Actually, I've spent very little time talking about that at all. And what help can I offer to people who don't use their resources responsibly or efficiently? Why should I care about that?

Could I just say that, moving away from how everyone feels about the UK work programme. This is BAD for the British economy and in the long run it's going to put more people out of work. That's what pisses me off, just as much as people being forced to work for 1/3 of the money they're supposed to be getting. It's going to increase the amount of unemployment and I don't understand why the stupid fucking cunt economists who brainstormed this plan can't see that. Hell I nearly failed A level economics and I can see it.

It does seem like it would be bad for the economy. As Joe suggested, community service type jobs would seem more responsible. And the hours worked should really add up to the pay at minimum wage.

Really?
-----

I’m not asking you to magically fix unemployment, I’m asking you to realize that a lot of the things you’ve been saying are common talking points used to demonize the unemployed and make it seem acceptable to enforce all kinds of draconian bullshit that ends up hurting more genuine people than “scroungers”.

e: @Mat

I think we've pretty much just go everyone on the same page then, fundamentally that's the problems people have spent two pages arguing about.

> Bad for the economy
> If people are being forced into doing this they should be paid the minimum wage

Only about a third of that applied. Some of that was in respect to a person who was literally taking my necessities while buying themselves liquor. And while I do understand that much of what was said is used to demonize those who shouldn't be, it doesn't make the statements themselves false. I don't want to demonize people in need. I want people who are really trying to get all the help that they need. But the other side of the coin exists. Pretending it doesn't because we don't want to offend or screw over the people putting in the effort is just as detrimental.

The statements themselves are not false. There are people that abuse welfare systems and take advantage of others rather than work. Those people exist.

The problem is that people take what amounts to a small proportion of that group of unemployed people, and use them as justification for making sweeping changes that affect the entire group. Plans like the UK work programme being discussed here are just one example of that.

Are there people milking the system? Yes.
Do they make up anywhere near the total number of people actually trying to find employment? No.
Does enacting legislation of programs like what’s happening in the UK help the people in need while solving the problem of lazy people? No, it just harms everyone.

When you choose to focus on talking about the side of unemployment you don’t like, you’re furthering the mindset that all unemployed people are like that, not just the one part of the group that you don’t like. And by furthering that mindset you make it easier to cause harm to that entire group.

I refuse to play the game of not saying something because that something can be taken out of context and used inappropriately. Especially here, where no one official is going to come in and use my words to persecute people. We were discussing the negative aspects of unemployment because that's what the subject is. This program is intended to help contain those aspects of it. From the very start I said that it sounds like a flawed system, but that the idea itself may actually be necessary. We aren't talking about people having to immediately work in this situation because they are unemployed. We're talking two years down the line. Two years of not working is an extremely long time. I have to think that the percentage of people not really trying hard enough has to be incredibly higher at the two year mark. Either that, or the unemployment problem in the U.K. far exceeds the unemployment problems in the Detroit area. If it does then I'm out of my depth, but Detroit is one of the worse off areas in this country, and I assumed it couldn't be much worse than this in the U.K.

I'm just going to stick my nose in here and say that anyone who froths with rage at the taxpayer's expenditure on the minority of unemployed people milking a Jobseekers' Allowance that makes up a minority of the welfare budget that accounts for a minority of actual government spending while billion-dollar corporations are costing the taxpayer horrifying amounts in unpaid tax is a goddamn idiot.

No-one likes seeing their taxes go to waste. But if you want to find out who's got more money than they're entitled to, you don't start with the poor.

Who says it begins there? Don't make this about one sort of fraud over another. There are people doing shitty things from all walks of life. Truly, I'm more disgusted by corporations who refuse to play fairly while taking in billions in profits, but that isn't what we're talking about. I'm not a terrible person, or a stupid one for having an opinion about this.

This arguing is useless. You are not finding the ways to solve unemployment. OANST, Wings of Fire, you have never been in each other's bodies. Please, stop shitting each other. No one shall be a victor.


I am afraid, that this question may start a new senseless controversy, but why not free-lance and self-employ? Of course, I do not live in the UK and can not judge a book by its cover.

The UK is also a much smaller country than the US, has a much smaller economy and has also been through the same economic recession that the rest of the world has these past few years. Plus they currently have an economically conservative government which is more concerned about cutting as much welfare and support as possible for the working class.

And again, much of the unemployment figures (at least in the UK) is made up of young people. People just joining the workforce but have little or no real experience are exactly the kind of people who will get passed over by employers in favor of older, more experienced candidates. Two years of unemployment doesn’t sound absurd for someone who employers simply don’t want to touch.

e: And as the gap in your employment history widens, less and less employers are going to even consider you. The longer you’re out of work the harder it becomes to get back in.


This isn’t aimed specifically at you, but a lot of vitriol is aimed at unemployed people by the general public, the media and the government – and a lot of that vitriol uses the same arguments that you’ve been espousing in this thread. That’s probably a big reason why so many people are disagreeing with you here, because we’ve heard it all before from people who want to make life worse.


You know how expensive it is to become self-employed? It’s simply not an option for the majority of unemployed people.

Hi I'm essentially freelancing and I've made a total of $600 since the start of the year

That's why not free-lance and self-employ

Depends what work you're freelancing, and it does require the same experience and connections, maybe moreso in freelance than employed work. Expenses vary depending on how you go about doing it, and what you're doing. If you've been really stitched up, but have good reputation in your work area, freelance is always a good ticket.

You said yourself: it's not the fact that people are coasting through life that offends you, it's the fact that you have to pay for it - to the point that you and your family have to go without. This isn't about who's the bigger problem, it's the same problem: People taking money they're not entitled to from the taxpayer. You can draw dividing lines all day, but any functional solution to the problem will focus on the largest contributing factors.

I have an opinion on this thread too: The opinion that pursuing benefit scroungers to the point of drawing government pressure away from bigger drains on society is detrimental to 99% of the population.

I don't deny that this is an argument worth having, the conclusions I draw just make it a very short argument on my part (hence why I've kept out of it).

you're just being a hard-nosed prick for the sake of being a hard-nosed prick.

i get it.

That comment was directed entirely at my neighbor who would ask us for rides to the liquor store and then come over the next day asking if they could have my shampoo.

Can I have your shampoo?

Only if you've washed your hair within the last year. Otherwise you have to pull your finger out and find your own shampoo (regardless of whether there's actually any shampoo in your area).

Can you take me for a ride to the liquor store?

Can you take me to the liquor store once you've dropped Varrok off at the liquor store and gone back home?

Can you buy us some alcohol since we're at the liquor store?

And then some shampoo?

Currently on jobseekers. Trying to get a job in Film & TV here in Northern Ireland. Worked on a movie from July - November 2013 so I don't feel too unjustified taking the allowance tbh.

I applied for a series of jobs there and I've got a month of waiting for callbacks before I need to move on to some temporary work through my old work agency (IKEA or the likes) until I can try out for some other opportunity later on in the year or next year.

Although, I do say, I don't feel comfortable on jobseekers at all. It's like this perpetual state of limbo.

I only give out shampoo and rides in return for sexual favors these days.

So what you're saying is; we get infinite shampoo and rides?

Yeah OANST, like that is supposed to stop me?

In which OANST forgets how insanely gay this forum is

Or that he's not. I've done it before.

I think he's after an argument with his woman and feels lonely.