A life without work

Did anyone see this on BBC 2 (2nd episode)http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00vjcxl

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-11584487

I missed some of it but wanted to say that this programme made me genuinely question the place of a benefits system in the 21st century - in 1910, Benjamin Seebohm Rowntree (great name) investigated the state of the poor in York and was instrumental in the formation of a welfare state - i admire the man greatly but when you look at the poor of 1910 to the poor of 2010, it just doesn't compare

He asked the unemployed to keep diary's to provide an insight into their lives and struggles and he used this study to push for greater help for the poor

This is all well and good but the documentary (A life without work) looks at whether the system he helped create should still be seen as a help to the poor or an opportunity to live a reasonably comfortable life on welfare - obviously they had contributions from (dare i say it) the do-gooders and fuzzy liberals who believe that those on benefits are still living a hand to mouth existence that cannot be regarded as a cushy life

but when you compare the single mother from 1910 to the single mother of 2010 it is blantantly clear that those on benefits today are not living a harsh hand to mouth existence - compared to the rich perhaps but compared to the average family.....no - and compared to the single mother of 100 years ago (don't be ridiculous)

If you told that woman in 1910 that she could have money every week for nothing, free housing, electricity, heating, hot running water, cheap flights to Ibiza, pizza delivery etc etc she would think you were offering her paradise by comparison

yes, those on benefits are not living the greatest life but so what - since when did people start getting this idea that they had a right to exactly the life they wanted - this is not x factor ("it's always been my dream to be a pop star" - so what! - why does everyone suddenly think they have a rigfht to their dreams - a right to persue them, yes but that does not mean a right to actually achieve them and if you don't your civil liberties have somehow been disrespected) the diffrence between 1910 and 2010 is demonstrably enormous and yet people still insist on pretending that nothing's changed

My right wing tendencies have been stirring lately but this programme really brought em out

ABOLISH THE WELFARE STATE!

discuss

I'm going to kiss you on the mouth now Painbow...

dblboggie wrote:I'm going to kiss you on the mouth now Painbow...

My take on this is that the sate should provide help to those who really need it upon circumstances that weren't their fault to begin with (job loss, etc). Today's welfare is nothing but a check to those who choose not to better themselves. I don't mean better themselves y going to school (though that is an option), but to get a friggin' job!

I've lived the big city most of my life. I remember when I lived in Dallas-Ft. Worth and would occasionally have to go to the "downtrodden" areas of Dallas (while working). Most of the people down there were standing around bullshitting. Drinking. Doing dope. Not working nor making an attempt.

Then you have the welfare mothers. Screw all week long and get more state benefits to help subsidize those kids born out of wedlock.

I could go on and on for the rest of the evening but I'm keeping it short. Politicians (and you know which ones I'm talking about) have created this atmosphere. They keep it alive. If you try to make cuts to it, you're a bigot, a racist, an ogre or one who has no sense of humanity.

We keep throwing money at this and nothing changes. Nothing has and nothing will change.

The obvious question is - what would you replace the welfare with? Before welfare we had the workhouses, charities.
Is welfare - per se - failing, or is it the methods used to get people back into work that are not working?
Is welfare as a concept bad - or is it rather that the money is not getting to the people who need it?

BecMacFeegle wrote:The obvious question is - what would you replace the welfare with? Before welfare we had the workhouses, charities.
Is welfare - per se - failing, or is it the methods used to get people back into work that are not working?
Is welfare as a concept bad - or is it rather that the money is not getting to the people who need it?

I think you're missing my point. It's the waste and the easy street attitude that welfare is the be-all, end-all for poor folks. Many poor have the ability to work. It's the mentality here in the USA that these people can't get off of welfare and that we can't deny them the help they need.

There are programs in place already to help children of parents that are poor. There are prgrams that help the metally unfit. There are programs that help the lederly who have no where to turn. Yet, we have this expansive welfare program that has sentenced a whole race of people to being dependent on gov't. It's sad and unnecessary.

It was a general answer Tex to the proposition that we should ABOLISH THE WELFARE STATE - as Painbow suggested in the original post. I watched the 2 BBC programmes which he linked to and they were the issues which struck me afterwards.

I don't think the American and British welfare states are comparable.

I'm not too sure about that. Our welfare system is pretty generous. And why not? It's fed by the US taxpayers with politicians holding the purse.

I disagree that we should abolish the welfare state. Of course it is open to abuses, and the New Labour obsession with making sure everybody got some share of the cake was ill conceived and unnecessary. Now they have fostered a culture of entitlement on top of the Thatcherite "me, me, me" and created a lethal mix.

What would you replace it with, and how would you administer it? I doubt private charity would work, at least, not for those having no impediments to work other than being unable to get a job. As two graduates who experienced this difficulty for 9 months, BecMacFeegle and I would not have been able to survive without the paltry JSA and having to pay off student debts.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:I disagree that we should abolish the welfare state. Of course it is open to abuses, and the New Labour obsession with making sure everybody got some share of the cake was ill conceived and unnecessary. Now they have fostered a culture of entitlement on top of the Thatcherite "me, me, me" and created a lethal mix.

What would you replace it with, and how would you administer it? I doubt private charity would work, at least, not for those having no impediments to work other than being unable to get a job. As two graduates who experienced this difficulty for 9 months, BecMacFeegle and I would not have been able to survive without the paltry JSA and having to pay off student debts.

That very culture of entitlement is what the Democrats have created here in the last 30+ years. The only time is was on a downswing was when Clinton signed welfare reform into law (with a GOP congress btw).

I'm not talking about helping people via, for instance, unemployment. I'm talking of people who literally live their lives on welfare because they can't turn off the Oprah Winfrey Show and get off their asses.

BecMacFeegle wrote: what would you replace the welfare with?

Sorry, i mispoke - i didn't mean welfare, i meant unemployment benefits

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:As two graduates who experienced this difficulty for 9 months, BecMacFeegle and I would not have been able to survive without the paltry JSA and having to pay off student debts.

You both might like this then - i would abolish unemployment benefits and pay people to go to college/university - those with little or no academic experience or interest would be able to develop practical work based skills and training (and get paid for it) and get a sense of self worth - Those who wanted to get degrees for a vocation would have the opportunity to do so without fear of debts - if either camp were unsuccessful in finding work afterwards they would have the option of continuing their education and skills (either for work reasons or simply to further their academic/skills abilities which in turn would have the added benefit of fostering in a new society that valued knowledge and learning above all other things)

speaking from personal experience, i was on unemployment benefits for over 5 years and had i been given the opportunity to go to university, i would have jumped at the chance - instead of turning up at the jobcentre every two weeks to sign on, i would have been paid a "decent" wage (though obviously not as much as employment for incentive reasons) and actually had the opportunity to learn something i might be interseted in rather than simply getting any generic job - obviously this might mean a lack of jobs in sectors where there's a high amount of interest but this would simply mean i could continue my learning (in theory this could go on indefinitely) universities would also have the opportunity to select purely on ability since the state would be financing all students

as far as those who have no interest in doing anything are concerned, they would have to take responsibility for their own lives and standards of living (as it should be) - those who cannot work for physical, mental or social reasons would continue to be protected and of course the NHS would remain (don't you dare touch it) and i would drastically increase the state pension

as a consequence of the increased participation in education, i would strengthen the value of a degree and create a new type of qualification beneath it that would act as the national standard while a degree would be re-established as a document of significance (for example those with a degree in media studies would now have a .............in media studies)

Those who had worked would receive a higher "education wage" than those who had not (contributions based) and those who went into work after a long spell in education would pay a higher rate of tax than those who had gone into work earlier

from right wing nut to left wing socialist in the space of two posts - that's Painbow!!

Painbow wrote:

BecMacFeegle wrote: what would you replace the welfare with?

Sorry, i mispoke - i didn't mean welfare, i meant unemployment benefits

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:As two graduates who experienced this difficulty for 9 months, BecMacFeegle and I would not have been able to survive without the paltry JSA and having to pay off student debts.

You both might like this then - i would abolish unemployment benefits and pay people to go to college/university - those with little or no academic experience or interest would be able to develop practical work based skills and training (and get paid for it) and get a sense of self worth - Those who wanted to get degrees for a vocation would have the opportunity to do so without fear of debts - if either camp were unsuccessful in finding work afterwards they would have the option of continuing their education and skills (either for work reasons or simply to further their academic/skills abilities which in turn would have the added benefit of fostering in a new society that valued knowledge and learning above all other things)

speaking from personal experience, i was on unemployment benefits for over 5 years and had i been given the opportunity to go to university, i would have jumped at the chance - instead of turning up at the jobcentre every two weeks to sign on, i would have been paid a "decent" wage (though obviously not as much as employment for incentive reasons) and actually had the opportunity to learn something i might be interseted in rather than simply getting any generic job - obviously this might mean a lack of jobs in sectors where there's a high amount of interest but this would simply mean i could continue my learning (in theory this could go on indefinitely) universities would also have the opportunity to select purely on ability since the state would be financing all students

as far as those who have no interest in doing anything are concerned, they would have to take responsibility for their own lives and standards of living (as it should be) - those who cannot work for physical, mental or social reasons would continue to be protected and of course the NHS would remain (don't you dare touch it) and i would drastically increase the state pension

as a consequence of the increased participation in education, i would strengthen the value of a degree and create a new type of qualification beneath it that would act as the national standard while a degree would be re-established as a document of significance (for example those with a degree in media studies would now have a .............in media studies)

Those who had worked would receive a higher "education wage" than those who had not (contributions based) and those who went into work after a long spell in education would pay a higher rate of tax than those who had gone into work earlier

from right wing nut to left wing socialist in the space of two posts - that's Painbow!!

Hey I missed this! Sorry for the lateness of this reply but I've been doing...Christmassy...stuff. Jesus Christ I'm so excited about Christmas. *ahem*

So hen-nee-way I would like to think that such a scheme would encourage people to appreciate learning for its own sake more highly - but I'm not sure it wouldn't be seen as the soft option. If people just went to university in order to avoid getting a job, then you'd have to have some method for filtering out the malingerers, right? And I can't help feeling that would end up being an entirely 'grades' based assessment - which might make the whole institution feel a bit too much like a school. People should only be at uni because they really want to and I wouldn't like to see lecturers and uni staff acting like teachers at a secondary school - chasing people for lack of attendance and reporting back to the people at the Job Centre.

I'd be more in favour of apprenticeships and funded training courses - to help people get into a job. But I HATE universities being viewed as a place where people go to get the skills needed to get a higher paid job - or a job at all. I think the problem in the UK is that TOO many people are going to uni to study Mickey Mouse degrees like media studies - or half arsed combined honours - if you want to do a degree that badly fsking PICK ONE, don't do 2 halves. Uni should be a place for learning for the love of learning - and nothing more. The value OF degrees have gone down because too many people have them. An MA now is what the degree used to be - but to get an MA you have to spend another year at uni racking up the debt. Some people HAVE to go to uni to do the job they want to - and that's fantastic because that's part of learning to do something you love. But going to uni to learn about BUSINESS studies? No. No no no no no. It sucks. It's WRONG. You don't need to go to uni to learn that shit - learn on the job. Fecking idiots. And there should be NO going to uni because people want the 'experience'. MY experience of uni was working from 8 in the morning until 10 at night most days - partly because I was obsessively dedicated to getting a 1st - but also because the course I was doing was bloody HARD. I'm not pretending it wasn't fab - it was, I loved my time at uni, I met fantastic people and I grew up a lot - BUT that is not what it was about. I did have a few fun times (Matt, if you mention the incident after final exams - you're dead!) but that's not why I was there.

Doing nothing whilst on unemployment is so debilitating and people need something, I'm not sure these 'forced voluntary' measures are the answer - and considering I had difficulty being allowed to do voluntary whilst I was claiming JSA, I think they're really missing the point a bit. I think people should have every opportunity to get new skills whilst they're out of work - but those should be skills related to finding work. I'd agree that some should have the opportunity to go to uni - but really, that system is already in place, provided a person is willing to get into debt. But uni entry really should be based on two things, and two things alone - ability and passion.

An excellent post all round darling, I couldn't agree more.

and considering I had difficulty being allowed to do voluntary whilst I was claiming JSA,

Yeah, I read the JSA book on voluntary work. It seemed to be a nightmare. As you know I applied for a few voluntary jobs just to keep busy, never heard back from any of them. The one I would have loved to do was the Church Conservation Trust doing research on the unknown graves. Had I got that role it would have been a lot of hassle and paperwork. They really weren't doing enough for us as graduates (I'll never forget the stupid cow who told me to go for a role at Oxford University as a Senior Research Fellow... aiming a bit high this time of my career and the same woman recommended you apply for an apprenticeship where you would acquire an NVQ... Seriously what fscking use is an NVQ to somebody with the letters MA after their name?!) and in some ways I felt they were placing obstacles in our way.