To think that people can only improve their lot if the state creates the right conditions?

[malificent7]

Ive been reading a few political labour v tory threads. Some posters have said that they will vote tory as more people should be working harder in order to improve their lot and stop relying on the state?

Call me a gnarly old socialist but aibu to think that the state has a duty to create the conditions where people can live comfortably?
Eg: a decent minimum wage.
An end to austerity and job cuts so that there are more jobs available.
Affordable housing
A decent welfare system where the needy are supoorted so that we dont create a ghettoised society and keep cash circulating for rich and poor.
Where the poor are protected from exploitation by the rich.
Where people are encouraged to return to work by decent goverment schemes.
Of course people should help themselves if they can but they can only do do if the state helps them. People who cant hell themselves should be looked after by state.

YANBU, but it's not just the state, it's the free market economy.

As long as we're in the grips of a depression, it's virtually impossible for vast swathes of people to doing anything meaningful towards 'improving their lot'.

YANBU but people have been fooled into thinking Hard Work=Wealth by successive governments. These people work very hard and are not wealthy at all, certainly not by the average Etonion politician's standards, but admitting that to themselves now would be to admit not only gullibility but also that their lives are never going to get better than they are right now. Add that to the incredible instability worldwide and nationally and you get a massive Tory landslide and at least five more years of disabled and disadvantaged people being treated like sub-humans.

There is no way to prepare for that unfortunately.

You can create more jobs and higher the minimum wage but it won't make a difference really. Lots of companies have already introduced the living wage.

It falls down to the person themselves, either they have a work ethic or they don't. Many don't care about min wage or rent prices as someone else is picking up the tab. Whilst we give people the option to not work or do a token few hours and hand them money they aren't gong to help themselves.

There's little personal responsibility for many, they want to have x number of children, live in a certain area, not work etc and don't even consider budgeting bar seeing how much they can get from benefits.

Of course the true needy require support, those who are too ill or disables to work and we should always have the means to provide food, heat and shelter for them. Having children you can't afford, living in an expensive area, working part time etc isn't needy it's a choice.

Rainbows that's incredibly ignorant. And studies have proven universal income creates more productivity which directly contradicts your classist post.

I 100% agree with RainbowsandUnicorn. It's not ignorant it's the truth. Too many people rely on the state instead of being responsible for themselves.

Previous governments have created the current situation where people expect the state to pick up the tab.

There are few jobs where I live and now Nestle are closing their factory! My child has a 12 hour contract and is not allowed to take a second job because they need to be available to work at the drop of a hat so is not able to improve their income.

I won't get my pension until I am over 66 so am currently working two jobs to try to keep a roof over my head. Taking up two jobs that could go to someone younger.

A lot needs to change. I don't mind working, but I would like a decent wage and for my child to have decent hours and a decent wage :(

Yes, the state ought to create the framework for people to take care of themselves. Laisser-faire economic policy has failed to do this.

It's phenomenally ignorant to say it all falls down to the person themselves. That's just wrong. You either understand that it's wrong, or you're wrong too.

A huge problem we have is that our cost of living is so high it makes us uncompetitive. We can trace a lot of this back to batshit land prices, so housing and also business premises are too expensive. We don't have a free market, we have an interfered with bubble, and increasing numbers of people simply can't command a high enough wage for their labour to be able to pay their own living costs. This is not a matter of opinion.

This problem is going to get worse, not better as more automation happens. Sooner rather than later, we will be disbusing ourselves of the idea that it's just all about work. Rainbow was right that increasing the minimum wage isn't going to solve this though, nor will job creation. Not without tackling the cost of living ie housing and property.

It's also not just about the state creating the right conditions, but refraining from creating the wrong ones too. Even that would be a start.

Property speculation - at all levels - is a disaster.

I think its about partnership. A bit of help from the gov, us citizens having a good attitude. Noone being dependent on each other.

It is indeed bobo.

Yes and no.

I heard somebody say that if renumeration was related to how hard you work, African women would be the richest in the world.

IMO everybody who works full time should be able to support themselves and provide everything they need. This just doesn't work for so much of the population anymore. Also, you shouldn't need three jobs to do this.

Also, I think even the completely feckless need somewhere to live and food to eat and I have no problems that they are provided with that.

I wonder if we are heading for a really fundamental change in our relationship with work. There are lots of predictions that robots are going to be taking over huge areas of work. If this happens, maybe some sort of citizens wage will be introduced. Businesses will still be generating goods and services, they will need customers with money to pay for these.

Laisser-faire economic policy has failed to do this.

Completely agree.

TBH I do not believe Margaret Thatcher was aiming for the current overheated property market when she talked about wanting everyone to own their own home. But she unleashed something that has spun totally out of control. The cost of really low grade accommodation in parts of the south east of England is abhorrent.

Until the govt:

takes action against corporations not paying their way;

the richest in our society squirrelling money away in tax havens;

landlords with vast portfolios being allowed to own 1000's of properties and writing off interest on the mortgages against their tax bill - not to mention not maintaining the properties in a fit state and ensuring others are unable to buy homes for themselves;

companies using zero hours contracts and being able to sack people for no reason after employing them for 2 years;

bankers being able to waltz away from the financial carnage they cause;

I will not be blaming any of the countries woes on anyone who claims benefits.

Indeed, OP. Mrs Thatcher worked on that principle.

I don't think the issue is as straightforward as just telling people on benefits to take more personal responsibility Rainbow. If we are going to talk about people taking responsibility than the same rules should be applied to to individuals and corporations playing every trick in the book to avoid paying tax. Responsibility should also fall on employers to provide decent pay and conditions and the government should take responsibility to make things like childcare and housing affordable to the ordinary workers not just the well off.

I saw a documentary around the time the housing market crashed or was about to explaining the roots of the issue.

Thatcher introduced buying your council house. People did. Many rented it out, then causing more issues. House owning became more achievable but people sold them on to make a profit. Housing became more expensive. Sats were introduced. School league tables were published, ofsted reports etc. People wanted to be near more successful schools (though at that time and still it was/ is often that higher results reflect social economic factors) so property became more expensive in those areas, and more people were unable to get 'on the ladder,' plus fewer council houses available.

Keeping a roof over heads becomes more expensive as there are more landlords. Housing bubble is created. Housing bubble bursts briefly. Recession.

The thing is I did buy my council house (though I know as it was built in the 1800's and grade 2 listed the council wanted to get rid as was needing increasingly expensive repairs etc) and I have since moved to an area with excellent schools and am renting it out for now. Also a teacher. So total hypocrite. (I will say I watched said documentary after I'd bought it!)

So we have a two (or more) tier society because of these simple actions.

Also, what is frustrating as a teacher is that I know how the innards of ofsted works. I know of school's given outstanding in the past, and they're not 'outstanding.' The criteria have changed so frequently (as of this year it is harder so we may see some dropping)

Thatcher started it, many other governments and policies carried it on. There is a lot of blame to be spread over a long period. Lots of things that wouldn't in themselves have been disastrous have combined together.

To think that people can only improve their lot if the state creates the right conditions?

If one person in the history of humanity has improved their lot without the state creating the right conditions, then this statement is factually wrong.

Of course people should help themselves if they can but they can only do do if the state helps them.

In general, across human history, this is the opposite of the truth. The state, if one existed at all, made little or no difference to anyone's life.

As a generalisation, it's wrong in far more cases than it's right.

[b]TheDowagerCuntess[/b] - not really seeing a depression here. static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/styles/article_medium/public/thumbnails/image/2017/04/28/09/gdp.jpg