[Closed] People that want to dismantle the welfare state

Personally I reckon there is a certain segment of society that it's easier to just pay to be idle

Personally I think thats a lazy generalization. Nobody wants to do nothing, its just if you remove all hope then motivation goes out the window.

We need to make people care and the current ideology of leading with fear and threats doesn't work, you need to inspire and motivate.

Has anyone actually proposed a dismantling of the welfare state, rather than some degree of rolling it back?

Regards your other question, there's [b]plenty[/b] of jobs that could be done to make society a better place for everyone, from picking up litter, to recycling, to clearing snow and leaves from little old ladies pathways. I would much rather see people doing something that benefitted society as a whole in return for their money than just handing it out to them. I would suggest that it would be good for most of them too, engendering a sense of responsibility, community and pride in them, rather than worthlessness.

We need to make people care and the current ideology of leading with fear and threats doesn't work, you need to inspire and motivate.

Unfortunately a small number of cases might need more than that - carrot doesn't work without stick, but I would agree it's vital to remember that stick doesn't work without carrot either.

richc - Member
Personally I reckon there is a certain segment of society that it's easier to just pay to be idle
Personally I think thats a lazy generalization. Nobody wants to do nothing, its just if you remove all hope then motivation goes out the window.

ninfan - Member
Has anyone actually proposed a dismantling of the welfare state, rather than some degree of rolling it back?

there's plenty of jobs

Then there's the aspect of the won't works.

We are never going to get full employment.

Nobody wants to do nothing,

Perhaps accurate in its broadest sense, but if you mean "nobody wants to be unemployed" it is in itself a sweeping generalization.

Unfortunately there are people who want to do nothing but live off the state, and there are people willing to exploit the welfare state for everything they can. Just like the rich tax evaders, they should be rooted out, exposed and not tolerated.

I'm all for the welfare state, but not in its current form. Its a safety net. If people don't earn a lot of money then they will be poor and we shouldn't feel guilty about that. What we need to combat that is for those who want to improve their earnings, there should be support for them to re-educate themselves, re-train and assist and encourage them in their efforts and not to just dish out handouts, and industry should be at the heart of that and not government. Governments job is to enable that environment and that those opportunities and options are there for all.

they need to be paid for though

I don't think we disagree

£75 income support/JSA in return for ten hours per week community tasks, maybe spread over two days so it didn't interfere with child care and still allow three days a week for job hunting?

Or do we add on another X hours work per week for housing benefit?

there were some when I was on the dole a couple of years back -I recall overhearing an exchange that went something like

Jobcentre woman- it says here that you rejected a job in a warehouse

layabout young lad- id pulled my back I just could lift nuffin

Jobcentre woman- do you have any medical proof, it says here that you also rejected a job in restaurant

layabout young lad- ive got a condition, cant work near heat or I might collapse and DIE !

thing is, I think they still gave him his money as he had kids to feed

to be fair most of the people I encountered in that godforsaken place desperately wanted a job, inspite of the useless, demoralising actions of the DWP

The answer these isn't to make people destitute. It's to make living on the minimum wage more attractive to people than a life of claiming. It currently isn't.

The answer to that isn't what's currently happening, it's to raise the bar for the lowest workers, to use a term, so that it pays to work.

The current strategy, is to make a life of claiming even worse. So that the pittance of the minimum wage looks attractive.

That's perverse logic if ever I heard it.

Nobody wants to do nothing,

That may be true but lots of people think that certain jobs are either beneath them or not worth bothering with either because they are physically taxing or because they are inherently low paid. It may be that these jobs are the only ones that those self same people are qualified to do.

ninfan - Member
they need to be paid for though
I don't think we disagree

£75 income support/JSA in return for ten hours per week community tasks, maybe spread over two days?

Do we add on another X hours for housing benefit?

It's not the answer though, as you'll just end up paying people to supervise.

Putting this way, i'm on benefits and you are forcing me to work for those benefits, then you are going to have to employ someone to stop me standing around scratching my arse all day long.

It's pretty poor economics.

Tea and biscuits anyone?

Seeing someone pass you in the street is quite definitely not providing you with enough information and evidence to judge whether they're employable or not!
When I worked in ad agencies there were plenty of people who, if you judged on appearance only you'd assume were nothing special when in fact they were incredibly bright, talented and hard-working (often award-winning) creatives...

My thoughts about the welfare state are simple:
1. The were conceived of at a time when the demographics of the situation permitted it, but the demographics we now have in the Western world, China and Japan (ageing population) are making that model much harder to keep going.
Promises made in the past are simply unrealistic now. My Dad worked for a company for 30 years, paid into his pension all that time, retired at 55 and now, at 77 is still drawing on that pension. In all likelihood he'll be taking out of that pension for longer than he paid into it. He freely admits this always was an unsustainable model over multiple generations

2. Society can look after the poor, old, ill and needy in many many ways. The Welfare State we currently have is the response that 'government should do it'. I think we need to let go of the belief that the best/only solution is for 'government to do it'. There's many more ways to look after those who can't look after themselves - families, charities, voluntary work, employers etc etc. Given the economics/demographics of the situation I think we need to be examining those options and working out which combination we think is most effective for the next 50 years - and then it's quite possible we'll need another re-design.
Dismantling the Welfare State as we currently know it is not necessarily a bad thing, so long as you replace it with something as good or better... IMO...

allow then all to turn to a life purely of petty crime

Think you will find they're already there.

brooess - Member
Tea and biscuits anyone?

Seeing someone pass you in the street is quite definitely not providing you with enough information and evidence to judge whether they're employable or not!

I could give plently more examples. I have more than enough information. It's not a stretch to imagine this is representative. Anyone that was brought up in a working class scheme/housing estate could give you plenty of examples.

How about a sliding scale?
The longer you are out of work, the less you get. Say 0-12 months at 100%, 12-24 months at 75%, 24-36 months at 50%, >36 months 35%.
Can be "topped up" by working full time (no claims) for a period of maybe 6 months?
That way the people who have had a bit of shit luck get some decent help whilst they find a new job, and those who simply can't be bothered suddenly get some motivation to find work.

If it was up to me ( which it clearly isn't and maybe that's for the best) I'd make anyone who's capable of work give up a period of time each week equivalent to the amount of hours they would take to earn the amount of benefits received at the minimum wage.
So, if the minimum wage was £7 per hour and someone received £70 a week in unemployment benefit then they'd be required to carry out work for the state for 10 hours each week.

there's plenty of jobs that could be done to make society a better place for everyone, from picking up litter, to recycling, to clearing snow and leaves from little old ladies pathways. I would much rather see people doing something that benefitted society as a whole in return for their money than just handing it out to them. I would suggest that it would be good for most of them too, engendering a sense of responsibility, community and pride in them, rather than worthlessness.

Exactly this. Teach people skills and imbue them with the work ethic to drag themselves out of bed and do a days work and there'll be a lot less "unemployable" people out there.

EDIT: Took me so long to type this that someone else suggested it.

OP - out of curiosity. These people you talk about in your area. How do you KNOW they are fit to work but are choosing not to? Do you know them personally? If you don't know them, what are you basing this assumption on? How they look? How they behave? They can walk so surely they can work?

Edit: just seen your latest post.

It's not the answer though, as you'll just end up paying people to supervise.

No problem, I can use the people who currently work in jobcentres to do that.

Putting this way, i'm on benefits and you are forcing me to work for those benefits, then you are going to have to employ someone to stop me standing around scratching my arse all day long.

It's pretty poor economics.

At the moment I pay Bob £250 per week to clean up the graffiti and litter left by ten people who I pay £75 per week to sit on their arses

Next week I pay Bob £250 per week to sit back and supervise five people working Monday and Tuesday picking up litter in return for their £75, and another five people Wednesday and Thursday cleaning up graffiti for their £75.

Bob and his little gang now get far more work done than Bob achieved on his own, so all those little extra jobs like clearing paths and painting little old ladies fences can get done too, especially now that the lads who were making graffiti and dropping litter are doing it less, because they see that the estate is nicer without all that graffiti and litter, and they know that they might end up clearing it up. So society is happy

Bob spends less time doing shitty jobs as he now has a team of people to do them for him, and he gets to stand back and scratch his arse. then he gets Friday to do the paperwork and knock off early, so Bob is happy.

Everyone's a winner!

Question for you OP since you do know these people. Why do you think they choose not to work?

ninfan - Member

It's not the answer though, as you'll just end up paying people to supervise.
No problem, I can use the people who currently work in jobcentres to do that.

At the moment I pay Bob £250 per week to clean up the graffiti and litter left by ten people who I pay £75 per week to sit on their arses

Next week I pay Bob £250 per week to sit back and supervise five people working Monday and Tuesday picking up litter in return for their £75, and another five people Wednesday and Thursday cleaning up graffiti for their £75.
Bob and his little gang get more work done than Bob achieved on his own. So society is happy
Bob spends less time doing shitty jobs as he now has a team of people to do them for him, and he gets to stand back and watch them, then he gets Friday to do the paperwork and knock off early, so Bob is happy.

Everyone's a winner!

Aye in your world. in bobs world it takes 30 minutes to clean a bit of graffitti, in my world it takes 5 hours as i'm utterly incompetent..

but Bob can make 250 quid a week selling weed/coke/crack to his mates/random punters, with a sideline in nicking high end mountainbikes and iphones

he doesnt have to get out of bed till after midday, gets his own drugs for free, and has a right laugh selling his stuff on gumtree

The rot sets in very young, Bob's kids see dads doing alright and know what they wanna do when they grow up

Ive done some work with kids from the shittier end of society and imho there is a real lack of strong positive role models showing them a better way to do things

A very well funded social services with, youth clubs, mentors, integrated with healthcare, schooling (+free school meals, surestart!!) is whats needed, but its an expensive long term investment

Bob is probably a write-off, his kids arent

Who does their job?

We won't need any job centre staff if everyone is working, will we? So they get reappointed to supervising 'work for your dole' or doing the admin for it.

You'll get better at it, especially under Bobs helpful supervision.

You never know, if you get really good at it, you might be the next Bob!

(Kimbers, Bob already works for the council cleaning graffiti, If bobs protégés can get £250 per week selling dope, then they don't need benefits do they, so they won't have to get up early and clean graffiti)

At the moment I pay Bob £250 per week to clean up the graffiti and litter left by ten people who I pay £75 per week to sit on their arses

Next week I pay Bob £250 per week to sit back and supervise five people working Monday and Tuesday picking up litter in return for their £75, and another five people Wednesday and Thursday cleaning up graffiti for their £75.

Sadly the skills and abilities which make Bob an excellent litter picker and street cleaner don't necessarily equip him to manage a team of ill motivated people. Bob is replaced by someone with more relevant qualifications and is now earning £75 per week doing the job he did before.

edenvalleyboy - Member
Question for you OP since you do know these people. Why do you think they choose not to work?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not talking about people that can't get a job or who are down on their luck. i'm just talking about a small section of society that just refuse to work.

ninfan - Member
You'll get better at it

Never doubt my utter incompetence! 😆

Sadly the skills and abilities which make Bob an excellent litter picker and street cleaner don't necessarily equip him to manage a team of ill motivated people.

I'll give him a natty uniform and a taser, maybe a dog too.

that'll motivate the ****ers.

Why do you think they choose not to work?

Because they've never had to.

Getting out of bed every day and going to work to be told to to stuff that you don't want to do by someone that you don't like is hard enough for people who understand that it's a necessary part of life. Make it unneccessary and there are, unfortunately, many people who are too short sighted to see past the lie in and the day on the couch watching the telly. They'll always go for what they see as the "easy" option.

Like the OP I have come from an environment where this is commonplace. I'm now older than my father was the last time he had a job. He reached the age of 42 and just gave up. Couldn't be arsed. Adjusted his life expectations downwards, signed on, learnt to work the system from his neighbours and peers and the state allowed it.

I spend a proportion of my working life dealing with social housing contracts and have had more than my fair share of interaction with the tenants. I've even eaten far too many rolls and sausage out of the Royston Road bakery.

I don't imagine that this demographic is unique to my area.

Op - I know you are. I think my perspective is that I've yet to come across some one who at some point in their life, when everything has been going fine, has just chosen to not work. The section of people your talking about have generally been born into an environment of negativity, low aspirations, low education, parents in prison, poverty etc etc and it just spirals and then you get generations of low self esteem and unemploymen etc. So the question then becomes about what to tackle, the individual or society. The people you talk about, what's their life story been? Positive or negative?

Assuming such people exist, then I think that the cheapest and most efficient way to deal with them would be to pay them a minimal amount to do nothing.

However, this would create a society that most people would feel is unfair.

I think people wouldn't go for it, they'd rather be all worse off paying to deal with the consequences of very little welfare than seeing a relatively small number people get a small amount of money for doing nothing.

edenvalleyboy - Member
what's their life story been? Positive or negative?

Conversely, I've seen people dealt an utterly shit hand when growing up and they're doing very well for themselves.

There is no general answer as to why.

OP I think it's a good question and if there was an easy answer then a government of some ilk would have done it by now. I'd normally say education is the key, but at the end of the day you can't make people learn.

I do think the model used elsewhere of the more you put in then the more you get out (to a degree) would help a little (at least PR wise). As then it would be seen as genuinely helping those that have put in themselves.

DO I have an answer to your original question though, no not really. Paying them to do nothing sticks in the throat a bit, but then not means it'll just cost the taxpayer even more when they turn to major crime etc.

HoratioHufnagel - Member
Assuming such people exist, then I think that the cheapest and most efficient way to deal with them would be to pay them a minimal amount to do nothing

cheaper in the short term yes

in the long term youre just training their kids to do the same

there's plenty of jobs

That's not the case, since the 1980s we have chosen to adopt economic policy which traded (nearly) full employment for lower inflation and as such society doesn't have enough jobs for everyone.

Not to say that we couldn't chose to make more, but that isn't currently in fashion thanks to Milton Friedman and Co...

Cheers Op for responses. To answer your original question then. I think we need to tackle individual and societal issues to try to make things better. Re welfare state. I think it's a minority sponging and it doesn't really bother me. I'm happy to pay taxes for that small amount of people. There are far bigger causes that I wish the government would spend their time and energy on to save money for us e.g. corporate tax evaders (they cost me far more than a few benefit scroungers)...

I know this isn't the OP's question but I can't be arsed to start my own thread.

Assuming for the moment that these workshy scroungers have not been invented to justify austerity measures... it seems to be accepted they are a minority of those receiving benefit, and that working age benefits are only a fraction of total benefits paid out, so why is everyone fixated on them? Why not focus on all the coffin dodgers we're supporting through state pensions? Or as edenvalleyboy suggests, collect all the tax due and we've enough for everyone? Are they just an easy target?

^^^ pensioners vote and we will all be old one day but we do have some pretty wealthy pensioners getting some pretty serious benefits

My folks so need the winter fuel allowance as it does help pay for the 6 months in Portugal for example.

Personally, I work in a area were I see alot of downright un-employable people floating about the streets.

I would much rather see people doing something that benefitted society as a whole in return for their money than just handing it out to them. I would suggest that it would be good for most of them too, engendering a sense of responsibility, community and pride in them, rather than worthlessness.

Not so much Arbeit macht frie but arbeit for free macht frie

Awesome Ninfan

FWIW i work in this area we do something that requires people to be able to count clockwise to 5 Circa 33% of the unemployed fail to this simple task.

Ability is a bell shaped curve and so is compassion.

still allow three days a week for job hunting?

those who simply can't be bothered suddenly get some motivation to find work.

See also the above example of who I work with as to why so many are unemployed. they have very little to offer an employer and try and develop some empathy as well.

Teach people skills and imbue them with the work ethic to drag themselves out of bed and do a days work and there'll be a lot less "unemployable" people out there.

TBH its somewhere between frustrating and amusing reading the ill informed * views on a subject you know well

* Some are well meaning and I know why there are suggested but some are just heartless and wont work though they would lead to a massive crime surge.

Why not focus on all the coffin dodgers we're supporting through state pensions?

coffin dodgers vote?

Junkyard - lazarus
How ghastly can you not get a better job in a more salubrious part of town?

I don't look down on these people. you won't hear me referring to them as scumbags. But they do exist.

Tbh with some of the ****s I worked for, they probably have a point! 😆

Of course you dont look down on them

Now these are people who quite clearly can work, but dont' want to. And, quite obviously, you wouldn't want anywhere near your business.

FWIW i work in this area we do something that requires people to be able to count clockwise to 5 Circa 33% of the unemployed fail to this simple task.

Ability is a bell shaped curve and so is compassion.

What do we do about these people's kids? If the parents are this poorly educated, what chances have the kids got of contributing to society in a positive way?

See also the above example of who I work with as to why so many are unemployed. they have very little to offer an employer and try and develop some empathy as well.

So we just give them enough money not to become a crime risk and carry on the cycle? Is there no better way?

I don't judge people on their ability hold down a job.

Whether someone can't be fd working a shitty minimum wage job or can't do a minimum wage job has absolutely zero baring on my assessment of their character.

So no I don't look down on them.

I'd need to go for a pint with them before I judged their character.

What do we do about these people's kids? If the parents are this poorly educated, what chances have the kids got of contributing to society in a positive way?

As for work in the olden days I guess we had them employed to do the most menial and basic of manual labour jobs. These days they wont even be able to pass the CSCS basic test to be able to do this and there is a large pool of talented others to pick first.

Again what do you suggest?

Unless we have employers willing to undertake social employment [ and a commitment to full employment]then we will also have this spare capacity and the least able unemployed and we will manage the problem

I dont have a magic wand but training is not the answer for everyone at some point we need to look at the supply side of jobs rahter than just demonise those without jobs

Knee jerk reactions such as calling them all lazy or to scruffy to be allowed near us are unlikely to be helpful

Perhaps if the news gave stories of people ,for example, waiting for triple bypass surgery classed as fit for work forced to attend Job centres with oxygen masks on to sign on. What about the ex pub landlord forced to leave the job due to a back injury now trying ot find work after having to leave the last one due to a work related injury and no experience in any other industry or everyone had to sign on for a month - bit like cyclists want car drivers to ride to work to see what it is like.

The real world is rarely as the media spoon feed us.

To the original question it is partly a matter of economics.

Should people who we *know* as free-loaders be made to do something?

I guess so, but not to take away needed jobs for others and also to provide them with a feeling that they're a part of society.

How much money would you put into it? At some point you'd spend more money pushing them than they get in benefits. Then you'd end up with the Daily Wail and the rest of them bleating again. Though to be honest with their mindset I guess they would just prefer to use gas chambers.

Should we spend £1,000,000 to save £100,000?

Also aren't unemployment benefits something like 2.5% welfare budget with the majority being pensions and the fraud within the unemployment benefits down to less than 1%?