CUK Rant Bait

[doodab]

I honestly think you can live off about 4 quid a day per head in this country if you really try.

Food is so fking cheap if you go to lild or somewhere, buy in bulk and don't waste things.

Really? You can cover rent and bills for a family of four with £480 a month and have money left to eat?

[Robinho]

Really? You can cover rent and bills for a family of four with £480 a month and have money left to eat?

If you follow through the conversation i was having it was presumed that rent was covered.

[RasputinDude]

I honestly think you can live off about 4 quid a day per head in this country if you really try.

Food is so fking cheap if you go to lild or somewhere, buy in bulk and don't waste things.

If we're just talking about food, then easily. When I take teenagers camping I feed them three full meals a day with unlimited fruit plus treats for less than £3 per head. It has been remarked on by parents that they never go home hungry and the quality of the catering is very high. Given that they are outside all day burning calories at a high rate, that's pretty damned good.

[Robinho]

My local butcher does 5kg of chicken breast for 22 quid and it's really really good quality.

Could probably live about 2 weeks off of that and a big bag of rice. (12 quid for 10kg)

Then thow in some bulk porridge for breakfast.

[deanosity]

Any remember the Free to Choose series.

The below seems to be as true now as it was then.

Friedman: Of course, he's quite right. It may not pay to get a job now. That's not his fault and I don't blame him. He's acting sensibly and intelligently for his own interest and the interest of his family. It's the fault of the system which takes away the incentive from him to get a job.

But suppose you were cruel and simply took away the welfare overnight. Cut it off. What would happen? He would find a job. What kind of a job? I don't know. It might not be a very nice job. It might not be a very attractive job. But at some wage, at some level of pay, there will always be a job which he could get for himself. It might be also that he would be driven to rely on some private charity. He might have to get soup kitchen help or the equivalent. Again, I'm not saying that's desirable or nice or a good thing it isn't, but as a matter of actual fact as to what would happen, there is little doubt that he would find some way to earn a living.

[Robinho]

Any remember the Free to Choose series.

The below seems to be as true then as it is now.

Milton Friedman is a god.

[MyUserName]

I am not an expert in these things as I make it a specialty to be utterly oblivious to things around me however, is there a reason why people who have no job and are on benefits could not be found something - anything - to do for the hours of 9-5.30 with an hour for lunch. Even if it is literally painting council fences light grey and then repainting them dark grey again. Anything which keeps them in the habbit of a working day - perhaps only one adult out of the two if they have kids or something. Part of their benefit could be linked to them doing this work to an appropriate standard.

Either that or they could enter a full time education and the benefits are conditional on them getting passing grades etc.

[The Spartan]

All hail workfare

[Robinho]

I am not an expert in these things as I make it a specialty to be utterly oblivious to things around me however, is there a reason why people who have no job and are on benefits could not be found something - anything - to do for the hours of 9-5.30 with an hour for lunch. Even if it is literally painting council fences light grey and then repainting them dark grey again. Anything which keeps them in the habbit of a working day - perhaps only one adult out of the two if they have kids or something. Part of their benefit could be linked to them doing this work to an appropriate standard.

Either that or they could enter a full time education and the benefits are conditional on them getting passing grades etc.

You're looking at it the wrong way round.

It's a mixture of job regulations, the minimum age and benefits why they don't have these jobs in the first place.

Regulations make it onerous to hire people
The minimum wage means you can't hire a person for things that will bring in less value than they are adding
And poorly constructed benefits system means there's no incentive to work for low wages.

There's no reason why you can't have near 100% employment more or less regardless of the economic climate because human demand is infinite.

My proposal would be to eliminate the min wage and say that every 2 pennies below £5 per hour you earn you get 1 penny from the gov, up to a cap of what your unemployment benefits would be.

Something like that anyway, i don't know what the exact optimal formula would be.

That way it'd never make more sense to not work.
There should never be a lack of jobs.
And it would never make sense to earn less.

[vetran]

1. The actual answer is that benefits exceed the bottom end pay for work.
2. It is possible to live moderately on benefits.
3. Whilst receiving benefits you are not expected to exert yourself.


Number 1 is caused by over supply of workers for reduced / changing job market. Be it Eastern etc immigrants or the reduction of manual labour and the increase in service & high end job that the workforce are not prepared for.

Number 2 whilst I have no wish to punish short term claimants or people willing to work I believe helping people along a return to work ladder that shrinks as you progress (you have fewer & fewer options and fewer people can be supported on the higher rungs). So long term claimants are forced to reconsider.

Number 3 - Workfare, there is so much that could be done to make the country and the world a better place by unskilled people. Get them up in the morning and make em work. It would also stop those working illegally off benefits.