Thread: Social harm from policies Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=028929
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
http://phys.org/news/2015-03-british-society-citizens.html
Liberal societies such as the UK, US and Australia are among the most harmful to their citizens, according to new research... austerity programmes ... are likely to increase the 'social harms' experienced by people...
I would include Canada in the list.
I have been thinking of this as my children have lived and worked in other countries with different polices. Also, we have been seeing the erosion of social programs in Canada over my lifetime such that eye care, dental, prescription drugs, most non-doctor health care are all de-insured now and user pay (with some variation among provinces).
Child daycare for working parents is generally whomever and where ever this can be found, often with high cost and stress to parents. Post-secondary education tuition rates are similarly atrociously expensive.
Oddly, it seems that corporations have little difficulty in extracting money from governments, whether it is to finance a business venture or to bail out their debts.
Do you see government policies and societal structure as as increasing social harm?
Posted by Grammatica (# 13248) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Do you see government policies and societal structure as as increasing social harm?
The thread on food banks is full of examples of (neo-liberal / ) government policies causing social harm to the unemployed, elderly and those in need of care.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
There is an elephant in the room in many countries with 'social care' programmes: gradually over the years many items have been added to the benefits available to those 'in need' with little, if any, thought being given either to whether the 'need' is a good or genuine one, or if it something that society should be providing, or even if it is fulfilling it is likely to cause harm in the long-term.
That is without the other thing that is rarely, if ever, discussed: the problem of affordability.
There is a blithe assumption among some (mainly on the left) that anyone who questions whether or not the provision of a benefit is either good or affordable is automatically some sort of neo-fascist - this dovetails perfectly with the (again, mainly of the let) viewpoint that everyone who is in receipt of benefit is obviously in real, genuine need and that society owes it to them to pay for everything they want.
Meanwhile the equivalent on the right it has finally come to be believed by some that everyone on benefits of any kind is a malingerer or work-shy scrounger who should be provided with the bare minimum, and that grudgingly.
The UK is the classic example of this and the sacred cows are the NHS and Welfare.
For myself, I'm almost past caring but for my children's generation I worry that the burdens being put on them are way beyond affordable and I wouldn't blame them if they decided to up-sticks and move to a country where there is more balance in the provision of healthcare and benefits - or at least where honest, nuanced debate can take place without name-calling.
And listening to my children and their friends speak, it is clear that as the first year to leave university with a guaranteed £27,000 of tuition fee debt, plus more than £30,000 of debt for accommodation and living expenses, they are far more likely to question the provision of benefits to people without scrutiny or means-testing, and definitely to see leaving the country as a reasonable way of making their way in the world.
There is a crisis looming over welfare and health spending and the longer we ignore it the worse it is going to get.
Rather than bitching about party leaders having pre-election shouting matches (sorry - TV 'debates') we should be demanding that there is a referendum on the NHS and welfare straight after the election.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
I think we make the system unnecessarrilly complicated by attempts to use the benefits system as a badly designed psychological implement.
It would be better to pay everyone a minimum income from six months pre birth, age adjusted then standard from 18 and then simply tax total income including this.
Maybe with a health premium for those with disabilities that raise their living costs.
You would lose all your enforcement costs etc. and just have a tax compliance system. You wouldn't need to set and review the minimum wage. Everyone would have a stake in the system (the problem with means testing is partly the disengagement of the wealthy) and a clear idea of what actually happen rather than tabloid scare stories.
In fact everyone in the UK has the choice not work, if you really don't wantto you'd just tattoo something offensive on your face and no one will ever hire you. The reasons people don't work are rarely to do with thinking living off benefits is aspirational.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
There is a blithe assumption among some (mainly on the left) that anyone who questions whether or not the provision of a benefit is either good or affordable is automatically some sort of neo-fascist
I have no problems with such a debate so long as it compares like for like. Generally fraudulent benefit claims cost a tiny fraction of fraud more generally.
Similarly arguments about the NHS. We spend less as a percentage of GDP than the US does - so you can choose not to fund medical care out of general taxation - so people shouldn't pretend that privatisation of health care would automatically be cheaper.
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
I would hardly classify the U.S. as a liberal country.
While we have had liberal or progressive swings in the past, by and large the U.S. is a reactionary country, that moves out of fear rather than hope.
Thus we have programs that may appear liberal but are far from liberal.
Our Social Security system is not sufficient enough for the elderly to live on.
Our health care system depends too heavily on the private insurance companies--who are there to make a profit at the expense of the little guy.
Our educational system has caused over $1 Trillion in individual debt.
The welfare system is quite limited as well--there is a point where a person feels damned if they have to be on it, but they also feel damned once they come off it too.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
I would hardly classify the U.S. as a liberal country.
Our health care system depends too heavily on the private insurance companies--who are there to make a profit at the expense of the little guy.
And we have yet to de-couple health care from employment, so that one's very life is to a large degree tied to the whims of your employer.
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
Originally posted by L'organist:
quote:
And listening to my children and their friends speak, it is clear that as the first year to leave university with a guaranteed £27,000 of tuition fee debt, plus more than £30,000 of debt for accommodation and living expenses, they are far more likely to question the provision of benefits to people without scrutiny or means-testing, and definitely to see leaving the country as a reasonable way of making their way in the world.
We're in Scotland, so my children, both at University, don't have tuition fees. Plus the cost of living is lower, and so they won't be graduating with £30,000 worth of living expenses debt either. I can imagine that the prospect of our children carrying that level of debt would have a huge impact on our, and their, political views.
However, one of the advantages of a state comprehensive education system is that our children went to school with those being raised on benefits, and so they don't become "the other."
What horrifies us is the possibility that the next generation might be landed with the £100 billion cost of Trident renewal.
£100 billion.
Surely if the government has a "sacred cow" it's not welfare or the NHS, but maintaining a nuclear weapons system?
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
The question most of ask down here, is how the Scottish government, with the same tax revenues, can provide its citizens with so much of a better deal, than ours does? There are only two obvious explanations. Either it's much more efficient and competent than ours, or it's getting more than its share out of the pot and the rest of us are subsidising Scottish students at the expense of our own children and Scottish old people at the expense of our own.
Both explanations are very believable, but it would improve the quality of debate if someone would give a clear and honest answer which it is.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
It's the second, Enoch.
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
The "free personal care" for old people was introduced to reduce the cost to the Scottish NHS of old people "bed-blocking" expensive NHS beds when they were not really ill. It made sound financial sense at the time, and it wouldn't make financial sense to remove it, if it simply put an additional burden on the NHS.
Also, it's only "free personal care" not full costs; care home fees are as cripplingly expensive in Scotland as they are in England.
Scotland allocates more of its income to health, welfare and education than to infrastructure. I've been driving for 30 years and have rarely driven on a motorway; the nearest one is 100 miles away. My nearest city, Aberdeen, has a population of over 200,000, with a further 200,000 in its commuter belt. It is not connected by a motorway to anywhere. The A90 south is dual carriageway, but the other main roads are either single carriageway or only dualled in sections.
The cost of something like HS2 is many billions.
Personally, I'd rather have no University tuition fees and my children graduating with no, or low, debts than high speed rail, and I suspect that when the Scottish government divvies up it's spending, views like mine are reflected in its budgeting.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
posted by North East Quine quote:
We're in Scotland, so my children, both at University, don't have tuition fees. Plus the cost of living is lower, and so they won't be graduating with £30,000 worth of living expenses debt either. I can imagine that the prospect of our children carrying that level of debt would have a huge impact on our, and their, political views.
However, one of the advantages of a state comprehensive education system is that our children went to school with those being raised on benefits, and so they don't become "the other."
My children went to a comprehensive school, they were in classes with children being raised on benefits. Why do you imply they view people on benefits as "the other"? Don't look now but your prejudices are showing!
The Scottish Parliament doesn't have to stretch its funds to cover defence or pensions, plus it is allocated a much higher per capita sum for people living in Scotland than for those in England. (And the English figures are the most likely to be understated in the census since the vast majority of illegal immigrants live in the south east of England, it being easier to 'lose' oneself in a large centre of population than, say, a small highland village.)
So be as snide as you like about Trident because you won't be paying for it - but if it is cancelled don't start whining about the job losses in Faslane and RNAD Coulport.
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
Enoch, forgive me if I don't know what I'm talking about here, because I've never been to Bristol. But google tells me the population is 437,000 and I think that equates to Aberdeen's population of 200,000 + 200,000. Google maps suggests you have a motorway, the M32, plus other A roads and a plethora of railway lines. Aberdeen has one single-track railway going north west, and one dual railway line going south. And that's it.
Bristol appears to be awash with the sort of transport infrastructure I can only dream about.
I could rephrase your question as:
The question most of ask up here, is how the English government, with the same tax revenues, can provide its citizens with so much of a better deal, than ours does? There are only two obvious explanations. Either it's much more efficient and competent than ours, or it's getting more than its share out of the pot and the rest of us are subsidising English infrastructure projects at the expense of our own infrastructure projects.
I suspect a lot of the answer is that you need that sort of infrastructure because the population density over the southern half of England is so much greater than ours, and it soaks up a lot of tax revenue.
I would love to have your railway connections. But not as much as I love having no University tuition fees.
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
Originally posted by L'organist:
quote:
So be as snide as you like about Trident because you won't be paying for it
Defence isn't devolved, so Scottish taxpayers will be paying for it, as UK taxpayers.
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
What horrifies us is the possibility that the next generation might be landed with the £100 billion cost of Trident renewal.
£100 billion.
It cost about £133 billion to prop up the banks when corrupt bankers trashed the system - most of which they're unlikely ever to repay.
Just sayin', as the saying goes.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
And being gentlmanly in not pointing out the role that Scottish banks (and bankers) had in the UK's own share of the 2008 madness.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Half the problem is that some kinds of 'costs' are easily quantifiable and some can be shoved away in the corner because they're harder to quantify or are further down the track.
There's been some discussion on this on the thread about people being forced to move out of London - disruption of family networks actually creates more people who need assistance further down the track.
And benefits can get missed as well. Utah is finding that housing the homeless actually saves money overall. Here in Australia, granting equal treatment to same-sex couples actually saved the government money.
Some years ago I saw a broadcast of a truly fascinating talk, about trying to put a monetary value on the environment so that it got taken into account when decisions were being made. The case study I remember had to do with a proposed factory of some sort, in Thailand I think, that was going to affect a mangrove swamp. This many jobs! This much money flowing into the economy!
It looked good until they calculated the cost of putting the mangrove back the way it was, 20-25 years down the track once the factory closed down. Suddenly, the project profit turned into a net loss.
If we want to stop the social costs of policies, we need to demand that the social costs are properly measured and taken into account when the policy is proposed in the first place.
For all people know, the Scottish system might initially cost more but create a net benefit to society in the long-term, with citizens who have more money to put into the economy, better health and less need to access government support down the track. Maybe it's an investment.
[ 23. March 2015, 11:46: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
NEQ: quote:
The question most of ask up here, is how the English government, with the same tax revenues, can provide its citizens with so much of a better deal, than ours does? There are only two obvious explanations. Either it's much more efficient and competent than ours, or it's getting more than its share out of the pot and the rest of us are subsidising English infrastructure projects at the expense of our own infrastructure projects.
It's the second option, but as infrastructure projects are funded according to whether (some) people in London think they are a good idea many English taxpayers are getting less than their fair share of infrastructure funding too. And we don't even have the consolation of no tuition fees and free social care to cheer us.
Oh, and what Orfeo said.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
Except even Sky accepts there is not always a net subsidy to Scotland.
[ 23. March 2015, 12:14: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
The question most of ask down here, is how the Scottish government, with the same tax revenues, can provide its citizens with so much of a better deal, than ours does? There are only two obvious explanations. Either it's much more efficient and competent than ours, or it's getting more than its share out of the pot and the rest of us are subsidising Scottish students at the expense of our own children and Scottish old people at the expense of our own.
Both explanations are very believable, but it would improve the quality of debate if someone would give a clear and honest answer which it is.
You also have to factor in tax contributions made by each region; and my memory is that Scotland pays in more than some other regions. This came up in the referendum debates, under the heading of 'Scottish subsidy junkies'. I don't know whether it's still true with the fall in oil revenues.
Ah, see Doublethink's post above.
[ 23. March 2015, 12:31: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
You also have to factor in tax contributions made by each region; and my memory is that Scotland pays in more than some other regions. This came up in the referendum debates, under the heading of 'Scottish subsidy junkies'. I don't know whether it's still true with the fall in oil revenues.
Ah, see Doublethink's post above.
Relevant to other debates, yes, but on this particular one, no. Not only do you not have to factor in relative tax receipts. Doing so actually muddies the waters and enables English politicians to sidle out of the challenging implication that they aren't doing a very good job running the English part of the union rather than poncing around doing foreign affairs, etc. That's because this argument is only about the spending side, not the supply side.
The pot isn't divided according to the supply side, and isn't at the moment supposed to be. Whether one agrees with that, or not, it demonstrates very clearly the stark fact that either the Scots get a disproportionate amount from the pot to play around with, or they manage what they have got a lot better, or both.
I can sort of partly get NEQ's point about Aberdeen's infrastructure as compared with Bristol, but the infrastructure she's talking about here was largely put in decades before devolution. It's also some years since I was last in Aberdeen, but I got the impression that traffic flowed a lot better there than it does here.
I find it hard to imagine any UK city whose public transport is worse or more expensive than ours is.
We were supposed to be getting a tram system in 1986. It's never happened. Even the proposal has now been degraded to a slightly fancified bus - and that hasn't happened either.
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
Enoch, I haven't been to Bristol and you have been to Aberdeen, so your points are more valid than mine. However, I do offer as evidence the glory that is the Haudagain roundabout.
Dualling the railway, so that trains could go in - gasp - both directions at the same time, rather than sitting in the station for 15 minutes when travelling south, waiting for the north bound train to get its turn of the track would help enormously.
Posted by tomsk (# 15370) on
:
Orfeo: isn't there a problem with monetising everything? Harmful things can be justified on some cost analysis, I expect it's fairly easy to manipulate the levers of these, and also future benefits are probably not something we actually currently miss (e.g. Aberdeen seems to be surviving without all these road and rail links).
Posted by Teilhard (# 16342) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
I would hardly classify the U.S. as a liberal country.
Our health care system depends too heavily on the private insurance companies--who are there to make a profit at the expense of the little guy.
And we have yet to de-couple health care from employment, so that one's very life is to a large degree tied to the whims of your employer.
If we Americans ever get seriously serious about "health care," we will become more proactive about it, trying to help people become and remain healthier …
A terrific way to do that would be to institute economic supports encouraging/allowing people to eat more fresh fruits and vegetables, to wean ourselves off of the big pharma industry, to provide more effective mental health supports and treatment, to ensure adequate decent housing and so on ...
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by tomsk:
Orfeo: isn't there a problem with monetising everything? Harmful things can be justified on some cost analysis, I expect it's fairly easy to manipulate the levers of these, and also future benefits are probably not something we actually currently miss (e.g. Aberdeen seems to be surviving without all these road and rail links).
I don't understand what you mean by saying that harmful things can be justified on cost analysis. My whole point is that harmful things are, by definition, debts against the ledger, and that these debts are often ignored at the moment so that it looks like a policy will create an overall 'profit' when in fact it won't.
(And I'm also saying the reverse: that some things don't happen because the costs are easy to quantify, but the true benefits that would make the policy an overall net gain aren't properly considered.)
But if what you're saying is that some negatives can be justified on the grounds that they are outweighed by positives, all I'd say is that absolutely everything that anyone does is likely to have both positive and negative effects.
[ 23. March 2015, 20:55: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
If there's a problem with measuring things it is that of choosing what to measure, and having chosen what to measure, selecting and processing the data so that executives can make decisions on the basis of that information.
In the world of business, these can be selected on the basis of profit, quite successfully too, but in the public sector it is a matter of satisfying voter expectations, which have bugger all to do with economic efficiency or effectiveness. It's all a matter of presentation.
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
If there's a problem with measuring things it is that of choosing what to measure, and having chosen what to measure, selecting and processing the data so that executives can make decisions on the basis of that information.
In the world of business, these can be selected on the basis of profit, quite successfully too, but in the public sector it is a matter of satisfying voter expectations, which have bugger all to do with economic efficiency or effectiveness. It's all a matter of presentation.
This.
There's also no consensus about "social harm" and "social benefit." Take US TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families), or what used to be called "welfare" or so-called anti-poverty programs here.
The whole system pits individual against community. What's "good" for "individual taxpayer" is seen to "hurt" beneficiaries; what's "good" for "beneficiaries" is seen to hurt the individual taxpayer.
My parents used to point out -- despite being Reagan Republicans -- how good "we all had it in the 50s." They failed to notice the many who didn't, yes -- but they also failed to notice that when the middle class is reasonably secure & prosperous, a larger proportion of society as a whole is generally also better off.
It's bosh to label these with such terms. No one who is actually living by the rules on TANF is not poor. TANF doesn't relieve poverty; TANF regulates and maintains the poverty of those who have become sufficiently destitute, through the usual assorted combinations of lousy luck, lousy choices, lousy behavior and lousy life-management to become eligible. The same is true of many other so-called anti-poverty programs.
As noted above, the regulation and oversight involved make such programs expensive to run, such that the costs of "help" actually reduce the "help" available.
We're also weighed down with tons of mythical baggage about the what poverty is and how it's caused.
[ 24. March 2015, 14:21: Message edited by: Porridge ]
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
In the UK one of our biggest problems is that the founders of our Welfare State assumed that everyone else - then and in following generations - would share their rather high-minded upper-middle-class principles. In other words, all would want to work; all would see the point of thrift; all would be able to budget; all would be prepared to delay gratification, sometimes for ever.
Although some of that has changed, there is still a belief that to criticise anyone in receipt of benefits is akin to being a flat-earther - or, if the person is perceived to be 'posh', a fascist.
What Mr Beveridge ignored was that if the financial gain of working in a mundane job was very little more, if at all, than could be obtained from 'the social' then there would be people smart enough to decide to stay at home.
Beveridge also assumed that there'd always be nearly full employment ever after, so there would be a continuing demand for workers with few, if any skills.
From another angle: it became received wisdom in the UK that encouraging teenaged single mothers to live on their own with their baby was being supportive - instead of seeing that many lacked the skills the cope and, more fundamentally, refusing to see that a teenager doesn't cease to be a teenager by the acquisition of a child. Social workers and others were then astonished when some went on to have more children without the support of a permanent relationship.
Rather than blaming the young mothers, we should acknowledge how fortunate we've been that our lack of care and concern has caused so few problems and do our utmost to put right the more glaring insanities in 'the system'.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
In the UK one of our biggest problems is that the founders of our Welfare State assumed that everyone else - then and in following generations - would share their rather high-minded upper-middle-class principles. In other words, all would want to work; all would see the point of thrift; all would be able to budget; all would be prepared to delay gratification, sometimes for ever.
...
These are certainly principles associated with high-minded upper-middle-class people like Beveridge and TH Marshall. But they are also 'respectable working class' principles and the decline and marginalisation of that class is one of our great losses as a society over the past 70 years.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
I don't think they were, or are, bad principles - far from it. And they are the same principles that were shared by many - most - of the founders of the Labour Party, which makes their strident barracking of anyone who chooses to cite them now as being a 'snob' so bizarre.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Precisely. I think the 'Blue Labour' people understand how important these principles are- and look at the flak they get from some of the middle class post-materialists on the Left.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
In the UK one of our biggest problems is that the founders of our Welfare State assumed that everyone else - then and in following generations - would share their rather high-minded upper-middle-class principles. In other words, all would want to work; all would see the point of thrift; all would be able to budget; all would be prepared to delay gratification, sometimes for ever.
...
These are certainly principles associated with high-minded upper-middle-class people like Beveridge and TH Marshall. But they are also 'respectable working class' principles and the decline and marginalisation of that class is one of our great losses as a society over the past 70 years.
Yes, I think that quite a lot of modern political developments can be ascribed to the hollowing out of the traditional working class, e.g. the shift to the right of the Labour party, the partial fragmentation of voting, the rise of UKIP, SNP, etc.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, I think that quite a lot of modern political developments can be ascribed to the hollowing out of the traditional working class, e.g. the shift to the right of the Labour party, the partial fragmentation of voting, the rise of UKIP, SNP, etc.
I would suggest the demise of the trade union movement has also contributed to the decline of the working class. Some of the responsibility for that can be put on those who politicised the unions and furthered their own careers at the expense of their members, but the deliberate weakening of the unions has reduced social inclusiveness.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Hmm - define "want to work" - if I inherited a couple of million I'd not want to. On the other hand, I prefer to work than subsist on the pittance I'd get on the dole.
Delaying gratification for ever is not delaying gratification - it's abandoning hope of it. If I thought that gratification would never come, what would be the point of delaying it? Take the tenner today, if the thousand will never actually happen.
And I think this is the problem. There is a lack of hope, unfortunately often well-founded. Bright, resourceful etc. people may be able to escape, but not everyone is bright and resourceful. Is it a moral failing not to be lucky enough to be those things?
[ 25. March 2015, 12:21: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, I think that quite a lot of modern political developments can be ascribed to the hollowing out of the traditional working class, e.g. the shift to the right of the Labour party, the partial fragmentation of voting, the rise of UKIP, SNP, etc.
I would suggest the demise of the trade union movement has also contributed to the decline of the working class. Some of the responsibility for that can be put on those who politicised the unions and furthered their own careers at the expense of their members, but the deliberate weakening of the unions has reduced social inclusiveness.
The two processes have gone hand in hand: the decline in heavy industry, and the weakening of the unions. My dad worked in an engineering factory, that was so big that guys used to cycle round it, but along came globalization, and the firm moved to Korea. And the union lost thousands of members, and the local area was fragmented. It's progress!
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
There are two ways of making work more attractive than benefits, one is to make benefits intolerable - the other is to make work attractive. I don't see we need always choose the former, I think this misunderstands the psychology of the vast majority of people and the reasons why those who can't hold down jobs don't. It also stops employers adapting to attract workers who don't suit current arrangements.
For example, there are people who are crap at regular hours, but productive. If they are bright there are all sorts of jobs they do successfully, because flexitime is a thing if you are not employed in shift work or retail. If you have an effective way to log hours, you can employ them on the basis of - complete x hours per week I don't care when. IT have started doing this, other industries are slow to follow.
Paying benefits to working people means we are in fact subsidising employers. And housing benefit subsidises lamdlords. These might be reasonable choices, but they can't really be debated if we disguise the issue as beinga bout benefits.
If the minimum wage is not attractive enough for people to do minimum wage jobs / or they can't actually live off that work without assistance, then those jobs need better pay, better conditions or both. If employers can't afford / customers won't pay that, then we need to consider if those industires should be subsidised - as we choose to do with farming, railways and nuclear power. There is a strong argument for this in the care industry, the subsidy could be conditional on the pay and conditions of the workforce. Likewise landlords could be subsidised for what percentage of their properties were rent controlled.
Currently carers are often signed out of the european working time directive on 0 hours contracts and functionally earning less than the minimum wage because travel time is unpaid. Their managers are also frequently working way too many hours and on permenant call. This means all the staff, who are working ridiculous hours anyway, are on benefits because they can't live on what they earn and the quality of care suffers because they are exhausted and staff turnover is high. This is not caused by lack of a work ethic.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
...I would suggest the demise of the trade union movement has also contributed to the decline of the working class. Some of the responsibility for that can be put on those who politicised the unions and furthered their own careers at the expense of their members, but the deliberate weakening of the unions has reduced social inclusiveness.
I'm not sure the problem was so much union officers furthering their own careers, as the inability in the late 60 and early 70s to move from a narrow model of defending and advancing members' own immediate interests, to a social partnership model on German or Swedish lines. (I believe that George Woodcock, as Gen Sec of the TUC, tried to get the unions to change, and was very frustrated that they would not do so.)That really set them up for a loss of wider public support and then marginalisation.
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
Originally posted by l'organist:
quote:
From another angle: it became received wisdom in the UK that encouraging teenaged single mothers to live on their own with their baby was being supportive - instead of seeing that many lacked the skills the cope and, more fundamentally, refusing to see that a teenager doesn't cease to be a teenager by the acquisition of a child. Social workers and others were then astonished when some went on to have more children without the support of a permanent relationship.
What do you suggest should happen?
ISTM that there is no ideal solution to this situation. Encouraging teenagers to live alone with their babies is not good, but the track record of the preceding mother and baby homes was worse.
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
This is a bit of a tangent, but I've been researching one poor family in my parish, using church discipline records, the poor roll, and the registers of baptisms / births etc.
AM married in 1810, had one child and was widowed in 1813. She and her child went onto the Poor Roll in 1814. She then had four illegitimate children, apparently by four different fathers. At least one (in 1820) was a one night stand. Two of the children died.
The family came off the Poor Roll briefly when her son started working and could support them, but this was shortlived. He got his girlfriend pregnant, married her, and was thereafter only barely managing to stay off the Poor Roll himself, as he and his wife had 14 children.
AM and her surviving two daughters went back onto the Poor Roll after her son's marriage. The elder daughter then had three illegitimate children (by the same father) who were all on the Poor Roll. She then married the father but the whole family were on and off the Poor Roll.
One of their sons was handicapped and was on the Poor Roll in the 1870s.
Then the second daughter also had an illegitimate child who was supported - you've guessed it! - on the Poor Roll.
There were only a scattered few years between 1814 and 1878 in which this family - four generations in total - weren't reliant on the Poor Roll.
My best guess was that it would have been almost impossible for the daughters to have attracted a respectable husband, given the family reputation - and this condemned them to a life of poverty and tied them into a cycle of producing more illegitimate children themselves.
Perhaps we've solved one problem, in that the sins of the mother aren't visited upon the daughters any more, but in doing so, created others?
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
That depressing story illustrates a situation that has been with us since the days of Cain and Abel and isn't going away in a hurry.
I'm not sure we've solved or created and problems. We have changed the consequences, but there are still consequences and they are more damaging for women than for men, who can and do still run away (it used to be a substantial source of recruits for the army and navy).
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
There are two ways of making work more attractive than benefits, one is to make benefits intolerable - the other is to make work attractive. I don't see we need always choose the former, I think this misunderstands the psychology of the vast majority of people and the reasons why those who can't hold down jobs don't.
Yup. This.
There is in fact plenty of research that demonstrates that threatening people with negative consequences tends to achieve worse results than encouraging people with positive consequences.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
And indeed Lawrence Mead-often portrayed, not least by those who invoke him in support of their own ideas, rather simplisticcally as a stick rather than carrot man- has said that if not enough people are taking jobs, maybe it means that you need to raise the minimum wage.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0