pee.

 

[LeeUK]

I'd love to live in one of these housing association houses with the rent and council tax all paid for me. Spending all day drinking and smoking while watching Sky, then going to bingo at night. Then a nice lie in next morning as I don't have work to go to.

Life would be grand!

 

[Gogl]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias says hello.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catchphrase_(game_show) says hello... Riiiiiiiight!

I wonder what possible context could have me seeking out such reports or references.

Got any more for me? I'm almost ready to call house on my Elmarko Buzzword Bingo card.

Here's a hint, you haven't said 'straw man' for a few posts.

 

[oldbag]

Unfortunately it's a multitude of sins:

It's families whose generations have lived a life on benefits so for them its become the norm.

It's an education system that allows people to drop out the system.

It's a benefits system that allows people to live a life on benefits.

It's a lack of unskilled jobs, which command low salaries and where in some cases you would earn more on combined benefits than working.

It's a case of jobs being in only certain pockets of the country.

It's the cost of housing (rents/mortgage) which are especially high on places where there is work.

It's a sense of entitlement.

It's a refusal to do some types of jobs.

And then it's the attitude of society - everyone on benefits are thieving scumbags, even the genuine cases who actually make an effort or who can't generally work (disability, etc)


Where do you start?

 

[CREATIVE!11]

More clap trap that assumes everyone in Social housing or receiving a benefit is a lazy, scrounging, work shy low life that is living the life of Reilly off the state.

I recently had to go back on JSA as yet again work has run dry. After the CSA, I am left with £60.62 a week. My electric costs me £20 a week with no heating, Southern water demand £15 so I am left with £25 a week for food, clothing, travel to and from the Jobcentre. I live out in the sticks and the bus fair is £2.60 each way to the nearest shop.

Out of that I am still suppose to pay out £16 a fortnight for my prescriptions as I am on Contribution based support.

If they think I have Sky TV they must be joking. Without my partner helping me out I would be sunk. She runs the car, pays the TV Licence, and my phone along with running her own place.

This kick somebody whilst they are down attitude being encourage by the press is getting me down.

Brainwashing by the media. The post above by biohazard summed it up perfectly, papers, politicians etc. have just tried to create this image anyone on benefits is unwilling to work and living an awesome life of luxury and enjoyment off the taxpayers back. You sound exactly like my time on JSA.

The papers were found to have even faked some of those ridiculous stories of foreigners claiming so many benefits they were buying designer clothes and taking holidays.

Some sick ****s on this planet, I really really REALLY hope they get ill themselves or maimed. I never wish bad upon anyone, but for some ****** to make up fake stories just to create hate towards people on benefits is sickening.

 

[LordSplodge]

Why is it that a lot of the people with no job and that receive free money and a free house are so obese?

Because cheap food is full of crap, that's why. You really need to think before you open your mouth.

As for the "free money" diatribe, well that's not even worth my time rebuffing.

 

[LordSplodge]

i would class virgin tv and broadband as a luxury.

Broadband isn't a luxury. Job seeking essentially needs the Internet as does the new benefit claiming system of "Universal credit"

No, "going to the library" doesn't cut it as a response neither. They're closing them due to "cuts"