[url]http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/aug/03/victims-britains-harsh-welfare-sanctions?CMP=soc_567[/url]
Printable View
[url]http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/aug/03/victims-britains-harsh-welfare-sanctions?CMP=soc_567[/url]
Nothing like a bunch of privileged millionaires telling everyone else to tighten their belts eh?Quote:
Originally Posted by daboarder
People who work at Job Centres are millionaires?! How much do they pay them?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Mystery
DWP, and Ian '£59 Breakfast' Duncan Smith setting down the laws.
Because you know, once you're a millionaire yourself, it's obvious that anyone not a millionaire is simply a workshy layabout there to be starved to death if you so wish.
Still. Not long now. Really don't think we'll see the Tories in again after the next election.
The choice of whether someone is working hard enough to get a job is done by those in the local branch of the labour exchange, I doubt any of them are millionaires.
All following orders from DWP.
The guidelines are laid out by the DWP but it is up to the local workers to evaluate each case on a case by case basis to determine if it is appropriate or if there are mitigating factors, i.e. health reasons, disability, etc. that would make them excempt for any puniative action.
I think that it is reasonable that those who do not look actively enough to suffer from punitaive action. But, as always when it comes to populations a one rule doesn't fit that's how come you need local people to do determine if there are any exceptional circumstances.
- - - Updated - - -
Again, those local DWP workers aren't millionaires.
Yep. I'm obviously biased, but it really cheesed me off during the recent public sector strikes, that they kept referring to them harming the 'hard working people who are getting Britain back on track'. Because people who choose to take a single day of strike action because they are struggling to pay their mortgage thanks real terms wage cuts and have serious concerns about the standard of service and in some cases safety, of various public sectors, are not hard working people contributing to fixing the economy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Mystery
Maybe I am cynical, but I am not sure how striking and holding parent's to ransom is hard working.
Public sector wages have stagnated, well guess what so have private sector.
Why should public sector workers get pay rises thus costing the majority of the labour force more money in tax liability, when they themselves have not recieved pay rises?
Or is it a case that the public sector just wants to screw the private sector even more?
More likely its the private sectors limited interests screwing anyone not in the upper class, and then lobbying so that it affects the public sectorQuote:
Originally Posted by Wolfshade
The clear implication from the government was that those public sector workers who went on strike are work shy layabouts who clearly make no contribution at all to the economy or wider society the rest of the time. It is this sort of lazy and insulting stereotyping/propaganda which I took offence at.
Whilst I have no intention of getting into a dispute about this issue with you, I would like to point out that I made no mention of pay rises, nor has the NUT campaign ever been about that. Had our pension contributions not been increased, it would have not cost the taxpayer (which includes public sectors workers) any more money and would have offset cost of living increases.
All wages haven't so much stagnated, as been artificially suppressed. They haven't kept up with inflation for decades - quite possibly longer than my lifetime (34 years, born May 1980).Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolfshade
The pay suppression is something that no government of any flavour has dealt with.
We've spoken how the the whole labour force carries the tax burden of public sector workers before, as opposed to private sector pensions which are paid for by the employer and employee.
no government has addressed this no, because the "left" governments merely hold ground or compromise, they dont make progress anymore. and then when the right governments get in they make huge leaps to the right that aren't redressed when they inevitably get booted out again
Yup.
Benefits have kept pace with the cost of living. Wages haven't. That's why many people find themselves better off on benefits than in work. And frankly that's insane, but needs a two ended approach. Start cutting back benefits, whilst raising the minimum wage to something one can realistically live off of.
Would I like to see fewer benefits paid out? Naturally yes I would. But when someone is only claiming a single one, like Job Seekers (which pays naff all anyway, and certainly nowhere near enough for job hunting outside of your immediate vicinity) is it really worth starving them over?
ATOS in particular have been utterly shameful throughout the restructuring. And IDS has just thrown good money after bad with his bizarre insistence that Universal Credit, depsite all evidence and experience to the contrary, is going to work.
Changing the minimum wage isn't as simple as that as it causes unintended consequeces that we have been through be I will summarise.
1) Inflation increases
2) Increased unemployment
3) Disproptionally detrimental to manufacturing.
But as a general rule of thumb I agree that those out of work should have a lower standard of living than those that do work.
It is really an emotive topic, but it is quite a small amount of money, certainly it is a fraction to what the nation pays out in pensions approximately 20p in ever £1 spent.
There is a problem with the benefit system. Each sucessive government would see that there is a niche of people that weren't be addressed by the benefit so it would be tacked on. Until it became a huge unweildy behemoth that something needed to be done to make it more streamlined and more efficient, now any restructuring would be painful and most over run. But do you risk making something simpler in the long terms for a little short term hurt or do you must not bother and continue adding things on here and there until you have a beast that is nigh-on impenetrable.
But there are good and bad things. I think it was good that people had housing benefit paid to them and they then paid that in rent, it gives them control over their finances, but instead swathes didn't spend it on rent and were surprised to be evicted.
And as ever, the post-war Generation who pulled the ladder up after them are making damned sure their pensions are as rosey as can be, and sod everyone else. Everything else can be plundered, privatised, cut back, done away with - unless it directly affects that generation.
Hence the lack of house building. Why, that would affect the value of their own property. You know, the one they bought for a more than reasonable price back in the 70's. The ones that have skyrocketed in value to the point where even I start earning £60,000 a year I won't be able to afford to buy a family home. Can't have any value being knocked off that now can we? Oh no.
Being on the property ladder, I don't see the problem ;)
But no, it is silly.
Trouble is the grey vote is most important, because they vote. Young people see things are stacked against tehm so don't vote out of apathy so the parties go and follow those most likely to vote.
The only real exception is LibDems who unfortunately, have alienated their student base.
Haven't they just. Such a disappointment.
Granted, being the minority stake in a coalition limits your clout somewhat, but there was no need for them to grab their ankles quite so badly. Drunk on power, and they might never recover as a party, whether or not they ditch Clegg.
And we're looking at the same situation with Labour as we did the Tories last time around - they're likely to get in, not because they have the credible alternative, but because the incumbent's are desparately unpopular.
Though having said that, I think it's worth having the Tories in for one more run - simply because they're promising a referendum on EU membership. One way or the other, such a referendum would blow UKIP out of the political water. Vote for in, they will have to STFU as the public has spoken. Vote for out? What purpose do the swivel eyed lunatics serve now? Sadly, UKIP are one of the reasons Cameron is likely out next election. They're primarily eroding the Tory voter base at a time when they need it as shored up as possible.
It is strange, I don't think Labour can win with Milliband, or at least this Milliband, I know it is shallow but he does not look prime-ministerial. He looks like Wallace.
David Milliband looks and sounds much more statesmanly.
Then you have Ed Balls whose predictions on the worsening economy are just wrong so he has no credibility with that.
it is a difficult one, throuhgout histoy any part that has implemented a raft of cuts, gone through recessions and generally do unpopular things are massively unpopular and yet we do not see it in the polls.
I think UKIP are the biggest threat to the British economy. Yes, I would like to see the highest law of the land being in the UK and for the UK to chose which laws to adopt or not and not haev them imposed. But I do not want to leave teh economic market. Europe is our biggest trade partner and the UK manuacturing has big enough issues with expesnive labour before worrying about the effect of import taxes would be.
But this is part of the truth that UKIP are hopefully trying to make people unaware of and cite the 8.7 billion bulgarians who want to come in and steal our women, sorry job.
Fear and ignprance are their allies and unfortunately, they evoke a strong emotional reaction and so they get people whipped up and ready to vote for the idoicy.
Having said all that, I am in favour of UKIPs plan to make the circle line circluar again...
- - - Updated - - -
The other issue are the "I vote this way because I always do". I know an old man very well, he is an avid labour man through and through, he is a member and was in the unions back in the day. He is also reasonably intelligent. He has moved through his career from being a tradtional labour voter to being a tradtional tory voter, yet he has not switched red for blue. Despite him being actively opposed to some Labour policies and hating Milliband, he will still drive down and vote for the labour guy.
And this is what we are stuck with generations of people who believe we are in a 1950s Britian, where Labour are left, Tories are right and the LibDems are a demonstration vote. In reality, Labour and Conservative are much closer to the centre and each other than the "traditional core vote" would like to observe.
I really do loathe UKIP. It's like the Daily Mail has somehow made flesh it's entirely dreamt up Britain
And unfortunately they've hit their stride at just the wrong time for the Tories. They're taking away the more unbalanced Tory base (hurrah!), at the same time the Tories are alienting their less committed voters, let alone floating voters.
Still. At least Mr Gove is being kept out of trouble. Nasty little toad that he is.
Other trouble? I personally have done fairly well out of the current Goverment, which is probably the first time that's ever happened. Higher tax threshold has seen a few extra quid in my pocket, which is nice, but most of it has been off my own back (better and better jobs, career well under way etc). Yet I can also look back, and know as well as I'm doing right now it can all too easily be lost, and the safety mat that was once there has been swapped for a bed of nails. And that genuinely scares me.
One concept about housing - why are council houses 'yours for life'. Surely that discourages people trying to develop themselves and their careers? After all, whether or not you're receiving housing benefit, council and housing assosciation houses are dead cheap. Like, fraction of private rental cheap. So stick a review cap on it. Say something like 5 years - you can achieve a lot in 5 years. Then if like me you've turned yourself around and now more than capable of standing on your own two feet, off into the private market you go. If not, or you're genuinely incapable of work (disability etc) you get another 5 years in it.
Welfare should be providing a safety net, not a cost bolthole.
Actually recent experiences in several US cities and states have found raising the minimum wage boosts employment and productivity along with many other positive flow on effects, rather than the previously accepted wisdom that it hurts jobs.
Since I have been in work I have been better off with each sucessive government. In terms of pure tax purposes, the increased personal tax allowance has out weighed any other costs that I have incurred, rises in fuel duty, VAT and alchol duty.
- - - Updated - - -
Quote:
Originally Posted by eldargal
I am sure those 0.5 million will enjoy there new found unemployement and that additional spending power they enjoy...Quote:
The key takeaways from the CBO report: Gradually raising the federal minimum wage to $10.10 from $7.25 would boost the incomes of most low-wage workers and lift 900,000 out of poverty. But it could also result in the loss of 500,000 jobs.
Minimum Wage should be raised by increments I agree, as you can't really expect any business to suddenly go from say £3.50 an hour to £7.00 an hour. Many would collapse under that weight.
Just needs to stay ahead of inflation. And whilst raising that, either make smaller cuts to benefit amounts, or freeze them. Eventually you'll pass the equilibrium point (where you're no better off either way), and be better off in work. Lovely for all involved.
Also - FFS, free childcare. Cost of it is outrageous, and keeps many parents who are more than willing to work at home. Make childcare free, get a bit of early edumacation into the sprogs (so reading etc becomes normal before they know what normal is!) and everyone in society wins.
Yes some big report or other was contradicted by the actual experiences of several places in the US. Apparently the authors were very cranky.
One thing is for sure - 'trickle down' economics was a load of bunkum from the outset.
And seriously, just how much money do the super rich want to acquire? I get that it's nice being filthy stinking rich, who wouldn't like that. But when you're sat on billions upon billions of dollars - what's the point? What more can you buy that you couldn't last year? What good is that money being held onto?
First of all we need to understand that the US is not the UK and the economies are different.
After all their waiting staff still needing tips to surivie and the american minimum wage hasn't moved in 5 years and is significantly lower than the UK one.
The 13 states, with faster growth rates that are "owing to increase minimum wages" is only 0.2% quicker, not exactly ground breaking
Though compare that to the state with teh highest growth rate, North Dakota, it has had no minimum wage increase.
So i think it is far too early to determine the overall net effect.
Yup, the flow on effects from the US were much more convincing. Workers had more money, they were spending more on all the things, other businesses benefited, offsetting their own increased costs and increasing profit, often necessitating more workers being employed. It used to be the basis of capitalism actually, you pay the highest wages your business could justify, not try and squeeze them to the lowest possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Mystery
Looking at the other side of that - have states that upped the minimum wage all in stronger than average growth? Or is it just some?
I don't know, as I don't know where you guy are getting your figures from!
And I do agree - UK is different. Our minimum wage is getting there, slowly but surely. Worst thing we could do would be to follow what some of UKIP want and scrap it. That serves absolutely not purpose!
My figures are based on the average of the 13 states vs the remaining 33?
I think that it is too early adn too simplistic to say X or Y.
As the North Dakota outlier shows is that if you have a strong economy you increase growth rates.
It is a bit like including London figures in UK figures. London never actually hit rescession like the rest of the country did and the growth rates are always higher.
here are teh figures, it is hardly convincing, given the lowest rate also raised it's minum wage
http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1913660/original.jpg
I'm not sure, I was reading about it a little while ago but I didn't save the article. I'm not saying we should arbitrarily raise the minimum wage here or anything, I'm just saying that the widespread belief it increases unemployment doesn't seem to mesh with the actual evidence. Evidence to the contrary from what I've seen tends to be predictions rather than empirical and from sources that benefit by keeping wages low so I'm sceptical.
But I do agree with EG on teh point "It used to be the basis of capitalism actually, you pay the highest wages your business could justify, not try and squeeze them to the lowest possible".
Yup. Everyone pays their workers decent wages, those workers get more to spend, consumer spending increases, business income goes up. Sustainable and ethical. The current model relies on finding cheaper and cheaper labour to the point a strong argument can be made that te global economy is underpinned by slave labour again.
Take where I used to work.
High pressure, fairly technical work - paid a pittance by industry standards. Training regime was good though - easily one of the best in the industry so hurrah for that.
Trouble is, because they paid so little, they struggled to retain competent staff. What you'd typically see was people signing up, taking advantage of the excellent level of training, get 12-18 months experience under their belt, and then nick off. This left a hardcore of goons left. People either unwilling, unable or both to get the job done. Hole gets deeper, as more and more technical stuff backs up. People join, gain experience quicker due to the workload, leave sooner.
Place is practically in meltdown, all because of a conscious decision to offer rock bottom wages. Where is the sense in that?
Take the flipside where I find myself now. Decent career, good conditions, and paid to the point where it's hard to find another job offering the same combination and job security. Net result? I'm here for the long run, not because I feel trapped, but because I've got a good fist of things, and am content with the treatment I receive in return for my work!
Yup, I know of a lot of similar experiences too. A clothing company I love ended up producing their stuff in India not to cut costs because not a single factory in the UK could meet the quality standard they wanted at any price because the industry runs on charging high prices but paying low wages and as a result the workers they get are those that can't find any other work and are not skilled textile workers. so they pay the skilled Indian (women) a substantial wage by local standards 9ethical) and produce high quality goods for a discerning world wide market. Which could be being made here and employing people but no...
Well yes, I celebrate 5 years of permanent contract later this year just for that reason. unfortuantely, I have puished myself into a very secure niche with 0 opporuntites elsewher :(
I know one area that I have dealing with their operation staff has 100% turn over and it is that which causes all kinds of difficultes. While they are paid the same as everyone else who works doing that job in the country on site are firms which do a similiar job but pay a london allowance and so they will leave the lower paid for the higher once they have the experiance and trainging.
Indeed.
Outsourced jobs are not necessarily unethical. They might not be paid well by our standards, but for many in their neck of the world it's a decent wage indeed. Suppliers however need to take full responsibility for the conditions of the workers producing for them. If the sweatshops illegally employing children etc aren't used, they'll shut down. No point being all 'oh we didn't know! How could we know!' once it's out there. Be proactive.
In short? Low wages damage the economy. Makes a life on benefits more appealing. Keeps all the money in the pockets of the already well off. Limits the spending of the general populace. Overall, reduces taxes raised, putting further strain on the state.
Contrary to popular belief, it's a hardcore minority of benefit claimants who never want to work. Give those who it a decent shot at life.
This is actually a bit of a red herring; North Dakota is currently experiencing a huge boom in shale gas extraction, and their growth is being fueled entirely by the construction of well and housing for the workers moving in to the area, which are one-time purchases.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolfshade
Trickle down economics is a bad joke started by the wealthy and the US is to the point where "ethics" should not be used in the same sentence as "politics and/or business". Maybe this is the endgame of Capitalism... a return to the economic structure of the middle ages.
Oh we're not at all far from Feudalism when the majority of working age adults rent their property.
Only trouble is, those at the top have shirked off the responsbilities of the olden day Nobles (like keeping the land safe and secure etc).
Saddest thing? It's the post-war generation dismantling the very system their parents set up and fought for. It's pathetic.