Is not needing unemployment benefits really something to be ashamed of?
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Scott Walker offers a fresh new approach
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Aeson View PostAre you claiming you are not motivated to any degree on any level by self interest? Are you claiming that your life experiences have not affected your opinions at all?If there is no sound in space, how come you can hear the lasers?
){ :|:& };:
Comment
-
I won't deny my upbringing has some level of influence on my views. Now then, the problem with Rah's idiotic comment is that it was utterly contentless. "Oh look, HC has money". Yes, rah, I have money. Thank you for noticing. Now why don't you tell me why you disagree? Observing that I have money is not a rebuttal. It is actually a surrender. You want to disagree, disagree with an argument, not a truly pathetic shot like that.If there is no sound in space, how come you can hear the lasers?
){ :|:& };:
Comment
-
They always extend unemployment during recessions and that goes back 80 years. It is also very necessary and helps to head off crime and violent protests; desperation is a very ugly thing. When people are desperate they can do some pretty scary stuff so folks who do have something to lose enact come sense policies like unemployment to make sure the have bots don't ****ing lynch them.
Think of it as an insurance policy as well as the morally right thing to do.Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Hauldren Collider View PostI won't deny my upbringing has some level of influence on my views. Now then, the problem with Rah's idiotic comment is that it was utterly contentless. "Oh look, HC has money". Yes, rah, I have money. Thank you for noticing. Now why don't you tell me why you disagree? Observing that I have money is not a rebuttal. It is actually a surrender. You want to disagree, disagree with an argument, not a truly pathetic shot like that.
Comment
-
Originally posted by kentonio View PostOk, you're bordering on just being dickish now, but I'll keep going a little longer. There is a huge difference between 'My anecdote about x trumps your carefully researched statistics!' and 'I have first hand experience that the system on which your statistics are based is extremely easy to fool. Oh and there is a strong incentive on the part of those involved to fool it in some cases. Oh and I know numerous people who have actually fooled the system'.
if you don't like your argument being put like that, think it 'dickish' etc. then you're free to dislike it. but it is the argument you are making here.
You know how the jobseeker system tracks how people are looking for work? Each week the applicant writes down what they have done looking for work. 'I spent x hours looking at job websites. I sent inquiry letters to x companies' etc. These is absolutely zero checking process on this, because how can there be really? All it takes is for someone to take an hour or two to prepare a convincing activity schedule each week, and they are basically fine. The people working in the job centres spend so much time dealing with complete ****wits, that when they get someone who has actually filled out an impressive sounding list that is basically a happy day for them and they have absolutely no interest in digging deeper generally.
As for people's 'circumstances', there are plenty of decent hardworking people struggling to find jobs, but there are also a massive amount of complete ****ing idiots who couldn't find their asses with both hands. People who repeatedly manage to miss their one Jobseeker appointment each week for a variety of incredibly stupid reasons, people who write CV's that look like a retarded monkey basically spewed on a piece of paper, and people who are rude and obnoxious and completely self entitled towards prospective employers and then whine about how they can't find a job because of the 'foreigners'.
i know right, it's disgusting, people being treated like adults and taken at their word, instead of like naughty children. and there are even people that don't know their place and won't get down on bended knee and doff their caps to a prospective explo...sorry, employer. they need sanctions, hard work, a stern hand and a good kick up the you know where; that'll sort 'em out, well that and the threat of starvation...
but leaving your 'outraged of tumbridge wells' impression to one side, let's look at some facts. firstly unemployment benefit is a very small part of total social protection spending:
most social protection spending is on pensioners or those in work, subsidising employers paying poverty wages and grasping landlords. here are some housing benefit figures:
the other point is that unemployment, except in a very small number of cases (there are fewer than 5,000 people who have been unemployed for than 5 years), is to do with the economy; if there are no jobs, then people can't work. yet despite this, and the relatively tiny amount spent on unemployment, you seek to focus a lot of invective on the unemployed - i wonder why - could it perhaps have something to do with the toxic environment created around them?"The Christian way has not been tried and found wanting, it has been found to be hard and left untried" - GK Chesterton.
"The most obvious predicition about the future is that it will be mostly like the past" - Alain de Botton
Comment
-
Originally posted by Hauldren Collider View PostYou suck at math.
EDIT: Alright, I'll elaborate. You pay more taxes when you make more money. Raising taxes is therefore a disincentive to work, not an incentive.
Comment
Comment