Confused re attitude to benefits and work experience

More money needs to be paid to people jobseeking.

JSA is only £67.50 per week. That covers food and bills only.

Can you imagine having NO disposable income whatsoever? No new clothes. no shoes when they wear out. If anything breaks, you have to miss meals. Going without winter heating because that's the only way you can afford all the other essentials.

Well it is really unacceptable they have allowed it to get to this stage. The JCP job search function is rubbish too. I ran a search for a job within 15 miles of my home postcode and it came up with a job in Wimbledon. Another search for sales assistant came up with a job as a security guard. Nothing wrong with being a security guard btw, just that it didn't match the search.

I agree with lots of your last posts. My best guess as to why the system is so poorly administered is the IT systems are so bad, common sense changes are completely unworkable.

Tilly - I have never made the blanket statement that more money needs paying to benefit claimants. I also agree more people need to take more responsibility for themselves and their families (but then my opinions on fidelity, a person's responsibility to any children they produce, the extent to which one has the right to seek happiness at the expense of others for whom one is responsible, etc, are exceptionally old fashioned, and my idea of entertainment is also not necessarily compatible with many other peoples' views of a good time...). The State should not be there to take on peoples' responsibilities for them, it should be there to support them in taking on their responsibilities.

I also agree that changes should have been made in the good times: I found the "good times" deeply frustrating, because "good times" seemed to be a translation of "careless wastefulness," "thinking only of yourself" and "avoiding the issue" in many cases. In the good times, we were far too reliant on capitalism sorting everything out if we just sat back and let it. However, the changes now are not what should have been made in the good times, let alone what is good for us, now. I think they are poorly thought through and just a quick way of trying to cut back costs, justified on the back of propoganda. I have no objections to changes being made honestly and with some sort of coherent vision, I just have a problem with the way politicians have to get their own way - even if that is and ever will be the way of the world. And I dislike having to hear self-justifications from sectors of society who ought just to admit that they are being selfish because they can get away with it, rather than bleating that they are being hard done by and feel unfairly disliked. If people were a bit more honest with themselves about their own motivations, they might just shame themselves into changing their own behaviour a bit, too - and it is not only those at the bottom of society who need to change their behaviour, even if they are the only ones who might find their behaviour changed forcibly. We all need to change our behaviour.

Basically, I agree with Hecubasdaughter that the current changes make it even harder to behave in the way society wants to encourage people to behave, anyway. And I admit, I have very high expectations of our politicians which will inevitably be let down, but I would at least like to feel that they actually believe half the things they say and half the justifications they make for their behaviour and policies, and that they have some kind of vision for the future of this country that makes coherent sense and which I could feel proud to support. I still feel like the country has lost its way and doesn't really know which direction to head in, so is just randomly cutting costs and hoping business will sort everything out - any old random business, no particular focus, of course. I'm just very afraid we all think we can dig our way out of a hole and then carry on as we did in the "good times," with the exception of being at all generous to those who can't make an economic contribution even if they want to.

IMHO benefits should run on for 3-4 weeks to cushion the transition into work. I know it will cost money initially but it should encourage people into work by removing the first punishment there is for taking a job. Secondly the application process for benefits should be streamlined and have an enforced time frame in which to be completed in. This should save on admin costs for a start. Some sort of scheme whereby LL, banks and mortgage lenders have to wait this time before considering it a default they would charge for if the default is due to redundancy with the guarantee of getting their money at the end of this period at the latest.

Think about it, in the example above person B would have been declared bankrupt, meaning his debtors got nothing. At least with a scheme like I have proposed they would be guaranteed some money.

To illustrate my point imagine the main employer in a town has gone out of business leaving a lot of people redundant, affecting the profitability of other local businesses and leaving a lot of people chasing very few jobs. I'm sure you would agree that it is a depressing situation for those involved.

For my argument look at person A and B, both were hard working family people on just below average wage with small amount of savings when made redundant. Both act sensibly using their savings to get out of unnecessary contracts and meeting rent and council tax etc for the weeks it takes to get their benefits sorted, and it can take a lot of weeks especially after a large number of redundancies in one small area. It leaves both with no savings to speak of.

That's where the similarities end, person A does the absolute minimum required by JCP and puts so little into his applications he has little chance of getting the job. Person B puts every effort into it applying for anything and everything and putting a lot of thought into each application. However due to the climate neither has a job a year later and they have spent it living hand to mouth thanks to having no jobs. At this point person B's efforts finally pay off and he is offered a short term (3month contract) with about a 10% chance of extension or becoming permanent. He jumps at the chance seeing at as an opportunity to maybe have a permanent contract and at least get more work experience, to not be applying for jobs as someone who has been unemployed a year and quite frankly to just have the chance to work again.

Person A carries on as before, no luxuries but roof over his head and food on te table. Person B's benefits stop instantly yet he won't get his first pay for 4-5 weeks. He, as a result defaults on his rent and other DD, giving him rent arrears and extra bank charges. When he gets paid he has to meet 2 months' bills plus admin charges and interest on what he has missed leaving him less money. so no chance to save. He also has the extra cost of commuting to work. After 3 months due to no fault of his own there is no funding to keep him on so he is redundant again but this time with no savings to fall back on and benefits yet again take weeks to be sorted and again he defaults more than once though this time he ends up evicted and therefore homeless with no prospect of help from the homeless team as he is regarded as 'intentionally homeless', his benefits claim is stopped as he is of NFA and he cannot apply for jobs as he is of NFA.

Look at this situation and tell me which person did what society wants and what our economy needs him to do and which one at the end is financially better off. Do you see what I mean?

It's not so much about giving them more money but money at the right time and in the right way as well as campaigning to change attitudes in society as a whole. From what you say tilly I am sure you agree that those who find themselves unemployed should do everything they can to get back into work. The problem is the current and proposed systems both actively penalise those who take this attitude. Hardly good encouragement or and advert for anyone else to do the same.

The reforms aim only to cut the benefits bill while doing nothing truly constructive to change the culture, encourage work and sustainable economic economic growth. to avoid too long a post I will explain what I mean in my next post.

Rabbit - i see the current system as causing lots of colateral damage. DP is a HT in a rough area of London. his DF in the NHS & DSM an education welfare officer. They are an old Labour family but I have never heard them say anything like more money needs paying to claimants. They do think people need to take more responsibility for themselves & their family - based on what they have spend decades of their working lives doing.

obviously we must provide for the old, sick, disabled etc. but everyone who can work needs pressure on them to work. these changes should have been brought in when the economy was booming & there were more jobs. but politicians never do that - why change anything if you are in power, times are good & you want reelection?

so we over spent in the good times & now we need to rebalance. how?

taxing business will result in fewer jobs in the UK, taxing the rich leads to more use of structures to reduce tax (which often have an underlying common good reason to exist - generally encouraging job creation, improving balance of trade deficit which is wealth flowing out of the country), no politician wants to tax the squeezed middle as that just gifts popularity to the other side, so the alternative is to cut costs.

in 1-2 years time when the changes have kicked in, the economy will be in stable growth & job creation will start properly.

I agree, Hecubasdaughter.

There are large numbers of people who are deserving. My point is if measures are designed to punish behaviour x then they should punish behaviour x and not punish behaviour y while having no effect on behaviour y. That is what the welfare reforms in their current state are doing.

So is collateral damage irrelevant, then, because people can't agree on who counts? You could, of course, say that the days pre-the Welfare State were fair on that basis and just go back to that. Why pay anyone anything who hasn't got a job? And quite a few poor people in those days drank what money they had spare, too. Did that make them all automatically to blame for their entire situation?

Hecuba, I was not saying she was undeserving of help or drinking all her money. I did say it was subjective to start saying who is deserving and who isn't. The problem is there are large numbers of people who believe they are deserving.

Not everyone on NMW jobs drink all their money. I don't drink, neither does DH. There are people who do waste their money and act irresponsibly, DH has a cousin like that. People like that existing does not justify punishing, genuinely, honest, hard working people who are in fact in the majority.

I can name many more genuinely hard working people than I can chancers. Here are some examples: My mum's neighbour, working full time, causing no trouble, she was struck down with MS and can now no longer go to the toilet herself so her husband has to stay at home to care for her. He will struggle to get back to work when the time comes. An old school friend who's husband died suddenly at only 35 and she had to cut her hours a lot as she couldn't afford childcare on her own. DH and I have always worked hard but are on the scrap heap, SIL went to night school then Uni as a mature student to train as a teacher while bringing up 2 children, despite applying for every job going she hasn't been able to get a teaching job so instead of doing nothing she took an office job, the company went bust she still couldn't get a teaching job ended up with a job in a new shop opening up, a couple of weeks ago she was laid off because business wasn't as good as the owners hoped. They are now struggling to pay rent ob her DH's NMW job. They have been spending their money on rent, CT, commuting, getting DC to school, food and utility bills.. Hardly irresponsible.

Rabbit - but if you start talking about colateral damage, it seems to become subjective as to whom is given that title.

you could say DPs DB & DUncle are colateral damage of the current system. or you can say they are grown ups & live their own lives & so must take the consequences of their own decisions.

i did hear the story on food banks. i noted there was no backstory on the people they interviewed but it appeared to address their immediate issue.

Hecuba - my cousin who works NMW jobs would consider herself hard working. she is a grafter in many ways but my auntie would say she is always hassling her for money & free childcare then spends it drinking. i think its gets very subject when you say 'hard working people who have hit hard times'.

the only way to get people working, is for business to create more jobs.

TBH I feel that the changes won't really hit people like tilly describes. It will be hard working people who have hit hard times who will suffer. What's more they will suffer in such a way that it will make it very difficult if not impossible to get out the situation. Career dolers will find a way round it and the rest will find themselves trapped in poverty with no real prospects.

The benefit system needs reformed to stop people taking advantage and to help lift people out of poverty and into work. However the current changes will have the opposite effect.

Don't you think, though, Tilly, that the current system (as amended by the ConDems) inflicts an awful lot of collateral damage in order to get at people like your relatives? The entire focus seems to be on reducing benefits, not on making their administration any more efficient, so making the lives of those who try to get back on the job ladder by, eg, accepting temporary contracts when that's all that is on offer, immeasurably more difficult? There was an item on radio 4 this morning about the huge increase in the number of food banks, for example.

Hecuba - i said up thread i dont think all unemployed people are lazy etc. because i hired someone who had been out of work for 9 months.

however your experiences are really different than the experiences in my & DPs families where despite lots of family support, work has been turned down & easy short term choices made. in my family, the attitude is why put your self out if you have enough money for a few bevvies at the weekend?

'i see mine & DPs failing family members as very capable people - probably more capable than they see themselves.'

That is because the system destroys you bit by bit. The job centre is the most humiliating place I have ever been. The harder you try to get work (i.e. the more applications) the more you get ignored (no replies) and the more you are rejected. Each blow knocks your confidence that little bit more.

If you try and be responsible and take any job available even if it's a short term contract the benefits system kicks you where it hurts. (I would still take any job btw). With a short term contract there isn't the time to start saving again yet benefits take time to kick in again when you're back out on your ear to the extent that some people end up homeless. So you are right to an extent that the system supports not working but that is not an argument against having benefits it's argument for them being more efficient.

Now there are people who chose not to work but really they are in the minority and today with more and more people being made redundant they make up a smaller percentage of the unemployed. What is insulting is the widely held belief that the unemployed are somehow lazy and irresponsible. It is not only damaging to their self esteem but to their job prospects as employers view them in this light and won't even consider them. Bad for employers too as they potentially miss out on very good employees. Attitudes of the whole of society need to change.

you see it is insulting to have this conversation - I see it as wrong to infantilize grown adults.

i am the first from in my family to stay at school beyond 16 & I am from one of the top 10 deprived areas of the country. DP is from another.

I have 5 close relatives working in NMW/NMW+ jobs. He had 3 unemployed relatives (2 long term one recent). Only 5 people earn above the average.

I don?t meet my cousin & think anything other than how alike & we are & she makes rational decisions for her & her family & lives the life she chooses. DP?s long term unemployed relatives are not the victims you have in mind.

I know this isn?t the only story but it is part of the story: I see relatives damaged by a system that supports choices not to work. The end result I see is low self esteem & lives spend at worst in their own lounge.

i see mine & DPs failing family members as very capable people - probably more capable than they see themselves.

but really i hope you have something better to do than this non debate! I do.

Someone earning the significant amount you describe most certainly has a choice. If they choose to stick with the status quo then they need to swallow the consequences and realise just how fortunate they are.

For professional people already in employment, of course there are jobs. And professional people move around for work all the time - I have done it four times myself clocking up thousands of miles in the process. This is a totally different issue from the problem of people looking to enter the labour market from a position of unemployment.

It is hugely insulting to people who are genuinely struggling to even be having this conversation.

i thought there were no jobs, in your opinion?

& when moving house is suggested to someone on a low income, that is usually met with howls on MN. so why the different approach for this family?

Both

house or job?

Or perhaps move? Like other people do.

so should they give up work or spend 2hours a day commuting to central London?