Welfarisation has made people utterly entitled and unable to take responsibility for themselves and their families.

[hagchic]

I grew up in a working class family. The values I was taught were that you stood on your own two feet and it was no one else's job to do what you could do for yourself.

If you were hurt, you were expected to get up and go and clean yourself up - and stop whining about it unless it was actually serious. If you were ill, you went to bed and if you were lucky some magic lucozade appeared.

If you were sad, then you were sad. If life was unfair then that was just how life was and you needed to deal with it.

You never ever sought charity or took benefits when you were able to work or put up with less. You lived to your own means, not to what you saw on TV or at school - and if you wanted that lifestyle it was up to you to get it.

Today everyone has the expectation that someone must help them, that they are obliged to help them - even before they have made any attempt to actually do the work of helping themselves. They expect luxuries like holidays, pets, new clothes and treats when they do nothing to earn this.

I think self sufficiency is a value that needs to return to our society.

I think it would be an entirely different conversation if these things were put in place - especially wages being enough to live on and decent affordable housing being available to all.

What is happening in the US should serve as a warning to anyone considering voting Reform/Restore; unfortunately, it doesn't seem like people are heeding the warning.

This.

The fact that a not insignificant chunk of the welfare bill goes towards propping up the wage bill for the likes of Amazon/Starbucks/Walmart, et al is disgusting.

There should be concessions made for SMB who would go under if their wage bill got much higher, but companies making profits of billions per year should not have their wage bill subsidised by the taxpayer.

And I wholly disagree that these businesses would suffer if they had to pay a living wage; far smaller businesses manage it without kicking up a stink. There is no reason why Amazon et al couldn't.

Most of my good choices were largely due to impulse + luck rather than employing good judgement. One of them was an opportunity to leave Britain in the 80s just as I entered my 20s.

Between the (then undiagnosed) ADHD and the implosion of my previously happy enough home I was not doing well. Ploughed my O levels, refused to stay in education, on and off the dole due to not being fabulous on my YTS and other menial jobs. Spent some time homeless trying to be somewhere where there was more work, but was exhausted mentally, physically and emotionally so always ended back in my “safe space” of poor, cold, hungry on dole, but at least things would stay reliably crap, rather than spontaneously crap.

Leaving the country meant leaving the safety net (albeit very holey) of the dole. As I said, more luck than judgement, but because I didn’t have the siren song of curling up in a ball under a blanket living of a government pittance, I built my resilience at getting, keeping and even getting promoted at work.

By no means a one size fits all kind of solution, but I can see both the need for a safety net, and how it can become a trapping net, particularly for people who are feeling battered by the cards they got dealt and the life weather they had to endure.

Because I can’t do anything in moderation (like drinking, it’s either drink till I black out or completely tee-total) I just stayed away from Britain. Like I have to make a clear choice between keeping myself balanced on a tight rope up high, or being tangled forever in the safety net. Because I don’t really trust myself not to fall off accidentally on purpose as soon as things get rocky. Do I don’t ever want to be in the place again that whispered of allowing me to rest my weary head, and then closed around me like a bear trap.

I think the benefit of some of the systems I’ve seen in countries I lived and worked in is they are less “smothering” than the British system. They are capped. By contribution, by time, by being required to participate in community renewal projects etc. You can fall, and be caught. But perhaps less chance of the siren song I was seduced by, cos alternative systems seem quite “poke you with a stick until you get up again”. I’m very averse to being poked with a stick.

Karl Marx viewed the welfare state not as a solution to inequality, but as a mechanism that sustains capitalism by softening its harshest edges and preventing working-class rebellion

I do accept that there is truth in every thing you've listed here. I'm not commenting to disagree but to say how I've seen things change in 60 years.

• Health & Mental health services could be accessed at an earlier stage and not when things can no longer be reversed/cured

there was no mental health treatment for eating disorders, women were given "mother's little helpers", tranquillisers, because there was no proper treatment for depression, men wouldn't be allowed to admit they were depressed, "social anxiety" was never heard of still less accepted as a reason not to go to work. A work refuser would either be supported by their own family or pushed by their own family to get out and earn some money.

• There was decent and affordable public transport systems everywhere up to a reasonable time so that people can actually get to work

This is true but those disappeared when the population in general became wealthy enough to have their own cars and the public transport services no longer paid their way.

• There was cheap/affordable daycare 24/7 so that those without family help can do all the random shifts that they get assigned instead of not being able to work due to a lack of childcare

A lot of this has been caused by the public calling for more and more safety and bureaucracy in the provision of childcare. When I was a child there was an "aunt" up every street who looked after kids for a bit of money. You can't even legally do that for a dog without a council inspection and a licence these days.

• Jobs actually gave a living wage

They didn't, though. Many women did jobs for "pin money".

• If housing was actually affordable so that you weren't trapped in places where there isn't work

There are other huge factors like family, fear, familiarity, the expense of moving, that have always trapped people in areas with fewer jobs. Back in the 80s Tebbit was famous for lambasting people for not "getting on their bikes" to look for work.

And how many people will actually put themselves through that disruption, cost and stress if they can stay near their friends and family and claim enough benefits to survive on?

Women did jobs for "pin money" because the men earned enough working in factories/labouring jobs, etc., to support the family without women having to work. The pin money was for luxuries, not necessities, that is literally the meaning of pin money - money to buy frivolties like fancy pins.

Why are adult children being thrown out? I have made it clear to mine that they are in education or working, preferably both. I won't be funding them 100% whilst they do nothing. They will need to make their own way in the world. I have 3 late teens/early 20s and we live in one of the UKs most deprived towns. All 3 work. One of them has 2 jobs and is also at college.

I don't think it unreasonable that I say you work or you're out. I wouldn't judge anyone for taking the same stance. I can't afford it. They had a parent who worked her proverbial bollox off to provide. I have done everything I can. They either step up or out. Thankfully they have stepped up.

Working class women have pretty much always worked one way or another. ‘Pin money’ was a much more middle class thing. Of course in lots of professions women were expected to stop work when they got married.

Originally pin money did not refer to any luxury but to women’s necessary consumable expenses including pins which held their clothes together so were a pretty basic consumable.

Child benefit was a universal benefit- you didn't have to claim it. It wasn't paid for the first child. The first child was only factored in when the second child was born and as far as I remember it was £2.50 a week and £1.50 for each subsequent child.That was in the 70s.The great thing about it was that it was paid directly to the prime carer who was usually the mother.

I was married to a high-earning publisher who also was a successful author. We lived the life of the cultured prosperous middle classes: Georgian House, Volvo, Bollinger at weekends. I worked the occasional commission I could get working from home but he stayed in London during the week so I couldn't go out to work. Nurseries or after school clubs weren't a thing then, not in our area anyway.

When it came to the needs of the children their father was Scrooge personified. I was so glad of that little bit of money to pay dinner money or if you saved a month it bought a pair of school shoes. It often fed me and the children too, kept us afloat. Sometimes it bought sanpro. Benefit recipients aren't always who you think they are.

The problem with our benefit system is that it encourages some of the most ignorant, feral, uncivilized members of our society to have lots of kids, who they then raise to be as ignorant, feral and uncivilized as they are. They contribute NOTHING to society. On the contrary, they are a drain. Yet their arrogance and sense of entitlement is staggering.

Let me stress that I am NOT referring to good people on low incomes. I am talking about the feral underclass. In fact, the decent poor are their main victims. We now have a new social class in Britain – a sort of welfare-dependent underclass who work the system and see their benefits as their 'wages'. They then spend those benefits on alcohol, gambling, drugs and junk food. That in turn leads to physical and mental illness, which means they become a burden on the NHS.

Ah, the equal opportunities Untermensch..... poor, feral, feckless..... sweeps up alot of groups neatly together without invoking any pesky "isms".

Do you have an intetesting "solution" in mind? I'm sute we're all ears 🙄

It's funny that when researchers look for these families with generations of fecklessness they're never able to find any.

Perhaps you could contact the researchers and point them in the right direction?

https://www.jrf.org.uk/work/are-cultures-of-worklessness-passed-down-the-generations

I sort of get the overall feeling behind your post, but your perspective is naive. The reasons behind poverty and inequality are complex and not just a matter of being ‘lazy’ and not taking responsibility for yourself and your family. Relying on benefits is often an intergenerational thing, deeply ingrained in some communities where there is high crime, deprivation and social issues, poor investment in public services, poor health and poor educational attainment. When your parents didn’t work, and their parents didn’t work, and homelessness, crime, poor parenting, and truancy all around you and there is a lack of places for young people to belong and avoid making poor choices, no positive role models, it’s not as simple as ‘I’m going to jolly well take some responsibility and break the cycle. And in the good old days when people went to work despite illness, mental health problems and disability (?!) people didn’t live as long because they had to suffer through these things and still work. There is better recognition of these things now.
I do believe however that the system is somewhat open to manipulation and those who claim its not are being naive. But when people have become reliant on it it can’t just be stopped. We need better systems for actually helping people back to work and more resources targeted at addressing what it is that’s stopping people getting. People can wait months or years for the services that could help them get better and more able to work eg surgery, physiotherapy, mental health support. My BIL has pretty severe mental health issues and relies on PIP. He’ll never get back to work, because all the NHS are interested in is throwing medication at him, and painkillers for the broken shoulder he suffered, which is now addicted to, thus worsening his mental and physical health issues, there is no counselling or help available apart from tablets and the situation is just a continuing vicious cycle.

Looks like i misread the post, fair enough

Hard to say as the shafting has been going on for a long time but yet the rich get richer and the poor poorer. People talk about a revolution but most people just want a quiet life. The French are a bit more feisty but still get shafted by and large.

The super rich ain’t gonna give people more than what they can get away with. And the media can’t kiss Musk’s arse any more at the news of him being a trillionaire. They are in love with him as he sits on more money then the whole of Switzerland.

What’s the solution?

I'd be up for getting a posse together to deal with Musk, odious creature that he is. Sharing his money out would go a long way towards fixing the mess we're in.

So reading this they are looking for people who have genuinely never worked a single day in their lives.

In my own family (sadly) id say that there are three generations of people who 'dont work': one was a hairdresser for under 5 years, the other did 6 months in retail and the third generation have again done less than a year of working. All on benefits.

The above study seems pretty useless and almost deliberately obtuse. My family member who did 6 months in retail does not work the same as I do - worked full time since I left Uni, worked late into the nights to progress my career, managed child care stresses and had disappointments about parts of my child growing up I had to miss. We are not both workers!

you do realise most of it is based on the value of the stocks and shares and as soon as some started to be sold then it effects the stock market and values can quickly change so he could be worth eg 1 trillion but then it could quickly be billions etc

This is an example of why the public need to study the stock market

Wealth tied to the stock market is theoretical and highly volatile. Net worth is calculated using the current market price, which assumes normal trading volumes. If a major shareholder floods the market by selling large quantities, the sudden oversupply would crash the share price.

The concept can be broken down into a few key dynamics:

Paper Wealth vs. Cash: Net worth figures don't represent a bank account filled with physical cash. They reflect ownership stakes in companies like Tesla and SpaceX. If share prices fall across the broader market, billions or even trillions can disappear from paper valuations instantly.

The Liquidation Problem: The price of a stock is set by supply and demand. Because there isn't enough market depth for one person to liquidate massive multibillion-dollar stakes without triggering panic, the actual cash realized from a total sell-off would be far lower than the "paper" valuation.

Collateral and Loans: Rather than selling shares and triggering price drops or massive tax events, the ultra-wealthy often borrow against their stock portfolios to fund their lifestyles.

What do you think it should be increased to? How massive are we talking.

Let's look at pubs... many bar staff / waiting on staff are on nmw. The supervisors on a bit more. The duty managers on a bit more than that.
What do you think will happen to the wages of the next level up? They'll also want a raise. And the next level? And where do you think the money is coming from to pay for this? They'll either reduce the staff which will have an impact on the level of service and then people will complain they're not getting served quickly enough. Or they will keep the same amount of staff and the prices will go up.
Likewise shops
Likewise labouring. The pay gap between unskilled and semi skilled workers and skilled workers is getting smaller.
It's so easy to say raise the nmw but there's no magic pot of money.

Which other things do you want to remove with him?

Locked in people able to talk?

Internet access to swathes of the world previously with no access?

Carbon capture technology development to save the world from climate change?

Breaking the stranglehold of the carbon fuel car manufacturers over car sales?

Etc.

Why is it so difficult to address the fact that because of the "gambling" nature built into "economics" ( which are treated like a supernatural and occult and arcane phenomena despite being wholly constructed by man for the benefit of a few) we have a situation where money and its value is virtually meaningless?

The eye watering "numbers" attached to remuneration for "work", the value of which to humanity beyond its own circulation is often manufactured and down right dubious, to the price of shelter, to the nutrition and water which sustains us and is shipped round the world to "create" wealth etc etc has become utterly nonsensical, with the provision of each "necessity" being taxed over and over as it changes hands.

Musk has "a trillion". What he really has is choice, power, political leverage (and questionable goals morals and ideals) .

I have around 1500 a month as a "useless eater" because big business and unchecjed corporate growth directly contributed to losing my one woman band independent shop, and in my 50s I am out of the desirable employee loop. If certain corporate behemoths didn't make it possible for my former customers to purchase direct for less than I could buy goods wholesale, I could have sustained myself and my business on takings of 200 a day.

The system is rigged. And makes no sense.

The world's stock markets are giant casinos. Organisations buy companies with the main aim being to borrow against their assets, not run the business (Thames Water, Man United). CEOs of companies are paid hundreds of times more than the pay of their staff.

Capitalism, the least worst option of economic systems, has been allowed to run riot.

I don't know how we get back from this, does anyone else?

I was joking, obviously, I do not actually want to do anything to harm Musk, but the fact that there are people falling over themselves to defend the likes of Musk on a thread started to denigrate the most vulnerable in society is making me feel a bit

And let's not pretend that Musk did any of those things to benefit anyone but himself. Starlight has an annual revenue of over $11bn, and Neuralink aims to have an annual revenue of $1bn by 2031.

Anything and everything that man does is for his own pocket, anyone else who benefits is coincidental.