:
I would say that the other side of it, the people paying the taxes that provide "jobseekers" with the money that they live off of, is closer to slave labor. They basically work a certain amount of days every week as your personal slave with absolutely no benefit to them for having done so. Can you not see how they would be fed up with that, and want to find a way to force you to do something that you find unpleasant for you to continue getting their money? This isn't magic money. It comes from people. This is other people's money.
Edit: I don't want to give the impression that I think jobless benefits are a bad thing. They can be very necessary. However, after a certain amount of time, you just have to throw your hands up and say "This person isn't trying hard enough," and do something about it. Two years is an extraordinary amount of time to be looking for work. In my mind, it is an unreasonable amount of time. I would lower it. By a lot. Basically, I could see one year being fair in some situations, but six months is probably closer to what it should be. Especially if you have ever spent a dime of this money on entertainment, and not on necessities, or on purchases that may help you find employment. Like a car, or more professional looking clothing.
|
We have social security here in the UK. It means you pay tax for shit on the promise you'll get your moneys' worth if you are ever in a bad situation. It's fair. Most people are out of work for a period of time in their lives, and they get to take out of the system they've been paying into. It's simple insurance.
This scheme doesn't help the taxpayer one bit. It's punitive. The flow of money is towards company managers and board members who buy free labour on the cheap off the government. My ex-stepdad who works as a hospital janitor doesn't get a penny relieved from his tax for any labour done on ths scheme. Neither does any other labourer. The only thing they'd get is ignorant and classist satisfaction that people on the dole are finally 'earning their keep'. I repeat, if this was social work then my problems would be petty bitching. It's not. I'm giving nothing back to the community. I'm only damaging the economy further by taking away paid jobs. It's senseless.
I've been looking for a job for two years. On a really good week, I get an interview because I was in the top ten of 150 applicants for said job. Am I not trying hard enough? Is it my fault the economy is so bad that competition for a minimum wage 'entry level' job becomes 'Who has the most experience?'.
Edit: As for your nice little anecdotal outrage there:
:
|
As for your argument about people 'perfectly able to work who'd be happy to stay on benefits forever;' the best (If unrealistic) thing to do would be to raise the minimum financial standards of employment (Rather than lowering benefits) to encourage people to look. Like I said previously, I'd bet my next three months of JSA that nearly every single position posted gets filled. Unless millions of people suddenly become entrepreneurs overnight (Which is just economically unsupportable), there will always be the same amount of people out of work. Any attempt to punish those who don't try will just end up hitting those who do as collateral damage unless there suddenly becomes 43M (And a bit) jobs in the UK. Also every two or three positions in workfare for a company is a lost employed position, harming what the government is trying to accomplish.
Basically we should create an economic climate where being in minimum wage employment is so much more financially rewarding that nobody will want to stay on benefits. What's happening here is artificial and superficial.
|
Also people on workfare don't count as unemployed by the government's definition, so they can fiddle the records to make it look like they've achieved record employment.