Reply to: Free money for the Yoof!

[SueEllen]

Just dived into the end of this thread and you are talking about cannon fodder and rape. I'm not going to even read the other posts to see how you got from universal income to that. But will Hitler be mentioned at all (think mentioning Hitler was a bannable offence once on CUK)?

It actually went from UBI to Putin.

[SueEllen]

BTW poorly paid men were traditionally cannon fodder in wars, luckily due to equality they are now joined by poor women who if taken captive will probably be raped before being killed. Men will probably be protective of them and die attempting to save them in battle, they will also try to shag them. Either way its distracting as the large number of scandals have shown.

Currently if the women are taken captive the US will send an elite team to recover a female, they just let the men die even if they are marines, the leave no man behind applies to the bodies.

Cheer up if it kicks off properly in Ukraine then we can conscript you to fight now!

War is also a way of reducing the population so another reason why UBI won't be introduced.

[SueEllen]

OK fine, so if automates ordering which most of them are either by an app or terminals and a third of their staff are laid off who is going to pay for it it won't be the business who are incorporated in Ireland etc and buy their beans at $500 a bag from .

Who will pay UBI as its use intensifies?

What will ensure those on UBI provide something worthwhile to society?

One of the many reasons lower cost countries are cheaper than MDCs are that they have little or no free welfare provision. The future I see is we start paying UBI the work goes abroad or is automated and eventually the last taxpayer emigrates. The remaining people out of work can maybe feel good about not having work!

Luckily the UK countries birth rates and those in other developed countries will means UBI never gets introduced.

[OwlHoot]

Just dived into the end of this thread and you are talking about cannon fodder and rape. I'm not going to even read the other posts to see how you got from universal income to that. But will Hitler be mentioned at all (think mentioning Hitler was a bannable offence once on CUK)?

Ban him! Ban him! He mentioned H...!

[woohoo]

Just dived into the end of this thread and you are talking about cannon fodder and rape. I'm not going to even read the other posts to see how you got from universal income to that. But will Hitler be mentioned at all (think mentioning Hitler was a bannable offence once on CUK)?

[vetran]

The reason for UBI is to deal with the loss of unskilled jobs due to automation.

Btw men tend to be the ones who are cannon fodder in wars.

BTW poorly paid men were traditionally cannon fodder in wars, luckily due to equality they are now joined by poor women who if taken captive will probably be raped before being killed. Men will probably be protective of them and die attempting to save them in battle, they will also try to shag them. Either way its distracting as the large number of scandals have shown.

Currently if the women are taken captive the US will send an elite team to recover a female, they just let the men die even if they are marines, the leave no man behind applies to the bodies.

Cheer up if it kicks off properly in Ukraine then we can conscript you to fight now!

[vetran]

The reason for UBI is to deal with the loss of unskilled jobs due to automation.

Btw men tend to be the ones who are cannon fodder in wars.

OK fine, so if <insert tax avoiding coffee shop or fast food chain here> automates ordering which most of them are either by an app or terminals and a third of their staff are laid off who is going to pay for it it won't be the business who are incorporated in Ireland etc and buy their beans at $500 a bag from <dodgy tax vehicle ltd - Seychelles>.

Who will pay UBI as its use intensifies?

What will ensure those on UBI provide something worthwhile to society?

One of the many reasons lower cost countries are cheaper than MDCs are that they have little or no free welfare provision. The future I see is we start paying UBI the work goes abroad or is automated and eventually the last taxpayer emigrates. The remaining people out of work can maybe feel good about not having work!

[SueEllen]

The reason for UBI is to deal with the loss of unskilled jobs due to automation.

Btw men tend to be the ones who are cannon fodder in wars.

[vetran]

The UK has always needed people, particularly men, who do exactly what they are told to do. These people aren't particularly proactive or have "work ethnic" as you call them.

Actually its Ethic not Ethnic. To be fair many migrants are better at this than our original natives, every opportunity is better than home in their opinion.

Not sure why you think only men need to obey, women frequently are walked all over by other women and men as a matter of course. I have talked to lots of male UBER etc drivers / fast food staff who are studying security or networking in their spare time and ask me for an in or advice. Never had a female doing a menial job ask me.

Its different to being just obedient, I am far from 'obedient' I try to be a disruptor because that is part of my job, but many consider me to be very hard working, loyal to the company etc. I am even more loyal to my family and keeping them in comfort so regardless I do what I need to pay the bills.

I have a friend (a trucker) who is constantly being fired or let go because he is gobby when angry and he gets angry a lot. But he always has a new job next week because his kids need food. He used to dig roads, he has no problem working hard. He also owes thousands of pounds because he wastes money.

My point is that people who aren't willing to work need support to change their mind.

Having been made redundant a few times it can be quite a mental blow and require adjustment. I had a nice psychologist who talked it through with me and we decided I just needed a decent job, 5 years later she is proven right but at the time it felt like the world was ending. I could have spiralled into depression like others I know.

Having seen my area of expertise repeatedly commoditised I have had to reinvent myself multiple times. I'm not an ex miner or ex steel worker I'm something different that derived from my transferrable skills because I saw the writing on the wall and retrained. Some people will need help with this, its going to get worse with automation.

[SueEllen]

No I'm saying its frequently a state of mind. I have never claimed unemployment partially because I have always had too many savings and pride . I have worked naff jobs and will again. I have friends who are taxi drivers who barely spoke English when they arrived or decorators who have built a good life for their family yet some people don't seem to have got the work ethic.

The UK has always needed people, particularly men, who do exactly what they are told to do. These people aren't particularly proactive or have "work ethnic" as you call them.

[vetran]

That myth has actually been debunked. It was a right wing newspaper made up story to get people angry.

Hmm JRF (they are sort of experts) suggest 1% of working age families are generational.

https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/are-cu...wn-generations

Crayon assisted



1% seems small but 1% of 20 million (20,000) is quite a big number. Its 1/18 of the workless. 2000 of those have 2 generations that have never worked.

You get more from the benefits system if someone in your household works 16 hours a week. The problem is that we are actually subsidising large employers e.g. Tesco , Co-Op, cinema chains who know to not give their staff full-time contracts and to make it difficult for them to take up employment elsewhere by expecting staff to be available all the time.

No if you tick the right boxes i.e. if you have children or illness you get more if you are single & childless you get less taken off you.

It is management policy to sanction people. The job centres use to have targets.

It should be management responsibility and measured. A few job centre manager sacked for bullying would make it more measured.

Does that really happen? People are very good at not getting employed into a job they don't want in the first place.

I know plenty of jobs where I and others have said " I hate this job but need the money". I have managed to get jobs that suck because I had to pay the mortgage, as a contractor that can be common.

Everyone subsidises everyone else. That's the way the welfare state works.

Actually no a core of higher earners subsidise lower earners, sometimes they get value for money.

As an employer I'm not going to employ someone who clearly doesn't want the job.

Of course you are not so teach the unemployed to tug their forelock and swear behind their hand like the rest of us do.

Other employers refuse to employ people who they decide for various reasons including discriminatory ones that they think won't be good in the job.

They also employ people who are over qualified but present themselves correctly like and others did at my last but one employer.

Lucky you to find an employer who decided that you fitted the characteristics they wanted to do the job.

No well done me for convincing them I would ace the job and then proving it.

If you don't have £2K in the first place and can't get a loan of it from anywhere including the government, then how are you going to do the training?

Training loans provided with assistance from the government to fill skills shortages are a thing, in my opinion if that is paid back and results in a person having a successful career they otherwise wouldn't have had its a great investment.

You are blaming people themselves for not having opportunities.

No I'm saying its frequently a state of mind. I have never claimed unemployment partially because I have always had too many savings and pride . I have worked naff jobs and will again. I have friends who are taxi drivers who barely spoke English when they arrived or decorators who have built a good life for their family yet some people don't seem to have got the work ethic.

[SueEllen]

Its a balance, we have a core target of long term unemployed which has become multi generational.

That myth has actually been debunked. It was a right wing newspaper made up story to get people angry.

We also have idle hands that need to be kept busy.

You get more from the benefits system if someone in your household works 16 hours a week. The problem is that we are actually subsidising large employers e.g. Tesco , Co-Op, cinema chains who know to not give their staff full-time contracts and to make it difficult for them to take up employment elsewhere by expecting staff to be available all the time.

As I mentioned the sanctions are a bullies charter, we should be managing them properly. If you were late for a job what would you expect to happen? Be docked 15 minutes pay, asked to make up the time? So the sanction should be similar. Repeatedly late and you expect the sack. Removing benefits for weeks should be a last resort and require management approval.

It is management policy to sanction people. The job centres use to have targets.

So what should we do when people refuse to take any job and want to stay on benefits?

Does that really happen? People are very good at not getting employed into a job they don't want in the first place.

Should people working on low pay subsidise their lifestyle?

Everyone subsidises everyone else. That's the way the welfare state works.

If you have been unable to find a job in a reasonable time you like then you need to realise you probably will need a job that sucks until you get a job that you like.

As an employer I'm not going to employ someone who clearly doesn't want the job.

Other employers refuse to employ people who they decide for various reasons including discriminatory ones that they think won't be good in the job.

I took a many £K pay cut when made redundant and did a job that allowed me to retrain. I then found a job I liked. Every application was my best effort as I needed a job. Long days doing applications and dealing with falling emotions were work.

Lucky you to find an employer who decided that you fitted the characteristics they wanted to do the job.

Retraining and supporting people to find a job is something I support. Plenty of truck drivers and security guards needed where £2k training would make most people eligible.

If you don't have £2K in the first place and can't get a loan of it from anywhere including the government, then how are you going to do the training?

In this life you can insure, self insure or hope for the best and fall back on the charity of others. The charity of others is like the other options limited by resources.

You are blaming people themselves for not having opportunities.

[vetran]

So we shouldn't worry about people claiming it fraudulently then - a small fraction of a tiny fraction. Sanctioning someone (removing their benefits) for a few weeks because they were a few minutes late to the Job Centre or due to human error on the JSA's side saves no money to the tax-payer, but is life-or-death to families involved. The only reason for it is to satisfy indignant people that nobody is getting a 'free ride'.
We might spend as much on enforcing all this stuff as the entire unemployment spend, surely anyone can see that while we should be actively helping and encouraging people to find work there's no cost benefit to penalising them because they didn't do the right number of applications this week. I've seen the sort of 'applications' this leads to where they literally write their name on an application form and nothing else.

Its a balance, we have a core target of long term unemployed which has become multi generational. We also have idle hands that need to be kept busy.

As I mentioned the sanctions are a bullies charter, we should be managing them properly. If you were late for a job what would you expect to happen? Be docked 15 minutes pay, asked to make up the time? So the sanction should be similar. Repeatedly late and you expect the sack. Removing benefits for weeks should be a last resort and require management approval.

So what should we do when people refuse to take any job and want to stay on benefits?
Should people working on low pay subsidise their lifestyle?

If you have been unable to find a job in a reasonable time you like then you need to realise you probably will need a job that sucks until you get a job that you like. I took a many £K pay cut when made redundant and did a job that allowed me to retrain. I then found a job I liked. Every application was my best effort as I needed a job. Long days doing applications and dealing with falling emotions were work.

Retraining and supporting people to find a job is something I support. Plenty of truck drivers and security guards needed where £2k training would make most people eligible.

In this life you can insure, self insure or hope for the best and fall back on the charity of others. The charity of others is like the other options limited by resources.

[d000hg]

under the old system administration was 3.6%

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reque..._the_dwps_budg

Unemployment is a tiddly amount of the budget.

So we shouldn't worry about people claiming it fraudulently then - a small fraction of a tiny fraction. Sanctioning someone (removing their benefits) for a few weeks because they were a few minutes late to the Job Centre or due to human error on the JSA's side saves no money to the tax-payer, but is life-or-death to families involved. The only reason for it is to satisfy indignant people that nobody is getting a 'free ride'.
We might spend as much on enforcing all this stuff as the entire unemployment spend, surely anyone can see that while we should be actively helping and encouraging people to find work there's no cost benefit to penalising them because they didn't do the right number of applications this week. I've seen the sort of 'applications' this leads to where they literally write their name on an application form and nothing else.

[vetran]

That's why LM stated very early in the thread you would have to rip up the tax code and start again as every adult over 18 whether they are in work, a pensioner, a student, unemployed, disabled and not able to work, a carer or otherwise regarded as economically inactive would receive the same amount of money from the state.

So it will apparently be cheaper than 3.6% administration overhead, for the number of people we can already identify, we just need to redefine benefits completely, work out who everyone is (clue the government doesn't have one), rewrite the world's biggest tax code and find the magic money tree. Finally then the few percent of unemployed that haven't found a job in decades will suddenly feel better about looking for a job. There are no proven economic or social benefits.

It seems simple, well at least the people supporting it seem to be.

The current system identifies those in need, provides them with a measured amount of money and targeted support.

UBI throws cash about and hopes those less fortunate can care for themselves on their own.