To think being on benefits might be better than working

[Feedup]

Is there anyway being on benefits is better than working? So much of day is spent worrying about work, working and dealing with office politics. I dislike work, and get no pleasure or satisfaction other than my pay. It’s got nothing to do with my job or team; I just dislike working.

I was thinking that being on benefits might not be as bad as people once thought. The main benefit would be not having to stress about working. With council tax, housing benefit and a hole host of other benefits, you could life a fairly decent life.

A return bus journey is £8 where I live. You have to work 30 mins just to cover your trip to and from work. You’ll work all month, live in a HMO and have nothing at the end of each month.

Just get a basic remote admin job. Don't need to put any thought into it, don't need to speak to anyone, can still put your feet up at home and watch TV in the background. Still get paid. Just downsize your work.

Will you give me a job?

Or is there more to it, and actual reasons people can't just waltz into a job, like too many people chasing the vacancies?

You've cracked it! Quit your job tomorrow and have at it OP.

So you're saying we should just write these people off? Pay them to sit at home because they aren't good to work? I'm not sure I'm the nasty one.

How, please?

Not even joking, I'm desperate.

LinkedIn, indeed etc etc etc throw your cv at as many jobs as possible until something sticks. Make your cv really good and change it each time to fill it with loads of keywords that match the job description to get through all the AI bullshit. What's your background in work?

If I found myself interviewing the sort of people you described on a sufficiently regular basis to claim it to be a trend, then I'd consider myself to have a recruitment problem. Good employers offering attractive work for decent pay do not have to resort to offering interviews to these types of people. They weed them out at shortlisting and interview only those with potential. If this is happening as often as you claim then there's something substandard about either your jobs or your selection process.

But you're blaming the unemployed x box players for it and clearly not doing anything proactive to attract better candidates to fill your positions, or you would be attracting those candidates (that don't lie in and play x box because they already have a job) and tempting them away from either their existing job or their cushy Xbox lifestyle.

But keep screeching that it's because no one wants to work, because that'll change it.

I work full time and would love an extra £40/week! I'm not getting the 'only' here at all.

"those types of people" so again you write them off. Do you genuinely think that as a country we need to support a growing number of people who aren't capable of working? I think believe they need nudging into work to improve their life not writing off as unemployable. What a bleak view you have.

So you want to offer jobs to all these people you claim to have met (and remember, it's you who are describing them, not me) who are scroungers, layabouts and drug users simply so they are not written off? How very altruistic of you. And here's me thinking you just wanted to make sure there was a big pool of cheap forced labour to drawer on so you don't have to worry about raising wages or improving conditions.

So you want me to go out to work to pay for you? Nah

So why didn't you offer the jobs to the people you described then?

The economy still needs people to spend money ' so even those on benefits contribute to the economy ' has anyone any analysis of what net effect it would have on businesses ?

Errr no. I think it is better for people to work than not work. It is better for the countries productivity, it is better for individuals mental health, it enables better public services. Every £1 that goes to benefits could go to pay nurses etc better. At a societal level it is better to have people working than not working. However, we have created a game field where at an individual level where people have a cosy duvet rather than a safety net. We have to import people to complete a lot of the lower skills work. I would change the parameters to reduce the subsidary at an individual level which would make working more attractive. This will then shift us to the positive benefits.

I don't believe the solution is just to write these individuals off as unemployable - I think the vast majority of people have a value they can bring to something.

I clearly had a different view to you. Any lunch is over. I've you all to Xboxes for a bit.

So why didn't you put your money where your mouth is and employ the people you described? You had a golden opportunity there to force them off benefits (they'd have been sanctioned for turning you down) give them the 'nudge' they needed to become 'contributers' improving their wellbeing in the process, and to benefit from the value you believe they can bring. Why didn't you do that? You believe that individual effort rather than state intervention is the key, so where was yours?

Public opinion would likely be divided:

Supporters might argue that reducing welfare dependency and increasing workforce participation is beneficial for both individuals and the economy.

Critics could see it as punitive, especially if changes reduce support for vulnerable people or force people into unsuitable jobs' the round hole and square peg with some companies comes to mind' not to mention threads on here some companies dont want to hire x.y.z if they need extra help

Business Owners might resist if they fear losing access to cheap labor or facing higher employment costs. This is part of the key issues' even if more funds were available not all employers would pay a living wage

Then also we would need to close the boarders if it gets to a point where there are two many people and not enough companies that can make profits with the people they have

Probably because she knows it would be a waste of time and money. It may be difficult to give them the boot after completing the probation period too.

Ah, I suspect we may have hit the problem.

I can't make my CV "really good" because my work history is not. I spent ages crafting the best CV I can out of what I've got, though.

My work history was any job I could get between school and aged 25 (supermarkets, coffee shops, care work etc). Then unemployed for 11 years although did a degree towards the end of that (Bsc, 2.1).

Managed to get a care job (as a PA to a disabled person - that's PA for personal care etc not office stuff) for two years, although it ended badly (thread on here!) over a year ago. Tried to find a job that actually matched my skills but ended up having to go back to care work in desperation (and then took 3+ months to start due to DBS taking forever). Had to leave after two months because the erratic hours, long shifts only partially paid with gaps in sitting around in my car in random streets, other stresses that were unnecessary but due to poor management and processess, broke me.

It's so frustrating because I am responsible, conscientious, and work hard but I can't seem to get a foot in the door at anything that actually matches my skills (tbh I am good at caring, but can't manage all the other crap that comes with those jobs. Unfortunate, because I am exactly the type of person you'd want caring for an elderly relative.)

Anyway. Managed to knock up a decent looking skills-based CV last year, following much online advice. Thought if I could get a job quickly after the two year PA one I'd be ok with the huge CV gap, employers would know I was fine and back to work as normal, but now another year+ gap with a short-term job (not even sure I should mention it) looks awful again.

Tips and advice welcome, here's my previous thread if anyone does have any advice (so as not to derail this one!)
www.mumsnet.com/talk/work/5211998-finding-decent-job-when-autistic-how?page=1

Well, yes. But why she thinks that that would not be the case if people were forced off benefits by the state rather than via a job offer, I'm not sure. There are obviously people out there who will be very difficult to match to jobs for lots of reasons. Stopping their benefits is not going to miraculously turn them into the ideal employee. Getting more people working requires investment in supporting them to acquire job skills and incentives in the form of decent pay and conditions.

We have to import people to complete a lot of the lower skills work. I would change the parameters to reduce the subsidary at an individual level which would make working more attractive. This will then shift us to the positive benefits.

Or raise the wages and benefits of working so it's more attractive? I mean what a revolutionary idea to get people into work. Pay and treat them properly.

That's half the battle ' makes sense why companies use sweatshop style factories abroad ' because it's cheap labour rather than thinking of the country they are based in and having the factories there to make them

The conundrum is what to do with people who have no work ethic or intentions of learning skills that make them employable. In these cases I believe they should be forced to carry out community service to receive their benefits. A few months of litter picking for £50 a week might make keeping a job look more appealing.

In your case I'd do lots of courses. Do lots of free linked in courses and anything else you can find and plaster them all over your CV. Try and apply for data entry roles - search for 'data entry' jobs thats your most basic start point. See if you can get anywhere with that. Is there a reason or explanation you can put on your CV for the 11 years unemployed? I.e raising a family, caring for a disabled partner, etc etc and embellish that to show what skills you earned and developed over that time? ChatGPT could help with that. I'd include that sort of thing on your CV so it doesn't just say 11 years unemployed basically. Good luck!

Basically to ensure all people are employed then we need a central planned economy to make sure the jobs are there and needed.