Uk from workless povery to in-work poverty

[madd0ct0r]

Great article at https://flipchartfairytales.wordpress.c ... t-century/

I don't want to quote it becuase 1) they deserve traffic for the effort and 2) it's mostly graphs and stealing their bandwith for that would twice as shitty.

Short version:
Number of workless families in the UK has dropped massivley since 1990.
Most benefit claimants work because their work pays low, or they are on a low-pay, no-pay seasonal cycle.

So while the rhetoric remains stuck in the 1980s of workshy idlers and unions, the reality is a whole new problem, when the government is still trying to 'solve' the old one.

[Death Zebra]

To make matters worse some influential people in the Conservative party think that Jobseekers Allowance should be treated like a loan to be paid when the claimant gets a job. This is to give them more incentive though what benefit there is to giving someone who's already trying their best more incentive is anyone's guess.

[Vendetta]

So while the rhetoric remains stuck in the 1980s of workshy idlers and unions, the reality is a whole new problem, when the government is still trying to 'solve' the old one.

The government isn't trying to "solve" any problem, they're using the rhetoric of the 1980s to fuel their ideologically driven cuts to the state because they're cunts.

[Sinewmire]

To make matters worse some influential people in the Conservative party think that Jobseekers Allowance should be treated like a loan to be paid when the claimant gets a job. This is to give them more incentive though what benefit there is to giving someone who's already trying their best more incentive is anyone's guess.

Because when you want to motivate rich people, you give them huge amounts of money, but to motivate the poor you deprive them. Obviously!

[Grumman]

To make matters worse some influential people in the Conservative party think that Jobseekers Allowance should be treated like a loan to be paid when the claimant gets a job. This is to give them more incentive though what benefit there is to giving someone who's already trying their best more incentive is anyone's guess.

That's an incredibly stupid thing for them to say. Telling jobseekers you're going to garnish their wages if they successfully find work is a disincentive to actually find work.

[Death Zebra]

That's an incredibly stupid thing for them to say. Telling jobseekers you're going to garnish their wages if they successfully find work is a disincentive to actually find work.

Indeed, especially as some people (I think I'm one of them but it's been a while since I did the calculation) are no better off in work already. If people think they're just getting more and more in shit as time goes on they're just more likely to spiral out of control in various ways and good luck trying to pass a job interview while being seriously demoralised. Being somber and lethargic does not put you ahead of the pack. Also, employers do not like "negative attitudes" so they're not going to take a shine to someone who thinks they're fucked regardless of what they do.

[blowfish]

That's an incredibly stupid thing for them to say. Telling jobseekers you're going to garnish their wages if they successfully find work is a disincentive to actually find work.

Indeed, especially as some people (I think I'm one of them but it's been a while since I did the calculation) are no better off in work already. If people think they're just getting more and more in shit as time goes on they're just more likely to spiral out of control in various ways and good luck trying to pass a job interview while being seriously demoralised. Being somber and lethargic does not put you ahead of the pack. Also, employers do not like "negative attitudes" so they're not going to take a shine to someone who thinks they're fucked regardless of what they do.

When operating under the assumption that jobseekers are lazy bums who will start working if you punish them enough, the existence of jobseekers just shows you need to punish them harder

In addition, I bet "turn grants into loans" is part of the tories going full steam ahead on their stupid budget balancing plan similarly to the proposed cut of the student support grants.

[Sinewmire]

As my friend Alex put it

"Maybe they could pay it back in the form of a percentage of their monthly pay, and it could be set up so it just gets taken out of their pay every time, like a kind of pay-as-you-earn thing. Oh my mistake, that's how tax already works. Or were they just looking to add a burden of debt and make people feel bound to their shitey jobs, rather than feeling like citizens who have contributed just like everyone else?"

[Ralin]

That's an incredibly stupid thing for them to say. Telling jobseekers you're going to garnish their wages if they successfully find work is a disincentive to actually find work.

Indeed, especially as some people (I think I'm one of them but it's been a while since I did the calculation) are no better off in work already. If people think they're just getting more and more in shit as time goes on they're just more likely to spiral out of control in various ways and good luck trying to pass a job interview while being seriously demoralised. Being somber and lethargic does not put you ahead of the pack. Also, employers do not like "negative attitudes" so they're not going to take a shine to someone who thinks they're fucked regardless of what they do.

Silly people. Obviously that's why you put a sharp limit on how longer they can receive the allowance and then demand that they start paying it back immediately afterward.

[Zaune]

I concluded a long time ago that a substantial faction within both major political parties wants a permanent underclass of desperate unemployables so they've got a handy scapegoat and/or a threat. Why else would they happily foot the bill to take probably-worthless "Introduction to Office" courses that aren't even a real Microsoft Certification but expect you to pay for taking serious IT qualifications out of your own pocket? Or completely fail to offer any official help and advice about acquiring a driver's license, much less help with some of the cost of lessons?

[Juubi Karakuchi]

I wouldn't go that far. It's understandable, but I follow Hanlon's Razor; never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

And they are stupid. In this UK, my homeland, we seem to keep electing blithering idiots. The best source I can recommend for understanding why these idiots keep screwing up is Anthony King and Ivor Crewe's The Blunders of our Governments. Here's a description from the Political Studies Association website;

http://www.psa.ac.uk/insight-plus/why-b ... -1980-2010.

Summarised, they concluded that British governments kept screwing up because of the following;

1) Insufficient deliberation.

Ministers make a decision, and it gets implemented, with little or no deliberation. They rarely if ever bother to consult anyone or get additional information, even from those who have to implement the new policy.

2) Insufficient accountability.

Ministers tend to get away with their screwups, due to regular ministerial reshuffles and a lack of 'veto players.' Ministers and other senior officials tend to stay in post for only a couple of years, meaning they're usually gone by the time a screwup is apparent. Also, they cannot (or merely are not) summoned before the Public Accounts Committee or the relevant select committee to explain themselves.

3) Ministerial hyper-activism.

Do something, no matter what it is, and get it done quickly. Anyone who points out a problem is being obstructive and should be removed.

4) Cultural disconnect.

The guys in charge just don't understand those they're trying to rule. They assume that everyone lives and thinks pretty much as they do.

5) Operational disconnect.

See 1), Ministers don't bother to consult those further down the chain who have to carry things out.

[Death Zebra]

Why else would they happily foot the bill to take probably-worthless "Introduction to Office" courses that aren't even a real Microsoft Certification but expect you to pay for taking serious IT qualifications out of your own pocket?

The qualifications and training offered through the Job Centre etc. have always been woefully poor in my experience and there are usually better alternatives available.

The mandatory 13 week forced jobsearch New Deal bullshit had part of CLAIT as an option (and when I had to do said bullshit a second time they didn't even have that or anything at all for Admin people) with shitty computer facilites to work on if any. By coincidence I had just enrolled on the entirety of the equivalent qualifcation ECDL at the local college for a small enrolment fee. The course itself was free and funnily enough, funded by the exact same thing as the New Deal bullshit. Admittedly, CLAIT had harder exams and would have been much better in retrospect but the college had that for free as well.

The customer service course the work programme sent me on was just 3 credits of Business and Administration level 1 and it took 4 days 9am to 3pm to study because the teacher went as slow as fucking molasses and allowed a man to rant for 30 solid minutes about the Job Centre. By contrast, I'm currently doing the entirety of level 2 Business and Admin for free with some distance learning outfit and I can work at my own pace from home rather than having to traipse halfway across the city in the fucking snow.

[Zaune]

I'm not talking about stuff offered through the Jobcentre, although I'm sure that's pretty awful, I'm talking about FE college classes. (What US nationals would call community college.) Anything with a Microsoft, Cisco or CompTIA certificate at the end of it costs hundreds of pounds; you used to be able to turn in a bit of paper with an official Job Centre stamp on it and the college could send the bill to the DWP, but that's been done away with now.

[Darth Nostril]

*snip*

That's a nice theory but this is the Conservatards we're talking about here. It is attributable purely to malice.

[Zaune]

That's a nice theory but this is the Conservatards we're talking about here. It is attributable purely to malice.

It's probably true for the Diet Tories Labour though, or earlier Conservative administrations from the days when they had the Soviets to keep them honest-ish.

[Death Zebra]

you used to be able to turn in a bit of paper with an official Job Centre stamp on it and the college could send the bill to the DWP, but that's been done away with now.

Do you know if that applied in 2007? If so, I'm down about £450 and I was on £40something a week at the time so it was an absolute BASTARD to save up. Actually, I'm still down that much as it was an NVQ course which, as I didn't kow at the time, attracted funding anyway.

If you do/ have done Cisco IT Essentials which is apparantly part of A+ or CompTIA (I can't remember wihich) I hope your experience is better than mine. I didn't get to work with the insides of any computers due to lack of resources, we used some shitty point and click game instead. Also, the tutors answer to questions was to google it which is what I end up doing any time I work on a computer anyway. Perhaps most damningly, it was the most boring actual course I've ever been on and I've done accounts!

[Zaune]

I sat my A+ exam in 2008. Maybe it was only CompTIA-based classes or something. I do remember them also making me take a strange and frankly rather pointless class called the Oracle iPro as well.

[Juubi Karakuchi]

*snip*

That's a nice theory but this is the Conservatards we're talking about here. It is attributable purely to malice.

One look at Michael Gove and I sometimes wonder.

I've been toying with the notion that the current bunch are stuck in an ideological rut. When what they're doing doesn't work, the only acceptable response is to either stay the course or apply an even more extreme version of the same approach. The alternative is to admit that they were wrong, and that nothing they are willing to do is going to work. Being all too human, they chose to deny reality rather than face horrid truths. This is where my earlier points about cultural disconnect and groupthink come in; they make denial so much easier and so much more instransigent. Denial only ends when reality makes it impossible, but some people have higher thresholds than others. The fact that unemployment is technically falling (even if this only disguises a deeper truth, as has been said already) gives them a basis - however flimsy - to persuade themselves that their policies are working.