Computers for under £25 will help 11 million disadvantaged Brits on benefits get online

We should examine the potential economical net benefit of potentially reducing unemployment & increased social inclusion (over the long term) over the cost of providing these low-specification machines.

This is one of those important things that tend to get missed in these types of governmental interventions: is there any evidence whatsoever that such an intervention will have any impact on the targetted outcome; and, if so, what is the estimated cost/benefit equation?

The historical problem that makes many rather cynical of such interventions is lack of evidence base in the first place. "Ready, fire, aim" rather than "ready, aim, fire".
 
might be helpful but I'm a bit skeptical... priority should be kids who need one - they ought to already have access to one at school so (if they're not already able to do so) it would be good if they were able to borrow a laptop to take home if they don't have a computer at home.

A scheme like this ought to come with a caveat of attending some training courses - if someone really hasn't got a computer and has no idea how to use one then teaching them some basics and introducing them to some office applications could be useful.
 
yes but it will get them addicted to faecbook and they will then have to pay people like me to remove the virus... I htink this is a GREAT idea (and profitable for me)

So.... they can't afford a PC at the moment, until the price point hits £25. Just HOW much technical support will they be able to afford? :confused:

And thus boosting the tech support industry, and maybe giving them the incentive to learn some new skills and go into the IT support sector. genius.

Ha, if the incentive isn't there to get a job in the first place, I doubt the ability of someone to disinfect a PC without the skills or knowledge to do so, and without another online machine to read up on it!

Really, £25 computers to me sounds like a terrible idea... "The initiative, supported by Microsoft" - see if they ran Linux, they'd have a chance of not being infected to the wazoo within a couple of weeks, but no... MS sticking their big nose in again where it's not wanted.
 
I don't think we can use the word disadvantaged in this country. I think they mean stupid and poor children from poor and stupid parents.

They will probably just sell the computers for cider or smokes.

I realy don't think we need to buying people computers, the government needs to find better ways to spend other peoples money, instead of wasting it on crappy computers.

I thought tax money was for essential services, now they are buying everyone luxury goods? Where does that end ? why can't i get a boat or a new TV from the government, i am disadvantaged as well.
 
This has all sorts of negative affects on the computer market as well. Ok so they hand out 10 million crappy computers, that's potentially 1 million new desktop or smart phone sales that won't occur because the government thought it was necessary to mess with the market. This could have all sorts of negative affects. They might just be a computer shop in a poor area that is struggling to get by but the government hands out 10 million computers and there goes its market.

Does the government care about unexpected consequences? not one bit, you just have government employees sitting on loads of other peoples money having meetings about how they can spend it, most of the decisions are done without much thought for the bigger picture, all they think about is making themselves feel good about themselves. So they all sit around in their over the top government officies on their over the top salaries talking about how to spend other people's money. They then spend more on the project than they should because there is no price indicator and no incentive to cut costs because its not their money. They then go home at night and tell their familes that they are doing something good by giving everyone computers and pat themselves on their back.

Its all about narcissistic self righteousness of government employees more than it realy is about "helping disadvantaged"
 
I swear these forums are becoming more like the Sun and Daily Mail. Hurr durr benefits. Pull your head out.

It's important for people to be computer literate and £25 isn't a lot of money if it does that.
 
I don't think we can use the word disadvantaged in this country. I think they mean stupid and poor children from poor and stupid parents.

Not all poor people are stupid and not all less-than-gifted parents have stupid kids. Why should a child from a poor family suffer because he hasn't got the computer/internet access a better off child has?

You, and many others here, a taring those on benefits/poor with the same feathers. Only a minority are abusing the system. Get off you high horse.

You could have just left it there...

Sums Groen up quite well.
 
Its important that everyone can drive a car, why not buy everyone a car?

Its important that everyone can ....

that is not justification to mess with the computer market. If they want a computer then they can buy a second hand one for £25, forgo some smokes or some cider for a few weeks and they can buy a computer.

There is realy no justification for buying 10 million crappy computers. Basically socializing the desktop computer and will spell the end to one of the last remaining markets that was truly unaffected by government meddling. That is why we have seen nothing but lower prices and increased value for money from the computer market, because government has not stuck its self righteous noes in to that market. But that will soon change, with MS pushing a new OS that kills the desktop model and now governments handing out crappy computers for free. That is all but the final nail in the coffin.
 
Mindless rubbish.

We should examine the potential economical net benefit of potentially reducing unemployment & increased social inclusion (over the long term) over the cost of providing these low-specification machines.

Finally, at 25 I doubt you are a net contributor - so complaining about 'subsidising others' has a high chance of being hypocritical (not that you need to earn about a certain about to hold an opinion, just when you start to berate others for being subsidised).

The point im trying to make is that i seriously doubt providing them will reduce unemployment, especially when people complain of there being no free jobs for the unemployed at the moment, PC's doled out to every estate in the country in droves isn't going to magic up those jobs, and if you mean that the PC's will give them skills to find a job; again I'm doubting it. Being able to navigate IE so that they can Internet bank or check BBC news aren't relative skills, and like I said numerous councils already provide free point of access courses for adult learners wanting to learn skills such as basic computing, sticking a PC into someone's house in a sinkhole estate in Newcastle isn't going to turn them into a software programmer overnight.

As has been mentioned, library's provide computer and Internet access, online job applications can be filled in online at a job centre. Computers and Internet will aid children's homework etc. but as mentioned libraries have computer and Internet access that they could use if you do not have it, they also have books which could be used for homework, but that's a bit harder than just banging your search into Wikipedia.

You're probably right about not being a net contributer, on the overall scale, not for this isolated situation though, which is the point, not my net contribution. I've probably not paid back all the free education I've had up until 18, the health care I've had etc. etc. with my current taxes, point is I'm paying taxes right now, a **** ton of taxes, and when you hear of people starving to death or freezing to death in this country how can you not be annoyed that this white elephant of a scheme comes along when there are bigger fish to fry. The welfare state is supposed to be a safety net, not a trampoline, and this debacle is just another free bounce.

Like I said, we got a PC when I was a kid, how did we get it, my parents worked their relatively low paid jobs, saved up, probabley took out a loan for part of it IIRC, and spent quite a bit of money on a PC with a spec 10 times worse than that one listed above. Point being they expected to pay for it, not to have it handed to them by the state, because they didnt have this entitlement culture that a lot of people have nowadays. I wanted a new computer a few years back, how did I get it, worked and paid for it, I want Internet, how have I got it; by paying sky for the privilege every month.

It should be expected that certain people have to do without certain things until they can afford it themselves, otherwise what's the point? Breeds an entitlement culture, a raft of people who just get things for nothing while others have to work for it. And again when local services are cut, people die, etc. I think there are better things to spend government money on than provide people with subsidised PC's and Internet, the cost of this might be a drop in the ocean in the grand scheme of things but that doesn't excuse any reason to not do it, and as a person who pays taxes, maybe not net, but as someone who pays in £xxxx and receives the grand total of £0 I think I'm entitled to an opinion of how it's spent and this is a situation where I don agree with the money bein spent on this when a) money could be spent better elsewhere, and b) I strongly believe a high percentile of the participants won't use them how they're intended and thus won't improve their employability status or their social inclusion, instead as people have joked above they will be used to update their Facebook status', twitters, play Facebook games, and watch videos of cats on YouTube, with a minority, using them for learning, job applications or children's homework.
 
Last edited:
It's important for people to be computer literate and £25 isn't a lot of money if it does that.

But one of the major issues is whether it will actually achieve this. £25 is the cost to the end user, but what is the cost-per-machine of the scheme in total? What evidence is there that this scheme will succeed?
 
Well these schemes are always misrepresented before it starts and then once its done and all paid for, then the real cost comes out and its completely different than £25 a pc. Then it comes out at £50 million or whatever, once you take in to account government employee salaries and contracting and massive back hand procurement deals with big companies who have an active interest in killing the bottom end of the computer market.
 
This has all sorts of negative affects on the computer market as well. Ok so they hand out 10 million crappy computers, that's potentially 1 million new desktop or smart phone sales that won't occur because the government thought it was necessary to mess with the market. This could have all sorts of negative affects. They might just be a computer shop in a poor area that is struggling to get by but the government hands out 10 million computers and there goes its market.

It looks as though these machines are targetted at those who would not be potential buyers of new computer systems, so the market distortion from that point of view may be negligible. They are probably machines that would otherwise be heading for the recycling skip.

From the point of view of local computer shops, the effect may be the opposite of what you suggest; lot's of new customers needing cheap technical support.
 
Typical mindset of a government solution advocate. Not only will the market not be affected by the government but it will actually help.. lol!

How does the government know if they would be potential buyers are not? do they take a poll before they handout a computer, were you about to buy a computer yes/no? then if they say yes, they say sorry, this is only for people who were not going to buy a computer.

a) if they were not going to buy a computer, then how does the government know they want one?
b) if they were going to buy a computer, then obviously that is a private sale LOST by someone in the private sector that would have made the sale. Be it someone selling their old second hand computer or a small shop making a sale or a big online retailer.
c) They will definitely not be selling second hand pcs in this scheme, they will procure brand new ones with a big contract with suppliers. Cause that is how the government likes to do things.
 
Last edited:
The point im trying to make is that i seriously doubt providing them will reduce unemployment, especially when people complain of there being no free jobs for the unemployed at the moment, PC's doled out to every estate in the country in droves isn't going to magic up those jobs, and if you mean that the PC's will give them skills to find a job; again I'm doubting it. Being able to navigate IE so that they can Internet bank or check BBC news aren't relative skills, and like I said numerous councils already provide free point of access courses for adult learners wanting to learn skills such as basic computing, sticking a PC into someone's house in a sinkhole estate in Newcastle isn't going to turn them into a software programmer overnight.
Applying for jobs is significantly easier with a home PC (to pretend this isn't the case is the ignore reality), regardless of this - the silly notion that everybody has a library within a very short distance is also daft (which isn't true for many).

Children doing home-work without a PC are at a significant disadvantage compared to those who do, I fail to see how this is a case of the best being given a chance to do well in life (meritocratic values which you on the right claim to support do dearly).

As has been mentioned, library's provide computer and Internet access, online job applications can be filled in online at a job centre. Computers and Internet will aid children's homework etc. but as mentioned libraries have computer and Internet access that they could use if you do not have it, they also have books which could be used for homework, but that's a bit harder than just banging your search into Wikipedia.
Library's are not open 24/7, neither are they close enough for quick reference like the internet enables - the physical distance can't be ignored for some.

You're probably right about not being a net contributer, on the overall scale, not for this isolated situation though, which is the point, not my net contribution. I've probably not paid back all the free education I've had up until 18, the health care I've had etc. etc. with my current taxes, point is I'm paying taxes right now, a **** ton of taxes, and when you hear of people starving to death or freezing to death in this country how can you not be annoyed that this white elephant of a scheme comes along when there are bigger fish to fry. The welfare state is supposed to be a safety net, not a trampoline, and this debacle is just another free bounce.
You are not paying a "**** ton of taxes", you are paying the basic rate.

I agree that it might not be the best allocation of funds, but it's not like the money if not spend here will directly fund something more useful - besides, without study this may be economically beneficial in the long term, it's impossible to say.

Like I said, we got a PC when I was a kid, how did we get it, my parents worked their relatively low paid jobs, saved up, probabley took out a loan for part of it IIRC, and spent quite a bit of money on a PC with a spec 10 times worse than that one listed above. Point being they expected to pay for it, not to have it handed to them by the state, because they didnt have this entitlement culture that a lot of people have nowadays. I wanted a new computer a few years back, how did I get it, worked and paid for it, I want Internet, how have I got it; by paying sky for the privilege every month.
So you had an advantage you did nothing to earn & don't want others to also have it?.

I don't care what your parents did, you did nothing to earn it (as you had no source of independent wealth).

This plan isn't about helping out lazy parents, it's about ensuring that the next generation of children are functionally computer literate (which does have economic benefits).

It should be expected that certain people have to do without certain things until they can afford it themselves, otherwise what's the point? Breeds an entitlement culture, a raft of people who just get things for nothing while others have to work for it. And again when local services are cut, people die, etc. I think there are better things to spend government money on than provide people with subsidised PC's and Internet, the cost of this might be a drop in the ocean in the grand scheme of things but that doesn't excuse any reason to not do it, and as a person who pays taxes, maybe not net, but as someone who pays in £xxxx and receives the grand total of £0 I think I'm entitled to an opinion of how it's spent and this is a situation where I don agree with the money bein spent on this when a) money could be spent better elsewhere, and b) I strongly believe a high percentile of the participants won't use them how they're intended and thus won't improve their employability status or their social inclusion, instead as people have joked above they will be used to update their Facebook status', twitters, play Facebook games, and watch videos of cats on YouTube, with a minority, using them for learning, job applications or children's homework.
Firstly you do receive £££'s, do you think the NHS costs nothing? - the police, fire service or the rest of the benefits you receive in return for paying tax?.

Secondly, while it may appeal to your daily mail style morality - punishing the children of the poor for the bad life choices of the parents is a short-sighted social approach (which usually costs us more in the long-term).
 
The computer market is definitely the last market that i think needs socializing. Of all the things in this world, the computer market is not one that i think needs a price reduction.

ou8jts.jpg


The government wants to now enter the computer market and start to distort the bottom end of the market. Wow look how well that has helped other markets. I am sure the struggling desktop pc market will not only be not affected but actually helped by the government handing out 11 million computers. I am sure they will all come with windows 8 on them and a fast track to the wndows app store where M$ will be waiting for their next app sale.


But that is always the same with these self righteous do-gooder government solutions. They don't take in to account the true economic cost and over state the social benefit. Using this over stated social benefit as justification for the scheme.
 
Back
Top Bottom