To agree with workfare in principal?

[IAmMiranda]

Donning my flame retardant underwear - though note I'm not for the current scheme, but the principal is sensible.

Working for unemployment benefits makes sense to me - provided that the "wage" is fair for the hours and skills. Eg. £90 a week job sellers could equal 15 hours of charity work?

Taking into account disabilities, childcare and other responsibilities I really don't think its unfair to provide people with jobs to earn the equivalent of benefits?

I do think its wrong to line the pockets of corporations, reduce jobs for other workers etc but surely charity work is an option?

I think I've probably missed some huge glaring point but AIBU?

(NOTE: I have previously been in reciept of JSA and would happily have done 15 hours a week and had plenty of time to job search)

rothschild works
goldsmith works

and most people in the top 1% of income do work - you might think they don't need to but they do work.

for their income.

Obviously some of the rich who don't need to work still do some work. That's why I said often don't work. Either way, many of them don't and there is no cry for them to be put to work for their own good is there?

Maybe you could address the point? Work is only considered mandatory good for the poor, isn't it? Yet everyone is striving to earn enough to stop working, inconsistent innit.

no they do not, not this generation anyway, and i do know more than i would like to about one of those families mentioned.

offered why are you focussing on 0.01% of the population? if they applied for JSA they would need to work. but they would not be entitled to it (due to the savings limit) so they don't need to work for jsa.

zac goldsmith is a MP and environmentalist
Rothschild is in finance

I'm focusing on 1% of the population which is a slightly larger group than the 474,000 people who have been out of work and claiming for two years plus.

And I'm focusing on them because they have means and are the reason for the low wages and lack of jobs which is making the rest of the population so dependent on the state. In reality it makes little difference whether you are in work or not. Vast majority of people are dependent on the state, vast majority do not contribute more than they put in, precisely because of the drain of resources being channelled into this wealthy 1%.

the top 1% have wealth of £688,228 or more.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_in_the_United_Kingdom#Percentile_points_for_income_of_individuals_before_tax

so many of your 'superrich' own a 4 house in the SE or London.

exactly how are they responsible for low wages?

if you look at the top 0.1%, there are about 42,000 of them in the UK (same reference).

Zac goldsmith is a MP and environmentalist
Rothschild is in finance
no offence but making those statements in a vacuum makes you sound extraordinarily naive

How did this end up being a comparison between rich and poor? To say that making the unemployed work for major corporations who don't have to pay them is completely different to saying it's ok because only a small number of people are rich shareholders.

Capitalism relies on there being only a few at the top and a lot at the bottom. I don't actually have a problem with that. Some people are more clever and work harder than others and deserve to have more. 'Merit' seems to be based much more on connections and profit than it is on value to society and hard work, or carers would be sitting in their mansions reading this, but that's the way of the world and was ever thus. However, in a decent society I believe it behoves those at the top to be willing to sacrifice some of their huge profit margin in order to create a situation where those at the bottom have a genuine chance to help themselves create a better life. That means funding decent schools that don't reflect a postcode lottery and not forcing the unemployed into dead-end jobs or pointless thick-as-shit 'training courses when they would be better employed doing voluntary work they have chosen for the community, training courses actually relevant to their abilities, or internships that could start a new career provided they were able to support themselves (via benefits) for the duration.

There will always be a number of feckless scroungers who are unemployable. The workforce and charity sector are better off without them. They are human beings still. Flawed and annoying maybe, but supporting them is a price I am prepared to pay if it means that the vast majority of people on benefits - who could be you or I - have a decent safety net that can help them rebuild their lives.

Offred Wed 02-Oct-13 10:52:46
It really isn't a difficult concept to understand. There are workers who provide labour from which the owners profit. It is the owners who are the rich who do not work.

Well, unless you want to abolish the concept of private ownership of wealth, I think that's a bit of a red herring...

In principle, I think the the idea of working for benefits is fine. We expect the state (ie other hard-working people) to wedge up the cash to support us when we need it. In principle the least we can do is give a bit of our time back. Full-time work wouldn't fit with job applications, obviously, but three days a week or so - I don't see the problem.
In practice, I don't believe it's ever really worked, so I'd prefer we didn't have it in the UK. But that's down to the practicalities of administering it - not the principle.

The biggest change we could make to the current system is to sort out the benefits lottery. Some people get an incredibly raw deal (usually single people on low wages). On the other hand, some people (2 or more kids) who don't work have a lifestyle beyond what the childless minimum wage earner can dream of.
That is the biggest thing screwing up the incentives, not any workfare nonsense.
It also means anyone talking about benefits just generally being 'too high' or 'too low' is talking bllcks. Our current system manages to do both!

What's the deal with people saying single parents can't work. I've been a single parent for 10 years now and I've worked all the way through. I worked part-time when the DCs were pre-schoolers and then moved to full-time once they were both at school It is tough & you don't end up with a whole lot of money in your pocket - but it is doable.

I'm not some high flyer earning loads either, I do a very standard kind of job.

I think there should be some contribution to society by all those who could make a contribution. So, healthy adults who are not working should contribute in some way. I'm not 100% convinced by the argument that raising children is enough of a contribution, but can live with those parents of under 5s not being asked to do anything else. However, if you are not one of those - why wouldn't you want to contribute? Why wouldn't you want to put into the system that you will take out of? We all take out, so we should have to put in at some point too.

Maybe we need to rethink the way JSA is viewed. Maybe it should be seen as a salary for a minimum working contribution. If the majority of job seekers out there are desperate for a job & want to get experience, isn't this a good way to do that?

BurberryQ - so there are 42,000 people who work to an unknown level.

there are what 65,000,000 (?) of the rest of us and I think we are much more relevant.

#well there are 42,000 people who see us as irrelevent...

It isn't about whether people can or can't work. It is about whether people should be forced to work by a threat of starvation.

Single parents rely on support structures to be able to work. It simply wouldn't be possible for a lot of people here because there isn't adequate childcare. For example our school does not have a holiday club so you'd have to have a job which let you take school holidays off.

There are plenty of people on JSA who need support to be able to work and that support is just not there nevermind the fact that the jobs just aren't there either.

No Offred, you have to be able to source other childcare during the school holidays. Like I say, you don't end up with much money in your pocket - but it can be done. I have done it for 10 years and I have other single mum friends who do the same. We moan & tear our hair out sometimes but we all get on with it.

What other sort of support do you think healthy adults need to be able to work? Not a snarky question - genuinely interested?

what offred said:

"It isn't about whether people can or can't work. It is about whether people should be forced to work by a threat of starvation.

Single parents rely on support structures to be able to work. It simply wouldn't be possible for a lot of people here because there isn't adequate childcare. For example our school does not have a holiday club so you'd have to have a job which let you take school holidays off.

There are plenty of people on JSA who need support to be able to work and that support is just not there nevermind the fact that the jobs just aren't there either."

Instead of presumably spending tons of money on taking money AWAY from people, why do they not invest in job CREATION? and the support that workers need to enable them to do the jobs?

Some of the 'support' that people seem to be given is quite ridiculous - I mean really, who needs a trip to the shops to find out what they should wear for an interview?

And what's the point of taking benefits away if you go for an interview?

It just all seems so mad...

Not everyone on jsa is healthy though.

What I'm saying is you cannot force people who, at a basic level without any support cannot physically work, to work because you cannot expect that they will all have access to the support they need to work. It is a reality that not everyone does. Do you see what I mean?

I think I mentioned the rural unemployed on this thread earlier. One significant means of support would be providing free bus passes so they could access the nearest town on a daily basis for their Job Centre sign in/visit to library/interviews etc.

I cannot imagine that this would be particularly expensive; the buses run anyway; it would provide more business to local shops etc etc.

OK, but what about the healthy ones?

There are a lot of childcare options, but some people won't consider them. I lived in a tiny house but got an aupair because it was the cheapest form of childcare. Meant my DCs had to share a room and I had someone else living in the house. Some people aren't prepared to do that - but perhaps that is the kind of thing they should be prepared to do?

"forced to work by a threat of starvation"

If you were on a desert island and struggling for food, and if a friend said "don't worry, you can have some of my food if you promise to help me with my hut" they're not exactly threatening you with starvation are they?

My friend with one 8 year old who is a single mum has really struggled to carry on working because of the lack of childcare here. She's on her third shit job in as many years. It is not as simple as "finding alternative childcare" not everywhere has adequate childcare provision for existing need. I imagine if/when I need it then it will be a nightmare trying to find places for 4 children.

What's you're point mrs bethel?

*your