|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: London Riots - The Root Cause
|
Ramarius
Shipmate
# 16551
|
Posted
Guess there's a variety of reasons people don't work. There's the individual stuff about people who simply don't want to and such people do exist. But agree these are a minority. There's the issue of people in their 50s who loose jobs and can'tbgetvre-employed partly because of ageism amongst employers, and partly because they don't have the job seeking skills you need for a modern workforce. More enlightened employers realise the benefits of older workers (more reliable, less time off sick) but getting a compelling application in the first place is an issue.
And then there are whole communities where no-one in the community has had a paid job for years. Yes, they do exist. It's a culture of wordlessness where people have got used to living to a certain standard of living because that's all they know.
So it's a complex issue in need of a multi-faceted approach to resolve, with different approaches for different communities.
And did I mention the benefit trap? Hats off to IDS facing up to this one and saying the basis of any benefits system is that work has to pay. Making work will be easier said than done, but it's an honest and principled approach.
--------------------
'
Posts: 950 | From: Virtually anywhere | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Indeed, Ramarius, I'd never vote Tory but I do have some time for Ian Duncan Smith and the more old-fashioned, Kenneth Clarke style Tories ...
What I don't like, though, is when people like Beeswax Altar pontificate about life over here when they haven't the first idea of what they're talking about and are relying on second-hand reports at best. The same goes for me when I comment on anything Stateside.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ramarius
Shipmate
# 16551
|
Posted
Hmmm - does 'pontificating' make you a potential candidate to become a pontif......? ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
'
Posts: 950 | From: Virtually anywhere | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
BA you are completel;y missing the point.
If benefits, "decent" or otherwise, were the cause of unemployment, how come unemployment goes up when benefits go down? You would think it was the other way round.
And how come countries with more generous unemployment benefits - such as Germany and the Scandinavian countries - do not have worse emplyment problems than the UK?
And how come some countries with *less* generous unemplyment benefits - such as Ireland, Spain, Greece - DO have worse employment problems than the UK?
Where is the evidence?
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Indeed, Ramarius, I'd never vote Tory but I do have some time for Ian Duncan Smith and the more old-fashioned, Kenneth Clarke style Tories ...
What I don't like, though, is when people like Beeswax Altar pontificate about life over here when they haven't the first idea of what they're talking about and are relying on second-hand reports at best. The same goes for me when I comment on anything Stateside.
We are two peas in a pod aren't we? ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
What do we think of Australia? ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
la vie en rouge
Parisienne
# 10688
|
Posted
A few weeks back when I was at my parents' place there was a program on the BBC called "Geordie finishing school". Basically they got four very, very wealthy "posh girls" from West London (including one who had *never worked* a day in her life because "my father has made provision for me" ![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif) ) and took them to spend a week or two living on the equivalent of income support on some of the roughest estates in Newcastle-upon-Tyne, accompanied by four local Geordie girls. Of the Geordie girls, I think most of them were working for the minimum wage. IIRC, just one (a single mum) didn't have a job and was on benefits. She sounded very depressed about it - she wanted to get a job to show her children that you should work hard to pay your own way but she just couldn't get a job. I don't think she was looking for anything very spectacular - she'd sent her CV to all the shops and the like but no one wanted to employ her.
The posh girls quickly found out that income support doesn't go a long way. They had to go the market and budget very carefully just to be able to buy enough food for the week. There was more or less no money left over for anything else. (On the Saturday afternoon, they went for Geordie entertainment - watching the Newcastle United match in the pub. They wanted to buy United shirts and had to have it pointed out to them that this would burn most of the week's grocery money. I think this was a new experience for them - wanting something and not having the money to buy it.) I think most people who pontificate about scroungers sponging off the welfare state have never tried to do it. On income support = poor.
I think a lot of the talk about welfare state scroungers is about wanting to feel superior to the chavs. I had far more respect for the attitude of the girl on benefits than the one who was living at her father's expense. The girl on benefits didn't just want to get a job so she could pay the bills. She wanted to pay her own way and not feel like she was getting something for nothing. OTOH the posh girl living off the fat of her Daddy didn't have that attitude at all. For her, to work would only have been a way of getting money, nothing to do with having a feeling of self-respect because she was paying her way by her own efforts. Nonetheless society calls the first one a lazy scrounger and doesn't judge the second one at all most of the time. Granted society isn't bankrolling the second one, but it doesn't alter the fact that she was much, much lazier.
--------------------
Rent my holiday home in the South of France
Posts: 3696 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Well, Beeswax, as someone who has teased US posters here in the past and who has pontificated about aspects of American polity and politics without first trying to understand the context, I've been trying to be a reformed character.
I still tease, but I no longer post so many comments about US gun-laws for instance (whilst remaining somewhat non-plussed about them).
You are perfectly entitled to be non-plussed about our Welfare State, of course, whilst we remain puzzled as to why it isn't the envy of the world and why right-wing Republicans feel so threatened and appalled by what appear, to us, to be moderate health reforms over there. We might all be missing something ...
As for Australia. Well, I have friends and relatives there and lived there myself for two years as a young '£10 Pom' - we were there from 1964 to 1966.
I don't feel qualified to comment on their political system. I will take the mickey out of them though, when occasion demands ...
In terms of their views and comments about us. I can't say whether they are more accurate than those we hear from your direction. I was pleased to read an Aussie poster earlier stating that the news coverage there had moved on from the initial 'racial' aspect - and I can understand, how after the Tottenham riots, they might have got that impression initially. But subsequent coverage in Oz seems to have been broader.
As far as the US goes, we have no problems with comments that come from New York or the West Coast. Anywhere in the middle is out of bounds ... ![[Biased]](wink.gif) ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
I jest of course.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
On the 'scroungers' thing. Jobseekers' Allowance isn't that generous and is meant to be a safety net. Where the problems start is where there is benefit fraud - and there have been highly publicised incidences like the woman who did a charity parachute jump despite claiming Incapacity Benefit and the bloke in Swansea who claimed Incapacity whilst moonlighting as a soccer referee.
They were clobbered and fined heavily.
Also, there are fringe benefits that those in the know can claim. I've heard of people who would need to earn at least £40K between them to match what they've been picking up from benefits in kind ... but these instances are very rare, I would suggest.
The Daily Wail is always in righteous indignation about single mums with millions of kids who are claiming thousands of pounds in benefits.
These things grab headlines and provide a convenient stick for right-wing Republicans in the US to beat the UK and justify the staggering inequalities that exist in that country (as in any capitalist system).
Sure, we need to tackle the 'dependency culture' and so on but as has been said, some of the rioters had jobs, some were students, some were known and hardened criminals. As I keep saying over and over, there isn't any one single cause, it's an amalgamation of all kinds of issues and those who're posting from overseas and criticising UK institutions and polity ought to take the plank out of their own eye first.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
aumbry
Shipmate
# 436
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
BA you are completel;y missing the point.
If benefits, "decent" or otherwise, were the cause of unemployment, how come unemployment goes up when benefits go down? You would think it was the other way round.
And how come countries with more generous unemployment benefits - such as Germany and the Scandinavian countries - do not have worse emplyment problems than the UK?
And how come some countries with *less* generous unemplyment benefits - such as Ireland, Spain, Greece - DO have worse employment problems than the UK?
Where is the evidence?
Germany has for many years had worse unemployment rates than Britain and unemplyment benefits in Ireland are much better than in Britain (to take just two).
Unemployment correlates better with the ease of hiring and firing labour. Generally countries where it is difficult or expensive to make redundancies have higher levels of unemployment.
Recent data has shown that the British economy has been good at creating jobs but due to the free movement of Labour within the EU the pool of labour has grown even faster - to the extent that 2 out of 3 new jobs has been taken by non-British workers. The trouble is it would appear that the home-grown unemployed are not capable of competing with the imported labour or are not sufficiently motivated.
Posts: 3869 | From: Quedlinburg | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
The Guardian is compiling statistics on rioters.
91% of 'rioters' were unemployed.
And from this article:
quote:
He found that the majority of people who have appeared in court live in poor neighbourhoods, with 41% of suspects living in one of the top 10% of most deprived places in the country. The data also shows that 66% of neighbourhoods where the accused live got poorer between 2007 and 2010.
The first sentence seems to me of the type Pope uses toilet in the Vatican and bears have no religious affiliation. If anything, I'm surprised less than half came from the 10% of most deprived areas. The second statistic is more interesting.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
An die Freude
Shipmate
# 14794
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
The Guardian is compiling statistics on rioters.
91% of 'rioters' were unemployed.
And from this article:
quote:
He found that the majority of people who have appeared in court live in poor neighbourhoods, with 41% of suspects living in one of the top 10% of most deprived places in the country. The data also shows that 66% of neighbourhoods where the accused live got poorer between 2007 and 2010.
The first sentence seems to me of the type Pope uses toilet in the Vatican and bears have no religious affiliation. If anything, I'm surprised less than half came from the 10% of most deprived areas. The second statistic is more interesting.
Considering the general economic situation in Europe in general and the UK in particular, how many areas at all in the UK got richer between 2007 and 2010?
--------------------
"I too am not a bit tamed, I too am untranslatable."
Walt Whitman
Formerly JFH
Posts: 851 | From: Proud Socialist Monarchy of Sweden | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Fair enopugh, Dafyd.
I'll withdraw my earlier comment relating to unemployment. Or perhaps it should be big-city unemployment?
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
For her, to work would only have been a way of getting money, nothing to do with having a feeling of self-respect because she was paying her way by her own efforts.
I think that applies to an awful lot of people who have jobs. It certainly applies to me. If I won millions on the lottery I'd never set foot in the office again. I doubt I'd even bother going in to resign.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
BA you are completel;y missing the point.
If benefits, "decent" or otherwise, were the cause of unemployment, how come unemployment goes up when benefits go down? You would think it was the other way round.
And how come countries with more generous unemployment benefits - such as Germany and the Scandinavian countries - do not have worse emplyment problems than the UK?
And how come some countries with *less* generous unemplyment benefits - such as Ireland, Spain, Greece - DO have worse employment problems than the UK?
Where is the evidence?
Germany has for many years had worse unemployment rates than Britain and unemplyment benefits in Ireland are much better than in Britain (to take just two).
Unemployment correlates better with the ease of hiring and firing labour. Generally countries where it is difficult or expensive to make redundancies have higher levels of unemployment.
Recent data has shown that the British economy has been good at creating jobs but due to the free movement of Labour within the EU the pool of labour has grown even faster - to the extent that 2 out of 3 new jobs has been taken by non-British workers. The trouble is it would appear that the home-grown unemployed are not capable of competing with the imported labour or are not sufficiently motivated.
Show the recent data then! I can't be the only one on the Ship who is sick and tired of your assertions, on this and other threads, that are not backed up by evidence. Is it something you heard from einer Mann in der Bierkellar?
You're welcome to your opinions, but in the absence of evidence, even you don't need to be told how worthless they are.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alwyn
Shipmate
# 4380
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
[...] Recent data has shown that the British economy has been good at creating jobs but due to the free movement of Labour within the EU the pool of labour has grown even faster - to the extent that 2 out of 3 new jobs has been taken by non-British workers.
Some call this sort of thing "recent data", others call it "selective statistics [that] are highly misleading". YMMV.
--------------------
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc
Posts: 849 | From: UK | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
la vie en rouge
Parisienne
# 10688
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
For her, to work would only have been a way of getting money, nothing to do with having a feeling of self-respect because she was paying her way by her own efforts.
I think that applies to an awful lot of people who have jobs. It certainly applies to me. If I won millions on the lottery I'd never set foot in the office again. I doubt I'd even bother going in to resign.
<devil's advocate> So if claiming benefits provided as much money as your current job you would be a "welfare scrounger"? <devil's advocate>
--------------------
Rent my holiday home in the South of France
Posts: 3696 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
aumbry
Shipmate
# 436
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
BA you are completel;y missing the point.
If benefits, "decent" or otherwise, were the cause of unemployment, how come unemployment goes up when benefits go down? You would think it was the other way round.
And how come countries with more generous unemployment benefits - such as Germany and the Scandinavian countries - do not have worse emplyment problems than the UK?
And how come some countries with *less* generous unemplyment benefits - such as Ireland, Spain, Greece - DO have worse employment problems than the UK?
Where is the evidence?
Germany has for many years had worse unemployment rates than Britain and unemplyment benefits in Ireland are much better than in Britain (to take just two).
Unemployment correlates better with the ease of hiring and firing labour. Generally countries where it is difficult or expensive to make redundancies have higher levels of unemployment.
Recent data has shown that the British economy has been good at creating jobs but due to the free movement of Labour within the EU the pool of labour has grown even faster - to the extent that 2 out of 3 new jobs has been taken by non-British workers. The trouble is it would appear that the home-grown unemployed are not capable of competing with the imported labour or are not sufficiently motivated.
Show the recent data then! I can't be the only one on the Ship who is sick and tired of your assertions, on this and other threads, that are not backed up by evidence. Is it something you heard from einer Mann in der Bierkellar?
You're welcome to your opinions, but in the absence of evidence, even you don't need to be told how worthless they are.
The figures come from here and you are welcome to wade through them: Office for national Statistics
Posts: 3869 | From: Quedlinburg | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I will take the mickey out of them though, when occasion demands ...
Now I'm curious: what criteria must they meet for you to act?
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by Aumbry:
Germany has for many years had worse unemployment rates than Britain and unemplyment benefits in Ireland are much better than in Britain (to take just two).
Unemployment correlates better with the ease of hiring and firing labour. Generally countries where it is difficult or expensive to make redundancies have higher levels of unemployment.
Recent data has shown that the British economy has been good at creating jobs but due to the free movement of Labour within the EU the pool of labour has grown even faster - to the extent that 2 out of 3 new jobs has been taken by non-British workers. The trouble is it would appear that the home-grown unemployed are not capable of competing with the imported labour or are not sufficiently motivated.
Also, Sweden's low unemployment rate is questionable at best. The unemployment statistics of all countries can be massaged by those looking to make a point. As Will Rogers said while doing rope tricks, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
The figures come from here and you are welcome to wade through them: Office for national Statistics
Well, I've waded through them.
At first glance, the headlines are:
Employment rates for UK born and UK nationals are greater than EU and non-EU immigrants.
Unemployment rates for EU and non-EU immigrants are greater than for UK born and UK nationals.
UK nationals are the greatest employment block in every region but London.
The rate of change of employment for UK born/UK nationals is the same as for EU and non-EU immigrants over the survey period (-0.3%).
Of course, you might have seen something I haven't on my somewhat cursory investigation. Which page on this pdf (with the most recent data) proves your assertion?
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
An die Freude
Shipmate
# 14794
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
originally posted by Aumbry:
Germany has for many years had worse unemployment rates than Britain and unemplyment benefits in Ireland are much better than in Britain (to take just two).
Unemployment correlates better with the ease of hiring and firing labour. Generally countries where it is difficult or expensive to make redundancies have higher levels of unemployment.
Recent data has shown that the British economy has been good at creating jobs but due to the free movement of Labour within the EU the pool of labour has grown even faster - to the extent that 2 out of 3 new jobs has been taken by non-British workers. The trouble is it would appear that the home-grown unemployed are not capable of competing with the imported labour or are not sufficiently motivated.
Also, Sweden's low unemployment rate is questionable at best. The unemployment statistics of all countries can be massaged by those looking to make a point. As Will Rogers said while doing rope tricks, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics.
According to the Eurostat Sweden's unemployment is at 7.7 %. According to the Swedish national bureau of statistics it's at 8.8 %. The CIA World Factbook has Sweden at 8.4 %. Surely it has to be around there somewhere, no?
What do the statistics point towards for the US?
Thing is, though, that with our welfare system that covers our university fees, many young unemployed in Sweden begin to study in times of a recession instead of remaining unemployed. This could be said to cut the figures of unemployment somewhat, but then again we gain a better educated workforce after the recession is over. Shouldn't this actually speak for the benefits of the welfare state?
Also, the countries in Europe (based on Eurostat link) with the lowest unemployment figures are Netherlands and Austria (at about 4.5 %). Correct me if I'm wrong, but are any of them known for their harsh capitalism and lack of welfare?
ETA: Correction. I'm wrong. The lowest unemployment in Europe is not Netherlands and not Austria. It's Norway. About 3,5 % unemployed, depending on which source you go to. But surely the Norwegians are semi-fascist capitalists, no?
[ 19. August 2011, 15:23: Message edited by: JFH ]
--------------------
"I too am not a bit tamed, I too am untranslatable."
Walt Whitman
Formerly JFH
Posts: 851 | From: Proud Socialist Monarchy of Sweden | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
Depends on how you count unemployment. You've already explained one reason why unemployment statistics don't tell the true story. Is education during recession a good thing? It can be. You could also be a perpetual student.
Norway does have a low unemployment rate. Norway also has the highest percentage of people on disability benefits in Europe. All those people can't work? Yeah right.
My argument never was that all people collecting unemployment benefits were refusing to work. I specifically said the perpetually unemployed. There is a difference.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ramarius
Shipmate
# 16551
|
Posted
I refer the honourable members to my earlier post. If you're looking at a correlation between benefit rates, availability of jobs, and unemployment you only get part of the picture by looking at the national picture. There are significant regional factors depending on how regional economies are configured (e.g. high proportion of public sector workers in the North East of England) and local factors (workless households and high numbers of unemployed people in neighbourhoods that score high on measures of social and economic deprivation).
I'm starting the lose the plot on this - what's the point we're trying to make sense of around work and benefits.....?
Posts: 950 | From: Virtually anywhere | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
What criteria 205? Well, generally when they make dumb-ass comments I don't agree with. But I've grown more tolerant in my old age ...
You know the sort of thing. 'Europe is going to hell in a hand-cart because it's sold out to the Muslims and to political correctness. The Welfare State is creating a society where people have never worked and lounge around on benefits all day. Meanwhile, we've got a lot more sense over here in the godly US of A and have even enshrined laws about gun ownership into our Constitution that allow our citizens to blow each other's heads off in vast numbers every year ...'
That sort of thing.
You keep your gun laws. We'll keep our Welfare State.
Does that answer your question?
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
What criteria 205? Well, generally when they make dumb-ass comments I don't agree with. But I've grown more tolerant in my old age ...
You know the sort of thing. 'Europe is going to hell in a hand-cart because it's sold out to the Muslims and to political correctness. The Welfare State is creating a society where people have never worked and lounge around on benefits all day. Meanwhile, we've got a lot more sense over here in the godly US of A and have even enshrined laws about gun ownership into our Constitution that allow our citizens to blow each other's heads off in vast numbers every year ...'
That sort of thing.
You keep your gun laws. We'll keep our Welfare State.
Does that answer your question?
Praise the Lord for The Pond. May it ever come between us.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I am, of course, being extremely post-modern and ironic. I am simply trying to get Beeswax Altar to appreciate the untenability of his position by the use of Swiftian satire.
Something like that ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
Many Americans, probably most and certainly more people than live in the UK, would agree that you can keep your welfare state while we keep our guns.
We need a pond smiley.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leaf
Shipmate
# 14169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Praise the Lord for The Pond. May it ever come between us.
Umm... hello? What about these socialist few acres of ice and snow?
Posts: 2786 | From: the electrical field | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
<devil's advocate> So if claiming benefits provided as much money as your current job you would be a "welfare scrounger"? <devil's advocate>
Yes. Which is why it's a really bad idea for the country as a whole to have benefits paying the same (or more) as a job.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
<devil's advocate> So if claiming benefits provided as much money as your current job you would be a "welfare scrounger"? <devil's advocate>
Yes. Which is why it's a really bad idea for the country as a whole to have benefits paying the same (or more) as a job.
What you really mean is 'it's a bad idea to have wages lower than benefits.' If people struggle to live on benefits (and they do, despite the myths) then how do you think they manage on the minimum wage?
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
posted by beeswax:
quote:
Many Americans, probably most and certainly more people than live in the UK, would agree that you can keep your welfare state while we keep our guns.
God have mercy on your soul, cos you can be sure your insurance policy won't.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Finally, Beeswax Altar reveals the profundity of the inner darkness within his soul.
You're welcome to your guns, my friend. Just don't complain when someone points at you and pulls the trigger.
Such ignorance. Such folly.
If there are more people in the US than there are in the UK who'd prefer to own guns than have a Welfare State then that proves what a bunch of abject sicko ignoramuses there are over there. It really shows that you've got your priorities right.
You prove my point. In spades.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Finally, Beeswax Altar reveals the profundity of the inner darkness within his soul.
You're welcome to your guns, my friend. Just don't complain when someone points at you and pulls the trigger.
Such ignorance. Such folly.
If there are more people in the US than there are in the UK who'd prefer to own guns than have a Welfare State then that proves what a bunch of abject sicko ignoramuses there are over there. It really shows that you've got your priorities right.
You prove my point. In spades.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
irish_lord99
Shipmate
# 16250
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
If there are more people in the US than there are in the UK who'd prefer to own guns than have a Welfare State then that proves what a bunch of abject sicko ignoramuses there are over there. It really shows that you've got your priorities right.
Now, now Gamaliel... there are some of us that want guns and a welfare state! Come on, we're not all that bad.
--------------------
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." - Mark Twain
Posts: 1169 | From: Maine, US | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I've never said you were all bad, Irish Lord.
Nor do I believe that Democrat = Good, Republican = Bad in any binary sense.
But I do believe that Beeswax Altar = Bad on this particular point.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
At the risk of being as binary as Beeswax, I'd like to know what it is about the following that he doesn't understand:
Guns: weapons, kill people.
Welfare payments: charitable and humane, help people.
See the difference?
Of course, he'd argue that guns actually help people. Because they can be used to threaten any government that actually tries to help people and to protect property and the great American Way.
I wonder if he was laughing because he appreciates my exaggerated Swiftian satire or because he's a schmuck?
(Before I get hauled to Hell, I'm using satire again, Hosts. Beeswax is good in parts).
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Just to clarify, because I have a tender conscience in these matters, the point I'm trying to make is a serious one. And the point is not to be too binary about these things.
I'm sure Beeswax appreciates the point I'm trying to make. And it's this ... that some of us Brits will react badly if he, or other Americans, suggest what he takes to be an 'inconvenient truth' that the Welfare State is partly to blame for the problems. A 'truth' he apparently sees as 'self evident' ('we hold these truths to be self-evident ...' ).
All I'm trying to get him to see is that some of us Brits would equally feel that it is self-evident that the high incidence of gun ownership and the Second Amendment etc is, in some way, responsible for what we'd regard as the scandalously high number of gun deaths in the US every year. Of course, we would also accept that most of these are caused by criminals with illegal firearms and not by responsible gun-owning citizens and that there are conditions in the US - particularly in rural areas - that justify private gun ownership over there in a way that would not be appropriate here.
I'm not trying to do a trade here. You keep your guns if we can keep our Welfare State. No, all I'm trying to do is to get him to see that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If he's going to cite the Welfare State as a 'bad thing' then he shouldn't get too upset if we feel that US health provision is inadequate and unfair and that gun ownership is partly to blame for the apparent 'gun culture' that exists in parts of the US and which is responsible for many thousands of deaths every year - far more, in fact, than was the case over here during 30 years of civil disturbances and terrorism in Northern Ireland.
Perhaps this didn't need spelling out. But I felt it did and wanted to clarify things.
Thanks
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
<devil's advocate> So if claiming benefits provided as much money as your current job you would be a "welfare scrounger"? <devil's advocate>
Yes. Which is why it's a really bad idea for the country as a whole to have benefits paying the same (or more) as a job.
What you really mean is 'it's a bad idea to have wages lower than benefits.'
Same thing, opposite viewing angle.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Back to the original point about benefits causing unemployment causing crime. So far no-one has addressed those points, and no-one has come up with any actual evidence of this effect.
As I wortoe before, if it was true, you would expect increases in the real value of unemployment benefit to lead to increased unemployment, which doesn't seem to happen. And you would expect countries with higher unemplyment benefits to have faster-rising or slower-falling unemployment htna others. Which doesn't seem to happen.
Been thinking about it more. Even within a country or a state the real value of unemployment benefits are higher in low-wage areas, because prices tend top be lower. Now those are associated with high unemployment, for obvious reasons, that I suspect have nothing to do with welfare.
But at the moment youth unemplyment doesn't vary along with adult unemplyment. In Britain the highest unemplyment rates among 18-25 year olds are in London - the highest of all is in Lewisham where I live and Hackney and Haringey are both in the top ten. These are very much the areas where the recent troubles were worst.
But those are areas with easy access to high-paying jobs. Unemployment rates for older people are actually lower than average there, and wage rates are higher. Also prices are higher than in most of the country - prices for accomodation much higher. So the real value of benefits is lower than in other parts. Thirty years ago it was harder to live off benefits in Brighton than it was in Durham - I know, I did both. Nowadays, with the real value of welfare payments much lower, London would be even worse.
If unemployment benefits caused unemplyment you would expect that the effect would be smaller in Londn because the value of benefits is less, and the reward of working greater. And maybe that is true for older people - the ones on long-term sickness benefit for example. (I'm not saying is true but I can imagine the argument) But the opposite is the case for younger, single people. And they were the ones looting.
So whatever the reason for the massive youth unemployment in Inner London is, its clearly not excessive welfare payments.
QED I think.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Garden Hermit
Shipmate
# 109
|
Posted
We always thought in Northern Ireland that the 'troubles' in the 1970s were down to overall unemployment in NI being around 10-15% (eg double the UK average) with youth unemployment even higher.
It was a case of people 'hanging around' with nothing to do that made them vulnerable to offers (eg Paramilitaries would pay young people to do 'raids' etc. Figures quoted of upto £500 have been mentioned.)
Maybe its the same in the recent riots. People hanging around with nothing to do and someone shouts 'everyone's looting the shops' and people just join in.
Pax et Bonum
Posts: 1413 | From: Reading UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Garden Hermit:
People hanging around with nothing to do and someone shouts 'everyone's looting the shops' and people just join in.
Its pretty clear that that's exactly what happened in most of the incidents in London. The question is why this year and not every year, and why some places but not others?
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
irish_lord99
Shipmate
# 16250
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Garden Hermit:
People hanging around with nothing to do and someone shouts 'everyone's looting the shops' and people just join in.
Its pretty clear that that's exactly what happened in most of the incidents in London. The question is why this year and not every year, and why some places but not others?
I wonder if (assuming the original assertion is true) it just takes a critical mass of people standing around with nothing to do? That would give credence to the 'rising unemployment' argument without necessarily saying that they rioted because they were upset about unemployment.
--------------------
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." - Mark Twain
Posts: 1169 | From: Maine, US | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Pasco:
most of the police find themselves busy on the highways and byways where prosecuting motorists for speeding/reckless driving is/was not hindered by the courts - a zero tolerance operated here towards motorists.
![[Mad]](angryfire.gif) And being tolerant towards reckless, careless and selfish drivers who endanger human life is a good thing? ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
Chiming back in now that I'm (a) back at the keyboard so easier to type and (b) calmed down a bit - until I read Pasco's comment here: this reminds me of the usual whine I had from BMW-driving salesmen caught speeding when I was court duty solicitor: "Why can't the police be out catching Proper Criminals™ instead of persecuting innocent motorists like me?"....to which I would invariably respond: "There are more people killed on the roads each year by pillocks like you driving too fast than there are by so-called Proper Criminals™ like murderers. So you tell me who the Proper Criminals™ are?"
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
I wonder if (assuming the original assertion is true) it just takes a critical mass of people standing around with nothing to do?
If you mean literally standing around, as in the street, then I guess that is the case.
Look at the numbers. About 3,000 people suspected of serious crimes in London over 4-day period - perhaps 50-100 of them violence against people or arson, the rest theft of some sort. The Met estimated 30,000 involved in some way (which I guess includes those just standing around and watching who didn't in fact do anything except giggle and take photos on their mobiles).
The population of Greater London is perhaps 300 times that of Witney in Oxfordshire, the town at the centre of the consituency the Prime Minister represents in Parliament.
So if the inhabitants of Witney had been exactly as disposed to crime as those of London the week before last those numbers might work out at:
- maybe a quarter of a person intent on serious violence
- ten people willing to rob things from deserted shops with broken if they came across a crowd doing the same thing, and if there were no police around, and if no-one seemed to be defending their property.
- a hundred drunken farts standing around behaving like idiots
I've been in Witney (once) and in other small towns on a Saturday night around chucking out time. Those numbers seem quite plausible to me.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Sorry, have to come back on these points
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Sorry but something has snapped inside me; the riots have become a tipping point
So Thatcher closing the mines, the shipyards and the steelworks wasn't a tipping point? Hundreds of MPs stealing taxpayers' money wasn't a tipping point? Bankers helping themselves to billions that weren't theirs wasn't a tipping point? Government being run by and for a powerful media concern wasn't a tipping point? .
Those are all tipping points towards liberalism/ the left, not away from it.
Which is exactly my point. Having encountered all those tipping points previously, you should be as left-wing as I am.
Er...no. Many many factors determine one's political outlook, such as upbringing: I am the product of several generations of small business owners (what in today's business-speak would be termed "Small to Medium Enterprises"). That background gave me a hearty dislike of both big business and socialism, neither of which give much of a toss about such SMEs (an impression, I have to say, reinforced by some of your posts here). So I'm coming I suspect from a rather different starting point from you.
quote:
(x-posted with Matt - I have family in South Norwood, who shop in Croydon and go to school there. Sorry and all, but a sense of perspective is necessary)
Shopping in Croydon is rather different from having a shop in Croydon (eg: my wife's uncles); the latter I would suggest would give you a rather different 'sense of perspective' on the riots.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I'm not anti-SME nor anti shopkeepers, Matt Black.
But they're the class that gave us Thatcher ...
Seriously, it's a sad fact that the 'shopocracy' tend to be those who are hit the hardest by instances of rioting and urban unrest. In Tonypandy in 1910 and in Llanelli and Tredegar in 1911, the rioters specifically targeted small businesses that belonged to JPs and other pillars of the community as, rightly or wrongly, they believed them to be on the side of the authorities or the people responsible for calling in the military - a bit of a circular argument, of course, as the military wouldn't have been called in unless there'd been serious looting and destruction in the first place.
I doubt if there was any such motivation in the recent riots, though. The family-run businesses that were trashed had done no harm to anyone.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
And did I mention the benefit trap? Hats off to IDS facing up to this one and saying the basis of any benefits system is that work has to pay. Making work will be easier said than done, but it's an honest and principled approach.
Its not honest, its a lie to excuse cuts in benefits. Because its utterly irrelevant to the majority of the people rioting. There is no benefits trap for single young people with no children who live at home with their parents. They get very little in welfare benefits and they in effect get to keep every penny of whatever thy can earn. Especially in London where benefits are the same and wages much higher.
Maybe when homeless single mothers in Scunthorpe riot we can blame the "benefits trap". But WTF has it got to do with 15-year-old schoolkids in Hackney?
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Persephone Hazard
Ship's Wench
# 4648
|
Posted
Warning anecdata alert, your experience may vary, these are not statistics, etc.
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
In Britain the highest unemplyment rates among 18-25 year olds are in London - the highest of all is in Lewisham where I live.
I also live in Lewisham. And at 22 I fall squarely into the middle of that age group, and I am currently looking for a job. With my current state of health I don't know how realistic working full-time for minimum wage really is, but thanks to various circumstances - some of which are probably my fault and some of which probably aren't - I don't really have another option.
I tried to apply for Incapacity Benefit once, and after wading through a few forms found the bureaucracy so overwhelming that I failed to even finish the application process.
About a month and a half ago I tried to apply for Jobseeker's. I was rejected because I hadn't officially left university yet (I'm basically in the process of dropping out after two years) and advised that even once I had - which wouldn't be till October anyway because of the way it works - it would probably be another six months before I'd be accepted as I'd then count as "voluntarily unemployed". The whole experience also made me so furiously angry with the entire bullshit system and all its insufferable vileness that I almost felt better off out of it, or at least I would if I was less fucking broke.
I can't imagine there are many genuine benefit scroungers out there, and frankly if anyone's actually managed to pull it off then more power to them. They make it so impossibly difficult even for those who are eligible that I rather admire anyone who manages to get through their ten levels of bullshit well enough to con them.
--------------------
A picture is worth a thousand words, but it's a lot easier to make up a thousand words than one decent picture. - ken.
Posts: 1645 | From: London | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
