Re: Work for benefits : Mon Sep 30, 2013 6:14 pm  

Saddened! wrote:

One of the parents at my son's school is the same, stood in the playground last week boasting about how he can play GTA and FIFA all week and get paid to do it by me (As a taxpayer).

Care to share how this conversation came about? It just seems a little bit convenient that workshy scroungers randomly brag about it to you.

My other half's parents are like this, haven't worked a day in their life, nor tried to. They are given a council house, given the money for utilities and food and have enough over for a caravan in Wales, Sky TV and copious amounts of cigarettes.

Really, never worked a day in their lives? After school when everyone else was going through apprenticeships and youth employment schemes, they just went to the government money tree where they've been allowed to pick from ever since?

Didn't they jet off to Turkey as well a few weeks ago?

Isn't there some details you're conveniently ignoring? Like an inheritance for example. Or maybe the fact that he they do pick up odd work here and there? Or maybe the fact that the caravan in Wales is something that the Dingles off Emmerdale wouldn't let their dog stay in.

Re: Work for benefits : Mon Sep 30, 2013 6:21 pm  

Mintball wrote:

Okay. Please provide evidence that the official unemployed v jobs available figure is wrong.

Then you can consider the issue of pay for the job – and please remember that research suggests that the government's fantasy over the long-term unemployed not wanting a job doesn't hold up.

The figures can only be correct if the agency is able to collect data on every available job - we both know that will not be the case - so that blows your first point out of the water.

I have stated in this thread that if you work no matter what the circumstance you should get at least the minimum wage. As for research if you look long and hard enough - and nobody will do either more than you when trying to support your point - you will find a research piece that agrees with that point. That is very different from being the generally accepted position.

Re: Work for benefits : Mon Sep 30, 2013 6:23 pm  

Ajw71 wrote:

That just talks about generations.

15,000 households where two generations have never worked - disgusting.

OK I'll bite and say out of a country of 70 million do you realise what percentage of the population that is? Seeing as you're another one who probably didn't read the Rowntree Foundations findings:-

Hard to judge, and hard to generalise. There is a lot of movement in and out of work, so many Job Seekers Allowance claims are very short. More than 80% of claimants never go near the work programme because they aren't on the benefit for long enough. A lot are off it in under six months. For disability benefits, there are a lot more long-term claimants, of course. In 2012, 18% of working-age households were workless; in only 2% had no one ever worked. More than half of adults in households where no one has ever worked were under 25. So although the proportion of households where no one has ever worked has increased recently, it is likely to be a manifestation of high and rising young adult unemployment.


Of course it wouldn't occur to you that some of the households may have disabled parents and children?

Re: Work for benefits : Mon Sep 30, 2013 6:27 pm  

Saddened! wrote:

As everyone on here is against this, what would your suggestion be to stop it happening? Do we just let people who choose life on benefits do that indefinitely? Really? The Government here is clearly trying to target those who choose not to work, rather than those who are just cannot find work. For all the claims on here that those people don't exist, they clearly do and in great numbers.

I think you'll find that most aren't against the principle of encouraging the fit and able to seek and find appropriate work.

I also believe, in the absence of any data provided by HM Government, that the situation is not as described.

We already know that HM Government has been reprimanded for claiming that "some" families have been claiming a pure benefit lifestyle for three generations, an agency with access to the official figures tried to find the truth of that claim and could not find one single example, unfortunately HM Government and specifically HM Prime Minster (who had made the claim) did not respond to that challenge so we must assume that he was lying for dramatic effect.

HM Government have already published, and their compliant media are reporting on, a figure of 200,000 claimants who will be affected, these being people who have claimed out of work benefits for three years or more and so we must believe this figure although the ACTUAL figure would be nice to see rather than a rounded-up version.

If we take the official number of JSA claimants for Sept 2013 it was 1.402 million, and as most out of work benefits for those fit to work are based on JSA then we'll take this as the base point and calculate that the target audience for these sanctions is 14% - its a not insignificant figure, one in seven of people wandering through job centres have been unemployed for three years or mroe.

Which only leaves one question in my mind.

What the fook do job centre staff do for their salaries ?

Re: Work for benefits : Mon Sep 30, 2013 6:31 pm  

Hull White Star wrote:

OK I'll bite and say out of a country of 70 million do you realise what percentage of the population that is? Seeing as you're another one who probably didn't read the Rowntree Foundations findings:-

Hard to judge, and hard to generalise. There is a lot of movement in and out of work, so many Job Seekers Allowance claims are very short. More than 80% of claimants never go near the work programme because they aren't on the benefit for long enough. A lot are off it in under six months. For disability benefits, there are a lot more long-term claimants, of course. In 2012, 18% of working-age households were workless; in only 2% had no one ever worked. More than half of adults in households where no one has ever worked were under 25. So although the proportion of households where no one has ever worked has increased recently, it is likely to be a manifestation of high and rising young adult unemployment.


Of course it wouldn't occur to you that some of the households may have disabled parents and children?

Ok you tell me the exact number of people who are two generation shirker and I'll tell you it is wrong.

Just because its a small number (as you say) doesn't make it right!

Re: Work for benefits : Mon Sep 30, 2013 6:32 pm  

On the other hand this http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/09/30/david-cameron-living-wage_n_4016728.html?utm_hp_ref=uk would probably win the next election for them if they could introduce it within the next twelve months.

On the other hand this http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/09/30/david-cameron-living-wage_n_4016728.html?utm_hp_ref=uk would probably win the next election for them if they could introduce it within the next twelve months.

Re: Work for benefits : Mon Sep 30, 2013 6:38 pm  

Ajw71 wrote:

Just because its a small number (as you say) doesn't make it right!

Its not the actual numbers that is the point, its the prominence that those small numbers are given in the Ministers rhetoric that is the issue, why did HM Prime Minister mention three generation dole families at all when he was simply inventing the "fact" - its because he wanted to plant a seed in "Hardworking Families" minds that anyone claiming any benefit was thieving money straight out of their wallets - it probably wasn't his idea for they employ very devious policy makers and speech writers to sway public opinion, all politicians have a go at this when in power so its not totally Camerons fault but he has been shown to be exagerating and he hasn't talked about it since, not even to apologise for misleading.

The demonising of claimants of any type has been one of the most disgraceful elements of this parliament.

Re: Work for benefits : Mon Sep 30, 2013 6:38 pm  

Ajw71 wrote:

Ok you tell me the exact number of people who are two generation shirker and I'll tell you it is wrong.

Just because its a small number (as you say) doesn't make it right!

Tell me where I said it was right? I was proving to Saddened that he is wrong when in his assumption that there is "an awful lot of people who see unemployment benefits as a birthright".

Another quote from the findings:-

Importantly, families experiencing long-term worklessness remained committed to the value of work and preferred to be in jobs rather than on benefits. There was no evidence of "a culture of worklessness" – values, attitudes and behaviours discouraging employment and encouraging welfare dependence – in the families being passed down the generations.

Re: Work for benefits : Mon Sep 30, 2013 7:13 pm  

Some interesting stats HERE It's easy to see how the likes of Gidiot, IDS and Cameroon can play the stat-twisting game to tell their own story but the most interesting stat for mine is that 3.8 people are available on JSA for each job, how dothe divvy that one up?

Some interesting stats HERE It's easy to see how the likes of Gidiot, IDS and Cameroon can play the stat-twisting game to tell their own story but the most interesting stat for mine is that 3.8 people are available on JSA for each job, how dothe divvy that one up?

Re: Work for benefits : Mon Sep 30, 2013 8:52 pm  

cod'ead wrote: Some interesting stats HERE It's easy to see how the likes of Gidiot, IDS and Cameroon can play the stat-twisting game to tell their own story but the most interesting stat for mine is that 3.8 people are available on JSA for each job, how dothe divvy that one up? The site I work at has regular vacancies - minimum one a month sometimes more - we only ever approach the appropriate agency to find the correct person, how do these jobs get on to your list of available positions?

cod'ead wrote: Some interesting stats HERE It's easy to see how the likes of Gidiot, IDS and Cameroon can play the stat-twisting game to tell their own story but the most interesting stat for mine is that 3.8 people are available on JSA for each job, how dothe divvy that one up? The site I work at has regular vacancies - minimum one a month sometimes more - we only ever approach the appropriate agency to find the correct person, how do these jobs get on to your list of available positions?