To think people on benefits can’t win

[Flamingosareflummoxed]

I’ve heard so many people this week, in real life, moaning about people on benefits. I get it that we are all struggling. The cost of living is crippling.
But every week there are posts on here from women who were in 70K per year HR positions who are finding it difficult to get interviews for MW jobs.
There are no jobs.
The few jobs that there are will be flooded with applications, why would recruiters chose someone who has been unemployed for years?
Plus all those with long term disabilities who need reasonable adjustments.
Its like people want to bash people knowing there is no real alternative.

In which way? I work full time and STILL need UC top up to survive. I am far, far better off working than not.

I think the obvious long-term solution is for people to have fewer/no children. I'm sure someone will say 'but we need future taxpayers...' but we all should know by now that a) loads of NEETs will never get a job and will never become tax payers let alone net contributers and b) AI is going to decimate jobs in the future which will mean fewer people will be able to afford the meals out/coffees/cleaners etc. I think the country is in a downward spiral really.

At the moment the benefit system seems to reward people for having children (especially since the two child benefit cap was lifted) although once the kids are grown it must become harder (unless the kids stay living with their parents and have their own kids and claim more benefits I guess).

I read the threads where people are discussing having a 3rd child and think have they actually considered how their child will support themselves in a future world where life will be uncertain.

We accuse governments of short termism but I think the general public is just as bad.

A lot of those jobs you see online aren't actually there-people apply for them (which can take ages-someone who applied for a supermarket job had to spend hours going through a quiz based on what you would do in given situations, which is stupid in itself, because as a mw worker in a supermarket, you are told what the policies are, and you just follow them), and then get an automated email saying the position is no longer available. So many hardworking people are really struggling to find work-not even necessarily in their field. Maybe it is different in your area, but there are far too many people I know really trying for a job who can't get one. And it's soul destroying for young people trying desperately to get one, even going round places handing out CVs, and seeing them literally thrown in the bin as they walk out.
For people with disabilities, it can be even harder.

Oh yes, but they will also need a very supportive employer who has the time/money/resources/knowledge/willingness to put in place the adjustments they might need. Lots of independent businesses do not have the above.

I do wonder what these people plan to do once their kids are older and they lose the child related benefits. Nobody will want to employ someone who has been out of the workforce for nearly 2 decades.

At least if they are in work they have a chance to gain and maintain skills, and potentially work their way up. They are setting the up for destitution.

No there aren't. Not relative to the number of people needing a job.

What there are, though, is 'loads' of people chasing each job. And do you seriously think there are as many jobs as there are people in need of work?

And that all these jobs are offered by employers who are happy to take on older/disabled/chronically ill people and work around their requirements? And that the jobs on offer can be neatly matched to people who can physically do them?

And that every person in need of a job is capable of rocketing themselves up to the top of an employer's 'yes' list at a time when there are a ridiculous number of people competing for most jobs?

If so, I'll have a puff of whatever you're on, it's obviously good stuff. 🙄

I don’t think you should be able to rent out social housing. Whilst the rules say you cannot rent the whole property out I suspect it happens far too much.
The recruitment suggestions I made actually would assist people with disabilities. I explained in an earlier thread.
Not sure what approaches I suggested were Reform ideas ?
And as for specialist services for disabled people. They can only be enhanced.

My Mum’s friend had one in the 00s for her disabled son and she definitely did get it for free. I just looked into it and it is free, they just lose the mobility component of their DLA payment. They get a lease hire car so don’t have to pay for MOT, tax, insurance etc so yes it quite literally is a “free car”.

No-one's mentioned the impact of high rents on the benefits budget.

I'm retired now, but worked (wholly or partly) in welfare rights for 25 years. I've gone through the nitty gritty of thousands, if not tens of thousands, benefit claims and calculations in that time, and the housing benefit/housing costs element of UC, has been the biggest single item in most of them. I'm in the SE region, where rents are the highest outside of London.

A lot of people in work and claiming UC wouldn't be eligible for UC at all if they weren't paying high rents, and it's rare for the full rent to be included in the UC calculation. The average rent here is £1750 pcm for a 3-bed, but UC will only include £1450. A huge chunk of UC, often all of it, will be going to their private landlord. (On a recent calculation I did for a single parent with 3 kids, considering taking a job at a salary of £37k, the UC entitlement was around £1400, and their rent was £1800.).

Someone in social housing with 3 kids would be paying around £750 a month for a 3-bed, so their UC entitlement would be much lower than someone in private rented accommodation.

Building more social housing would reduce the "benefits bill".

I’m confused about how people manage to stay on benefits long term and pick and choose the types of jobs they go for. When I was made redundant (admittedly many years ago), I was told after a certain time period searching in my particular field, I would be forced to show evidence of job hunting in other, less well paid areas. There was no option for me to remain jobless by choice without proving i was applying for all positions.

I can understand why people who are better off on benefits choose to remain on them, especially if they have children. If the numbers don’t add up then why wouldn’t they?

If that's the solution then we need to be actively promoting immigration to fill the gap that we are already heading towards by people in general having less children.

We are heading towards a point where we are going to struggle anyway without a sizeable next generation coming behind us and the dialogue around immigration is going to compound that.

As a parent I'm paying attention to trends in ai and employment so I can encourage my child to careers that are maybe involved in the regulation of ai and safeguarding with ai which is probably going to be a huge industry, or manual/ in person roles that cannot be replicated by ai.

I have one for my disabled son and I definitely didn't get it for free. I had to pay an advanced payment which cost thousands of pounds.

@SatsumaDog I don't think people who have been on benefits for some years (say, 10+) can pick and choose what kind of job they want. What makes you think/say that?

Exactly!

So now some people think that other people get free cars as well as free houses? 😆

Honestly, the lack of knowledge, (and ignorance) from some, is breathtaking!

.

That’s because you selected a car above the amount covered under the scheme.

Okay, let's not apply for them because there's loads of unemployed going for them, so I won't get it...' That's the spirit....

It isn’t ignorance, I literally just looked into the policy because I know under Blair my mum’s friend had a free car for her son. Some cars are fully covered, others (usually larger or higher spec) aren’t completely so require an extra payment.

I said that because someone further up the thread said there are loads of minimum wage jobs but people aren’t applying for them. So I was wondering how that could be the case as my personal experience didn’t reflect that was possible.

People speak about those on benefits as if it’s down to their own choice. But I was questioning how that could be the case.

There are jobs but they require skills. My ds who's still at school trained as a pool lifeguard and has a job. My employer is struggling to find a junior mechanical engineer and a salesperson. But these jobs are not wfh and people are reluctant.

People shouldn't feel hopeless.

I think SOME people opt to live on benefits as a lifestyle choice but not very many at all and I think the tories made it more difficult to do this. I know it was easier under Blair because I knew people who were on JSA long-term. They just had to “sign on” once a week to get it and they literally did just sign a piece of paper to declare they were looking for work, nobody asked questions.

Most people recognise the wider benefits of working beyond the economics and actively want to be out of the house doing something.

Sometimes people need the larger cars not available without the extra payments in order to accommodate all the equipment they need (as part of the disability that qualified them for the scheme in the first place).

And most of those will be because a vehicle with wheelchair access or other adaptations is needed, not just because the applicant fancies it...

I had no choice. The small amount of cars which require no advance payment aren't always suitable.

Yep I understand! I’m not saying the mobility scheme is a bad thing, I get why people need it but I felt it important to highlight the fact some do indeed get a free car because someone else claimed this wasn’t true.

Ah, we cross-posted! 😆