Get on your Hoe and look for work

[vetran]

Abolish benefits.

in which case Dhoogs friend would either starve or take up Burglary.

not an option unfortunately.

[d000hg]

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

I don't know that's the case. When I was on JSA for one short period, I was lucky to get someone who actually talked to me. That's all it really takes, a 5 minute conversation. I don't want hand-crafted personal mentoring for every claimant, just a little common sense and the ability to separate the jokers from the workers. They try so hard to clamp down on those playing the system that it is inflexible for those who aren't.

[d000hg]

in which case Dhoogs friend would either starve or take up Burglary.

not an option unfortunately.

She even has a graduate job lined up for next year, after earning a first. Any reasonable person would realise she's not trying to scrounge, and she's not even that picky in the meantime, she genuinely is happy waitressing or whatever. But should a job come up cleaning toilets 2-9am, she would have to take it to get her JSA. And more to the point, that job could actually be a boon to someone else. Forcing every job-seeker into the first job you find is hardly the most suitable approach.

[vetran]

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.

The economics of workfare are not the same as the economics of Private or public jobs. If you have a workforce you want to keep busy then the cost of doing that can either be significant i.e. you put them on training, or medium : you put them on workfare or low : you pay them benefits and let them languish at home..

The balancing act of keeping people on benefits busy so they think I might as well get a job against giving companies an advantage by using 'free' labour is one I would prefer to tread rather than just throw benefits at people.

[SpontaneousOrder]

in which case Dhoogs friend would either starve or take up Burglary.

not an option unfortunately.

I doubt he'd starve. I'd employ him to mow my grass for a few quid if it wasn't illegal.

[minestrone]

Abolish benefits and abolish the minimum wage and I would think most middle class houses would employ a staff again. Employment would be at a record high.

Be like old days when you could shag the maids in the scullery if the lady of the house was not putting out.

[SpontaneousOrder]

And more to the point, that job could actually be a boon to someone else. Forcing every job-seeker into the first job you find is hardly the most suitable approach.

Sounds like there's potential for a market?! Markets need prices though.

[vetran]

She even has a graduate job lined up for next year, after earning a first. Any reasonable person would realise she's not trying to scrounge, and she's not even that picky in the meantime, she genuinely is happy waitressing or whatever. But should a job come up cleaning toilets 2-9am, she would have to take it to get her JSA. And more to the point, that job could actually be a boon to someone else. Forcing every job-seeker into the first job you find is hardly the most suitable approach.

they have an ability to choose their own job for a number of months, if she doesn't want to be told what to do then don't claim benefit seemples:

BBC News - Help to Work: New unemployment rules in force

[vetran]

I doubt he'd starve. I'd employ him to mow my grass for a few quid if it wasn't illegal.

maybe but then you have an exploitative economy where the desperate have to take wherever they can.

[SpontaneousOrder]

The economics of workfare are not the same as the economics of Private or public jobs.

Sure. Because one is actually about economics and the other is about control.
But that aside...

cost of doing that can either be significant i.e. you put them on training, or medium : you put them on workfare or low : you pay them benefits and let them languish at home.

You've just emphasised my point.
It could read like this instead:

cost of doing that can either be significant i.e. you put them on training, or medium : you put them on workfare or low : let private employers employ them at minimum wage.

Why is it that the government is not happy to pay private companies to pick litter - thereby crating needed jobs, but they are happy to pay more in benefits for the same or less amount of litter picking?