Get on your Hoe and look for work

[SueEllen]

It beats me why those on the left have a problem with requiring people to contribute as much as they reasonably can before relying on the state, given that Marx said "From each according to their ability". In Soviet Russia they certainly did not have the lax attitude our welfare state has. Here they whine about "bedroom tax" but in Russia, if circumstances changed leaving you in accommodation that was bigger than needed, you had to leave.

It is immensely damaging to society if people are perceived as getting far more than they deserve. Those who have to pay resent it and are more likely to find ways to avoid doing so and to limit what they contribute themselves. For example, why should people look after elderly parents and prevent local authorities having to provide care if a major cost to councils is providing homes for the able who do not work?

You are making the mistake of confusing Labour or Socialism with Soviet Russia. They aren't the same.

In regards to people on the left having a problem with people working in such jobs - people truly on the left don't have a problem. I've asked them. Though the few I've asked were all OAPs except one.

Those who are part of Nu Labour and the current Labour party have a problem because it means they or their children would have to do menial jobs at some point. They think they are above that.

[vetran]

As long as it does not stop them looking for more suitable work, why should they not? During contract gaps I've done low paid tutoring jobs and, going back a few decades, even done shop work until something better came along.

you and me both.

I'm sorry if people feel its acceptable to allow the taxpayer to support you while you chase your dream job.I would like to see transitional arrangements so workers don't take home significantly less when taking a job after benefits.

this sort of behavior was thoroughly lampooned years ago

Shelley (TV Series 1979

[DodgyAgent]

As long as it does not stop them looking for more suitable work, why should they not? During contract gaps I've done low paid tutoring jobs and, going back a few decades, even done shop work until something better came along.

Quite When it comes to leeching off the state all men and women are equal and should be treated the same.
The problem with the lefty liberals is that they believe socialism is for everyone else and that they deserve special treatment "cos they care"

[xoggoth]

Those who are part of Nu Labour and the current Labour party have a problem because it means they or their children would have to do menial jobs at some point. They think they are above that.

Quite true. I have a lot more time for the ideas of real socialism than the class-obsessed attitudes of labour. Yet the boundaries are truly blurred. The Unite Union and its leaders have a definite communist bent but stand up for the idea that public sector workers should receive pay increases and pensions better than those received by the private sector workers who have to pay for them.

Although that was normal enough in the USSR. Those who would have been able to make money in a free market society instead became part of the corrupt state elite.

[d000hg]

Quite When it comes to leeching off the state all men and women are equal and should be treated the same.
The problem with the lefty liberals is that they believe socialism is for everyone else and that they deserve special treatment "cos they care"

You all totally missed my point, which is that the system treats everyone like they're unskilled work-shy children who have to be forced to do anything... which is actually counter-productive to those who genuinely want work and have some clue.

Everyone should be treated the same - but being treated as individuals not using a lowest common denominator approach.

[vetran]

You all totally missed my point, which is that the system treats everyone like they're unskilled work-shy children who have to be forced to do anything... which is actually counter-productive to those who genuinely want work and have some clue.

Everyone should be treated the same - but being treated as individuals not using a lowest common denominator approach.

you willing to pay for that? They will need a lot of support.

Losing your job is pretty stressful, so is a change in financial circumstances. People are pretty screwed up by it.

The Holmes and Rahe Stress Scale - Stress Management from Mind Tools

As I said I'm all for giving those with a good work history a longer holiday before using the stick.

[SpontaneousOrder]

But companies are already allowed to hire workers at below minimum wage - as volunteers. Why is it payments between zero and the minimum wage only that are outlawed?

Because if young and inexperienced people were able to compete in the marketplace (by selling themselves more cheaply until they gain that experience) it would threaten unionised jobs. At least that was how it started. Now it's about winning votes from the people who are on that cusp (unionised or not) and the idiots who don't realise that that very policy which they think is meant to help people like themselves, is actually keeping them unemployed in the first place.

[SpontaneousOrder]

OK I'll ask a different question how would you solve benefit dependency?

Abolish benefits.

[SpontaneousOrder]

given that Marx said "From each according to their ability".

Although Marx was a lazy **** who leached off of other people and even had an indentured servant who received no pay (who he kicked out after he got her pregnant).

[SpontaneousOrder]

Minimum wage is to prevent companies exploiting workers, it does not apply to benefit recipients. If you are truly worried shall we add all their benefits up and then check if their total benefit spend exceeds minimum wage? Are you sure benefit spend on unemployed people is under £254 a week? Especially if you consider multiple people in a workless family who equate to one worker earning minimum wage in a working family.

If they earn more than minimum wage from benefits, then this would imply that the work was NOT worth doing in the first place (I mentioned in the original post the assumption that it was). Otherwise the state would be better off paying private companies to do the work (employing the same people on minimum wage).

So then... if it's not worth paying private employers minimum wage to do the work, then why are they paying more than that in benefits for the same work? Unless the state had a vested interest in keeping people dependant on benefits.