Government drawing up plans to help relocate the unemployed

[fanjoforthemammaries7850]

Does anyone else find this a bit scary? Or is it a good idea?

Top of the list isnt' a guarantee of housing.

And again, the lists are already have tens of thousands of people sitting on them.

What about them?

The trouble with this is, well, there is little to no social housing available in many areas of high work concentration.

Why shouldn't people move for work?

I work in the public sector and the last Govt decided to move several thousand jobs out of the South East. My choice was take redundancy or move out of the SE and I chose to move, and stay in work.

We were in the catchment of 2 very good primary schools, and in a grammar area. We've ended up being in a really expensive area where we can't afford to live anywhere near work, nowhere near any good schools and looking at a secondary school that gets 24% GCSEs. Our only upside on that score is we've got 8 years until Y7 so I'm hoping things will change.

We also left everybody we knew and family (including 2 of our own DCs).

My grandparents did a similar thing in 1937 when they left family and friends in Sheffield and moved to Bath for work.

If it's good enough for us to do then it's good enough for anyone else.

Perhaps big employers should be asked to provide housing again for their workers, like they used to, or at least contribute to the building?

Elvislives was your move part of the Lyons Review? We had some of that at work too - people forced to relocate from the SE to Bristol, where house prices are pretty astronomical anyway!

ok - just imagine - this thing gets up and running, unemployed people (and I' guessing here that only those on JSA - so those "fit for work" would be included in this scheme) take up the chance to move out of a shit hole to somewhere where they can find work.

what happens to the people/area they've left behind? The area of high unemployment (and probably poverty too).

Part of the problem is that a lot of the jobs that are open are often low pay and low job security. You could be thrown out of work in 6 months. Who will move from secure HA and HB payments for that?

Talking to people I know on benefits they say that is a lot of the problem. Taking any short term or risky job means you come off benefits and if the job is lost it takes ages to get back on benefits again and often people go into debt on the gap between the last pay packet and the benefit coming in.

Oh this is just a gimmick.

Until we embark on a massive program of social housing building...

Which of course will never happen.

Almost all of the domestic (ie excluding the mess the bankers made) economic problems are down to a housing shortage.

More housing - bring down rents. Bring down rents, more people will be able to afford to work and lose their housing benefit.

They will also of the own voilation in many cases, move to areas with work if they knew they could get an affordable (be it private or council) home during the transition period.

No to mention the social improvements of people living in decent homes.

We need more houses!

Stuck I was just going to say exactly the same thing. Unfortunately, the sale of local authority housing and the stupid regulations about not using the money raised to build more housing...

And, although I know this one isn't popular, this obsession with having to own your own home is not exactly working out well for a lot of people (wildly off topic, however).

withorwithoutyou, yes it was, and that's where we've ended up.

Sympathies elvislives, I really hope you don't get caught up now in all the inevitable restructuring and redundancies the coalition have started.

A bit of history, whih may not be acurate. In the 1930's we had a 'depression', many moved to areas where there was work... the woollen mills in the Bradford/ Shipley area. My partents were part of this, they lived in lodgings and sent their money home to their families.They were aged 14. I guess this wasn't planned, just neccessity.

'scuse typos

there's a lot of history like that, mini.

but things have moved on.

things are very different from the 1930s, and i, for one, am very glad for this.

I agree expat, whole heartedly. I don't know any good solutions or even have any ideas that would make a difference, but as other posters have said, I think, historicaly populations ahve always moved. i guess what I am trying to say is there may not be a government scheme solution.

I can't help feel it's a bit "preaching to the choir" - since the dawn of time anyone with any get-up-and-go had got up and gone! E.g., my father is one of 5 from a remote Scottish whiskey village, only one remains in that village (worked for the still) - the others stretch as far as Canada - the generation before them spanning as far as the Whitsundays to Alberta.

Even my father, an engineer, took us from Scotland, to Wales, to Berkshire, to London, to Scotland, to London ad nauseum.

I think this is just 'blame the poor for being poor' spin. If you are out of work, it's your own fault and nothing to do with mismanagement of the economy. And if you don't 'get on your bike', the government will paint you as a drain on society.

The environmental costs, as well as the practical difficulties, make this a poor joke. The South East, where most of the jobs are, is already short of water, with creaking infrastructure - if large numbers of people move, how are they going to get around? Because the roads and railways are already at capacity. And the only places left to build large numbers of houses are green belt or AONB or otherwise protected.

Also, if you encourage population shifts, you'll need new public infrastructure such as schools and GP surgeries. So you end up with more public money pouring into the SE and being taken away from areas that are already struggling.

And what about all these claims of investing in manufacturing instead of the finance industry? Can't see much room for affordable manufacturing industry in the SE - the cost of land is prohibitive. A landowner or developer can make far more money out of building houses than factories.

I have heard rumours that there is more to life than London...

I think a better plan would be to buy houses from people who've lost their jobs and are now in negative equity so that they can relocate and take up jobs, the DWP are currently paying my friends £900 per month mortgage whilst she's had to turn down jobs because she can't sell the house.

There will always be those who blame their geographical location or simply continue to inhabit their victim mentality and hold out their hands. There will always be those who grab life by the horns. Simple fact of life.

mama No, she has not "had" to turn down jobs, she's chosen to. Nobody made her buy that house and nobody is forcing her not to rent it out to someone else and move on herself.

"the DWP are currently paying my friends £900 per month mortgage"

ermmm I doubt that very much - they'll be paying the interest on it.

but Skihorse - I think that's a little short sighted don't you to assume that it's as simple as "rent it out" and move on herself.

I can't believe the government pays mortgages for people. I'm pretty liberal, but that just blows my mind. I know, I know, the argument is that they wind up homeless and that apparently costs the government more.

But the reverse argument of that is that it keeps house prices artificially inflated.

Sometimes, when you sell a commodity, you lose money. But this apparently isn't allowed to happen with houses/house prices.

And I can tell you know, the cost to the government because house prices are kept so high is astronomical.

They only pay mortgage interest once you've been out of work for three months. Cheaper than having the house repossessed and having to provide social housing, I expect. No other reason why they'd do it.

Yes, see, that's the argument, edam.

But you can equally argue that it keeps house prices artificially high.

High house prices cost the government enormously because they are a serious cause of many societal ills, anxiety and depression.

They have long needed dramatic correction, but the problem is that means financial loss for a few.

But again, v. the cost of inflated house prices for many?

High house prices = high rents, of course, and HB is getting cut.