No Jobs?

[C0ckney]

the news of the world is a tabloid, but the key points the article makes namely

a) that there is plenty of work out there (look at how the 100,000s who immigrate here every year seem to find jobs)
b) that a lot of people are choosing simply not to work
c) that it's very easy for them for to do so

are completely true.

[C0ckney]

i think the wider point in any case is that welfare should be a safety net, not a lifestyle choice.

[C0ckney]

Originally posted by Grandpa Troll
I am a manager and often go to Unemployment Office to advertise for an opening.

I will get maybe 1 or 2 who apply, some qualified some not, then about 14 days later i get this long list from the employment office of people who said thye applied but were not offered a job.

Hogwash!

I send it back and tell them we got no such applicant.

What they do is list us as a placed checked, I believe they need to give 3 good hard leads a week to qualify for bwenefits.

They work the system, find who is not hiring and use them as an excuse.

Pure shame it is

exactly, it's totally shameful. i've got a friend who every fortnight, goes down the job centre to sign on, he prints out a couple of slips from the machines where you can look for jobs, says he's looking for these jobs, and gets signed off for another two weeks. he's been doing it for 18 months, every two weeks, the same thing, and he gets away with it.

i don't mind if he wants to spend his life, sat on his backside all day and all night smoking weed, but what i object to is paying for it, and those like him who just can't be arsed to work.

[Dis]

welfare economies

I still say it has turned everyone into a bunch of pussies. It's like mothers who don't wean their kids. They never grow up and can't take care of themselves and need the goverment to do it for them.

[Pekka]

cockney, right, and when you got enough of this kind of action.. it's very difficult to change, why? Because these people vote too. And you are the greedy one, remember?

[Pekka]

oh and I mean to speak against the lifestyle thing as well. People who don't have jobs and they really want one, IMO the safety net needs to be there, and everyone should have a life of human being standards, especially if there's enough resources to accomplish that. The lifestyle lazy butts, they're the ones hurting the cause the most, because they're wasting resources meant for the ones who really need it.

[C0ckney]

Originally posted by Pekka
cockney, right, and when you got enough of this kind of action.. it's very difficult to change, why? Because these people vote too. And you are the greedy one, remember?

a cynical person might say that these people make a handy electorate for those currently in power. so nothing will change and we will carry on paying millions to do nothing, while letting in half the world to do the jobs that the (lazy) natives won't do.

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Ecthy
On the sidelines, that news site looks EXTREMELY tabloid on the first look...

Yeah, News Of The World is true gutter press...take everything it says with a pinch of salt.

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by DanielXY
If this figure of 220 Pounds a week is really what you get and not some special case (as the article stats you have to claim a "string of benefits", so this may be not possibel for everyone, dunno), UKs unemployment money really is too high... I mean thats what? about 1.200 € / month ?! :O

Unfortunately not remotely true either. They will pay for rudimentary accommodation but that is about it (unless you really screw the system) - jobseekers allowance is £50 a week.

[Pekka]

cockney, there's a famous libetarian quote, where the message basically is, that when there's a considerable amoutn of people getting the loot from the few, who do you think will be elected in the future? As in, if you want to win, you have to tap into that majority, it's easy votes.

Better yet, the attack against those who says well, we don't think it's right that some of these people get this money, well, that's rich people being greedy. When you compare the 'rich', you'll quickly discover, that there's so many people who barely make it every month, barely make the rent money, not really that much more than if they just chose to get free money... well, so are they greedy? No. In fact, they're the ones who should get that money, they should be able to enjoy the fruits of their hard work. Usually these people have the jobs that actually are pretty demanding physically and mentally, definitely they could always get more and it would be justified.

So when you are against certain policies, you are attacking the 'welfare of the people', which echoes some old propaganda of totalitarian times of certain places. So, it's gives us the money, or we'll blame you for being greedy. Nah.. to me it's the other way around. Only as a safety net, not as a lifestyle supporter. These looters are pests who waste the resources, that's away from the poor and the ill, that's away from the services, and that's paid by you. Fat **** is eating from your fridge.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Ecthy
Well Boris, generally speaking the "data" they provide qualifies as "anecdotic" and not "statistical" so it's not relevant in a scientific "hard fact" sense. It does amount to a certain genral impression anyway.

On the other hand we do not know what they do on their "jobhunt". If they turn up with a camera and all reporter stuff it's likely they'd get offered a job immediately.

While I don't know that particular source, it doesn't surprise me. If benefits actually are equivalent to the working wage, a lot of people won't work.

I remember a single relatively unskilled office job that went unfilled in a small town. THat town was a place with a plantb that operated seasonally and at the time the towns unemployment rate was at about 65% (whenever the plant was closed). A good friend of mine was teaching some adult education classes in that town at the time (paid for by unemployment benefits and asked a couple of his students why they didn't apply -- The answers were pretty simply that working year round for little extra made no sense to them.

[Flubber]

I have always been in favor of systems where anyone that works full time will always make more money than anyone on unemployment. The mechanics get tough though ebcause you don't want to create systems that spawn different types of abuse


Another option is to treat unemployment insurance as "insurance" and not as a long term welfare program. People that use the programs year after year would see benefits slashed while a first time short term user would get relatively generous benefits to see them over the hump of losing a job

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison


Yeah, News Of The World is true gutter press...take everything it says with a pinch of salt.

Not entirely gutter press:

Bosses eager to snap up our team said their vacancies only seemed to attract migrant workers—usually from Eastern Europe—or hard-up students. Brits on benefit weren't interested.

No way the Mail would have admitted that immigrants are working hard and not claiming benefits.

[Ecthy]

Maybe it's lefty gutter press

[Provost Harrison]

Yeah, a redeeming glimmer in a landfill of turds...