David Cameron suggests cutting housing benefit for under-25s

[Scoobos]

It is too easy for the left to blame society for not creating jobs for people this is because it is the left who are to blame for unemployment not anyone else.

[d000hg]

There is a massive amount of 'daft wee girls' that spit out sprogs to get a free house. Often to get away from the house and their parents who are 16 years older than them. Idiots who were too young to handle the responsibility of parenthood. The circle continues.

I got a degree, got a job, got a career to get a house. Some people get a quick knee trembler.

Who Is kidding who?

True but "under 25" also covers 99% of people graduating university with a big chunk of debt... being able to claim benefits while you find your first job can boost employment in my view. Certainly it did in my case... I walked into a job out of uni but was made redundant 1 year later. JSA+housing benefits for a couple of months enabled me to find a skilled job that used my degree; I've no idea what I would have done without that!

As with any blanket ruling, it doesn't really work for everyone!

[DodgyAgent]

Apart from theses sort of jobs of course

Public sector workers more likely to take 'sickies' - Telegraph

[Old Greg]

Unemployment in the UK within the type of society we have is to do with more than "laziness". A lot of unemployed people lack aspirations and confidence so like many human beings they follow the path of least resistance. Brought up and educated by a system that discourages any form of self reliance that in turn wrecks aspiration and confidence people are left to live within a spiral of welfare dependency and poverty.

The left seem to think that paying people to not work somehow purges them of guilt (for being themselves affluent, well educated or delivering tulip public services), when actually the cruellest thing of all is to trap people into welfare dependency.

So let us firstly throw out the notion that welfare is a benefit and let us be "cruel to be kind" and force people out to work and let everyone enjoy the confidence and aspirations that the rest of us enjoy.

It is too easy for the left to blame society for not creating jobs for people this is because it is the left who are to blame for unemployment not anyone else.

How do you explain spikes in unemployment during economic crises?

[Doggy Styles]

In the UK we have lost the 'initiative' culture - starting up small businesses ourselves like many immigrants do. That's how new 'jobs' are created.

That doesn't need a government to do anything, other than stay out of the way.

So why have we lost that? Instead, why does nearly everybody complain that someone else is not providing more jobs?

[DodgyAgent]

How do you explain spikes in unemployment during economic crises?

I am not AtW

Put the unemployed into your shoes. If you are out of work and had no money what would you do? Whilst I accept that having some sort of cushion may be helpful in hard times the problem is that this cushion instantly makes people less willing to just go out and get a job. The cushion today is weighted so much in favour of the out of work that it deprives the genuinely needy of help that they should be getting.

In 2004 there were many Poles with no welfare and no jobs. Such was the incentive for them to work and earn money they came here to the UK disadvantaged by language and having no homes to live in. In Britain we decide to pay people so much money to not work that when it comes to competing for the jobs there was no competition for the Poles. Furthermore the low level jobs that the Poles have taken have lead to them getting higher level jobs as their English improved and their confidence grew. Ask any employer who would they employ between two people with exactly the same skills, age and academic profile who had not worked in their chosen profession for 6 months - they would pick the one who had picked fruit in the fields instead of being unemployed.

Welfare makes the left feel good about themselves,. The (arrogant and patronising) view being that they are somehow "helping others" is not only false but is selfish and highly damaging to the people who are not working.

[Old Greg]

I am not AtW

Put the unemployed into your shoes. If you are out of work and had no money what would you do? Whilst I accept that having some sort of cushion may be helpful in hard times the problem is that this cushion instantly makes people less willing to just go out and get a job. The cushion today is weighted so much in favour of the out of work that it deprives the genuinely needy of help that they should be getting.

In 2004 there were many Poles with no welfare and no jobs. Such was the incentive for them to work and earn money they came here to the UK disadvantaged by language and having no homes to live in. In Britain we decide to pay people so much money to not work that when it comes to competing for the jobs there was no competition for the Poles. Furthermore the low level jobs that the Poles have taken have lead to them getting higher level jobs as their English improved and their confidence grew. Ask any employer who would they employ between two people with exactly the same skills, age and academic profile who had not worked in their chosen profession for 6 months - they would pick the one who had picked fruit in the fields instead of being unemployed.

Welfare makes the left feel good about themselves,. The (arrogant and patronising) view being that they are somehow "helping others" is not only false but is selfish and highly damaging to the people who are not working.

How do you explain spikes in unemployment during economic crises?

[DodgyAgent]

How do you explain spikes in unemployment during economic crises?

First of all what has this got to do with the points I am making and secondly if you want an answer to this question then ask AtW

[Old Greg]

First of all what has this got to do with the points I am making and secondly if you want an answer to this question then ask AtW

The level of unemployment is a function of economic circumstances. 1930s slump, 1980s economic restructuring, current credit crunch. Unless you think that they are a function of an outbreak of laziness.

Whether an individual is within the employed or unemployed bucket is to a significant extent down to that individual but how large the buckets are is not.

If we reach a 1950s level of near full employment then I am all for tough action against those who will not work and who can. But there is no point now because what will happen as a result? The jobs will not appear. And arguements about immigration fail (fail when it comes to unemployment but not necessarily to depressing wages) due to the lump of labour fallacy.

[VectraMan]

True but "under 25" also covers 99% of people graduating university with a big chunk of debt... being able to claim benefits while you find your first job can boost employment in my view. Certainly it did in my case... I walked into a job out of uni but was made redundant 1 year later. JSA+housing benefits for a couple of months enabled me to find a skilled job that used my degree; I've no idea what I would have done without that!

As with any blanket ruling, it doesn't really work for everyone!

I don't think anyone was suggesting it'd be a blanket ruling. It seems to me perfectly reasonable that anybody who has worked for some time, and then finds themselves unemployed should have the short term state help, regardless of age. And perhaps going to university should also apply. It's the entitelement to move out of your parents' home without being able to afford it that is the problem.