David Cameron suggests cutting housing benefit for under-25s

[d000hg]

I thought the whole point was it WAS a blanket "no benefits to <25s" rule. Perhaps I'll read the article...

[DodgyAgent]

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.

Unlike you I do not apply "lazy" to the unemployed. Read my post. Even when there is a deep recession it is not a good incentive to give people money for not working. The fact that all fruit picking jobs are done by immigrants show that there is too much welfare.

[vetran]

How do you explain spikes in unemployment during economic crises?

Those are the real workers being shifted around.

Those less attractive ones (in fifties, low skilled, health problems, unlucky etc) get laid off then spend 3 - 6 months trying to find another job that usually pays less than the last one.

Fit young people unemployed more than 1 year in reasonably good times are likely to be swinging the lead. It seems reasonable to approach it from that perspective. Obviously the definition of good times has changed because of the influx of cheap overseas labour.

I was recently reading Jeffrey Archer's Prison diary Volume 1. and a number of Benefit fraud mentions came as an almost standard amongst the inmates as casual side offence they were unlikely to be caught for. So its reasonable to suppose fraud is endemic when combining this with recent projects where claimants forced to turn up for work 50% stopped claiming benefits.

Get them to turn up for work (there is plenty to do Training, caring for the community etc) if they don't then stop benefit. If they are having difficulty finding work then proving they are reliable and willing to work that can only be a positive step.

Mixing the results of criminal neglect, social pressures etc with the benefit system is a recipe for disaster, if the police / social workers find someone in a difficult situation at home etc they just arrange a bedsit for them. If they were forced to resolve the issue instead of dumping them on benefits it would be better for all.

What's wrong with 'the workhouse' if properly run, many would profit from a segregated dormitory style existence with decent discipline to prevent them sliding into the young offenders institutions as many with poor childhoods do.

[Old Greg]

Unlike you I do not apply "lazy" to the unemployed. Read my post. Even when there is a deep recession it is not a good incentive to give people money for not working. The fact that all fruit picking jobs are done by immigrants show that there is too much welfare.

Did I call the unemployed lazy. No but don't let logic and accuracy get in the way.

If you didn't give them money, would they all find work? Where would the jobs come from? Why didn'the jobs appear in the 1930s when unemployment relief was minimal?

[DodgyAgent]

Did I call the unemployed lazy. No but don't let logic and accuracy get in the way.

If you didn't give them money, would they all find work? Where would the jobs come from? Why didn'the jobs appear in the 1930s when unemployment relief was minimal?

As usual with the left the welfare argument becomes a debate about extreme circumstances which are turned to justify the status quo of left wing ideology and shift the argument onto more comfortable territory. As I keep saying the worst thing for a person is to not work (an argument that you choose to ignore) why do you insist on saying that handouts are acceptable?

If Poles and Chinese can come here and find work as fruit pickers cockle pickers and bus drivers then why cannot the British unemployed do the same? This is not the 1930s (though it will be if the left take control of the economy again) and there are plenty of jobs out there that are being carried out by foreign workers.

The left love an abundance of poor people because they can seem virtuous by pretending to care. Welfare is their classic symbol of conscience. It is used as a means to justify the rest of us handing even more of our hard earned cash. They do not like it when the very premise of their selfish ideology (condemning people not to work) is exposed as the sham that it is.

[Old Greg]

As usual with the left the welfare argument becomes a debate about extreme circumstances which are turned to justify the status quo of left wing ideology and shift the argument onto more comfortable territory. As I keep saying the worst thing for a person is to not work (an argument that you choose to ignore) why do you insist on saying that handouts are acceptable?

If Poles and Chinese can come here and find work as fruit pickers cockle pickers and bus drivers then why cannot the British unemployed do the same? This is not the 1930s (though it will be if the left take control of the economy again) and there are plenty of jobs out there that are being carried out by foreign workers.

The left love an abundance of poor people because they can seem virtuous by pretending to care. Welfare is their classic symbol of conscience. It is used as a means to justify the rest of us handing even more of our hard earned cash. They do not like it when the very premise of their selfish ideology (condemning people not to work) is exposed as the sham that it is.

Your views of people on the left are ridiculous.

I might as well say that you are either a ******* idiot or a nasty little piece of tulip. Fortunately I am too polite and reasonable to do so.

I happen to think working is much better than not working. But the jobs are not there. Unemployment is rising because jobs are disappearing.

The effect of withdrawing money will not be to create new jobs but to make people even more miserable, except perhaps you.

I would rather have jobs, but in the absence of jobs, I would rather less misery than more.

So surprisingly your little rant about selfishness and pretending is not accurate. I have a different analysis from you. Perhaps you thought I see things the same way and then choose to condemn people to misery.

[Scoobos]

The fact that all fruit picking jobs are done by immigrants show that there is too much welfare.

I counter this, in all (developed) countries all fruit picking jobs are done by immigrants, because it is perhaps the hardest physical work you can do, for the lowest wage. Try it and you'll see (I've done my bit overseas myself)

Whilst a lot of people do take the micky, I hate this generalising that "unemployed" can mean Lazy, or not. Everyone is individual and there will be individuals that are lazy and those that are not.

I think a lack of opportunity is the problem, especially in ex industrial / mining towns.

There's only so many call centre jobs to go round.

Greg says what I can't much more elequently. We all need to see the world through other peoples eyes, rather than judging everything on your own personal experiences (and I can improve this too).

Quite frankly, right wing rhetoric never sounds good from rich people in nice developed areas down south.
Left wing doesnt sound very good from people like me either (poor , from an ex industrial city up north, broken home etc).

Just because I turned my life around, I know how incredibly difficult it can be; its certainly not the land of opportunity that those in the South East can argue.

I think any blanket rule is totally wrong, but paying for individual assessment thats supposed to be being done already is not an option either. (What if the job centre got in on the agents game and turned the whole thing into a profit making enterprise? Why don't they?)

Final example on the Job Centre - I went for the dole after finishing Uni and got 2 weeks pay out of 6 - I questioned why I get the spanish inquisition and reduced payment for doing 1 days work cleaning cars, whilst an entire Sunderland family come in and just get the docket signed with no argument.

The answer was - "Because you have hope, and you can move away, there's nothing for them".

That for me, is the problem.

[Doggy Styles]

If you listen to what dodgy says instead of who he votes for, it is that individuals should push on and make their own opportunities, by doing those low-paid or hard jobs, or starting their own businesses.

But, for whatever reason, many UK people don't do that. Maybe they don't know how, it's not in their culture, or they don't have to because they are collecting welfare benefits, or whatever other reason that doesn't seem to apply to immigrants.

Continually blaming someone else for not providing them with opportunities is just negative and doesn't get us very far.

[doodab]

And when they do that what happens? You get people complaining about poor people washing windscreens at the traffic lights or whatever.

A lot of these low paid jobs they are supposed to be grateful for are little more than slavery and fail to pay a living wage. Even the hard working, prepared to do anything immigrants have to be hoodwinked to take them on.

Fruit pickers: 'The money we earn is not worth getting out of bed for' - Home News - UK - The Independent

You need to provide quality work for people, a policy of offering a choice between near slavery or destitution should have no place in a modern democracy.

[Diver]

Under 25's

Kick them all out of social housing and cut off benefits

Then call in the Rio Death squads to hunt down and kill the street kids.

Then take off and nuke the place from orbit

Just to be sure

>Irony, sarcasm - used to expose and discredit vice or folly. See satire<