How do we break the welfare cycle?

gailforecast

How do we stop generational welfare recipients?

Do CE schemes or other work programs work? Or is there another approach we can take which will be effective?

Harry Palmr

Well, your timing is immaculate!

Diceicle

Centralise payments into one system backed up by some sort of National ID card. Cuts out fraud.
At the same time put a cap on the amout of total welfare payments an individual can claim - something near minimum wage - preferably below it.
Put a time limit on the number of years you are allocated use of council housing for. If you have a family - 10 or 15 years should be suffice to get your affairs in order. If you haven't been able to geta job that will sustain your living without government assistance in the past 10-15 years, and once the younger family members leave the nest, you must downsize to an appropriately sized apartment - thus freeing up a 3 bed property for the next needy young family. No more forevah homes.

screamer

No contribution no payouts.

ectoraige

Massive, and I mean *massive* investment in social workers, social care workers, addiction services, mental health services, and targeted educational support.

So many people in welfare traps have parents who were themselves raised by abusive or addicted parents with poor education supports, the cycle continues when the new generation continue the patterns of before.

irisheddie85

Do like what was done for the last generation who's children are now middle class. Let them buy their council house so they have equity in the area they are living and some form of wealth that can be passed on to the next generation giving them a better prospect of buying their own home in the future.

Eric Cartman

1 child benefit converted from a payment to a tax credit
2 free contraception
3 social housing in high demand areas only for those who actively work full time in those areas
4 No social housing queue jumping for having a kid, first come first served.
5 build more prison spaces, like thousands more and end suspended sentences for anyone with previous convictions
6 half JSA and increase JSB
7 drug testing claimants routinely
8 no disability payments for alcoholics, drug addicts or unproven back and neck injuries.
9 remove problem tenants from social housing under a 2 strike system, get removed from your second property and its on the streets for you.
10 add personal injury payouts to means tested payments.

TuringBot47

gailforecast wrote: »

How do we stop generational welfare recipients?

Force able bodied welfare recipients to perform community service until they get a job. Payment is conditional on engaging.

Galwayguy35

ectoraige wrote: »

Massive, and I mean *massive* investment in social workers, social care workers, addiction services, mental health services, and targeted educational support.

So many people in welfare traps have parents who were themselves raised by abusive or addicted parents with poor education supports, the cycle continues when the new generation continue the patterns of before.

Or maybe they are too lazy to work because the state does everything for them except wipe their arse.

ronivek

TuringBot47 wrote: »

Force able bodied welfare recipients to perform community service until they get a job. Payment is conditional on engaging.

Is this something that has been done in any other countries?

dubrov

Eric Cartman wrote:

1 child benefit converted from a payment to a tax credit 2 free contraception 3 social housing in high demand areas only for those who actively work full time in those areas 4 No social housing queue jumping for having a kid, first come first served. 5 build more prison spaces, like thousands more and end suspended sentences for anyone with previous convictions 6 half JSA and increase JSB 7 drug testing claimants routinely 8 no disability payments for alcoholics, drug addicts or unproven back and neck injuries. 9 remove problem tenants from social housing under a 2 strike system, get removed from your second property and its on the streets for you. 10 add personal injury payouts to means tested payments.

Most of the above had been implemented in the USA. His that working out?

Littlehorny

if your still on the dole after a year, it goes down 10% and then 10% every year after that. By the time your 5 years on the dole your only entitled to 50% of full dole.
In other words, get a fuppin job!!

4068ac1elhodqr

UBI: Gig away like the like the RollingStones, in this new multi-wave or post-pandemic gig-economy.

jrosen

Monkey see monkey do.

While we are all born equally our surroundings and upbringing has a huge impact on who we end up becoming. If you are born into a family where welfare is their main source of money it becomes the norm for you. Almost the same as a kid who's parents both went to college and who are ambitious. Chances are that child will follow suit.

By the time someone has reached late teens or early 20's its almost too late. They have spent their life depending on state handouts. They will have grown to expect a house, expect money every week and they know the system better than those who work in it.

Changes I believe have to be made slowly if they are to work. We cant simply pull the rug out from under someone at 25 and expect them to turn their life around and be self sufficient.

I dont know how. I do think making long term plans on welfare reform sets clear lines so people know what is coming. Be in max time claiming JSB, max child benefit etc.

1: Switch the problem's focus away from the shaming of lower-class/uneducated/vulnerable individuals to billionaires who do no meaningful work but pretend to live in Malta or the Channel Islands in order to pay zero tax, and to the overseas shell-companies that produce nothing but are allowed to use our jurisdiction as a tax haven at the expense of real-economy companies and jobs, and to the big-four 'accountancy consultant' firms that do very little other than enable fraud.


2: Acknowledge that these are two sides of the same coin and that the problem is global. 'Moral hazard' was a popular phrase during the banking crisis; in the context of this thread even the most pro-establishment of observers recongise that the basic moral standard that we should take no more than we contribute has been shattered from the top down. There will be no basis for telling anyone below median income, no matter how lazy, to work harder and contribute more until this contradiction has been solved.

belfe

ronivek wrote: »

Is this something that has been done in any other countries?

In North Korea it worked.

gailforecast

[Deleted User] wrote: »

1: Switch the problem's focus away from the shaming of lower-class/uneducated/vulnerable individuals to billionaires who do no meaningful work but pretend to live in Malta or the Channel Islands in order to pay zero tax, and to the overseas shell-companies that produce nothing but are allowed to use our jurisdiction as a tax haven at the expense of real-economy companies and jobs, and to the big-four 'accountancy consultant' firms that do very little other than enable fraud.


2: Acknowledge that these are two sides of the same coin and that the problem is global. 'Moral hazard' was a popular phrase during the banking crisis; in the context of this thread even the most pro-establishment of observers recongise that the basic morality of a person taking no more than they contribute has been shattered from the top down. There will be no basis for telling anyone to work harder and contribute more until this contradiction has been solved.

That doesn’t answer the question. People don’t remain purposely unemployed because of a billionaire.

Josh.

jrosen wrote: »

Monkey see monkey do.

While we are all born equally our surroundings and upbringing has a huge impact on who we end up becoming. If you are born into a family where welfare is their main source of money it becomes the norm for you. Almost the same as a kid who's parents both went to college and who are ambitious. Chances are that child will follow suit.

By the time someone has reached late teens or early 20's its almost too late. They have spent their life depending on state handouts. They will have grown to expect a house, expect money every week and they know the system better than those who work in it.

Changes I believe have to be made slowly if they are to work. We cant simply pull the rug out from under someone at 25 and expect them to turn their life around and be self sufficient.

I dont know how. I do think making long term plans on welfare reform sets clear lines so people know what is coming. Be in max time claiming JSB, max child benefit etc.

Agree

gailforecast

gailforecast wrote: »

That doesn’t answer the question. People don’t remain purposely unemployed because of a billionaire.

People withdraw when they feel that the jobs available to them are meaningless and that the lads at the top are complete scam artists.


Both of those judgements are correct.

gailforecast

[Deleted User] wrote: »

They do when they think that the jobs available to them are meaningless and that the lads at the top are complete scam artists.


Both of those things are correct.

Thinking that a job is meaningless seems like an attitude of any person on welfare. Why people think they’re above certain types of work is beyond me.

Eric Cartman

dubrov wrote: »

Most of the above had been implemented in the USA. His that working out?

fantastically for those who work and contribute, miserably for those who do not.... so how it should really. With the exception of access to healthcare, the US is great for almost anyone working above minimum wage.

Pkiernan

Food Stamps, not cash.

Double dole for those on long term contraception.

No children allowance.

gailforecast

Eric Cartman wrote: »

fantastically for those who work and contribute, miserably for those who do not.... so how it should really. With the exception of access to healthcare, the US is great for almost anyone working above minimum wage.

Especially those in mid/high-level careers. Here we punish high achievers instead.

kenmm

ectoraige wrote: »

Massive, and I mean *massive* investment in social workers, social care workers, addiction services, mental health services, and targeted educational support.

So many people in welfare traps have parents who were themselves raised by abusive or addicted parents with poor education supports, the cycle continues when the new generation continue the patterns of before.

This. And that is it. Commit to actually breaking the cycle.

gailforecast

gailforecast wrote: »

Thinking that a job is meaningless seems like an attitude of a prospective employee.

How do you mean? I thought the idea is that prospective employees are a good thing. How would anyone get a job if they weren't prospective employees?

gailforecast

[Deleted User] wrote: »

How do you mean? I thought the idea is that prospective employees are a good thing. How would anyone get a job if they weren't prospective employees?

If someone believes a job is meaningless, or think certain work is beneath them, that’s a rancid attitude.

mr_fegelien

Does anyone think there's a conspiracy behind this? Think about it, if restrictions on the dole are so easy to implement, why doesn't our government get on with them? They can't all be incompetent fools.

The theory I've heard about in the States is that the Democrats brought in welfare to destroy the family unit, this having been successfully done among African Americans as they're the ones who depend on it the most. Black illegitimacy got worse as times have progressed so perhaps some "shadow" government want to do the same for people in Ireland.

gailforecast

gailforecast wrote: »

If someone believes a job is meaningless, or think certain work is beneath them, that’s a rancid attitude.

What's the "prospective employee" slur about though? Last time I went for a job interview I was a prospective employee. Which is how I got the job.

mr_fegelien

mr_fegelien wrote: »

Does anyone think there's a conspiracy behind this? Think about it, if restrictions on the dole are so easy to implement, why doesn't our government get on with them? They can't all be incompetent fools.

The theory I've heard about in the States is that the Democrats brought in welfare to destroy the family unit, this having been successfully done among African Americans as they're the ones who depend on it the most. Black illegitimacy got worse as times have progressed so perhaps some "shadow" government want to do the same for people in Ireland.

Hi Gemma!

gailforecast

[Deleted User] wrote: »

What's the "prospective employee" comment about though? Last time I went for a job interview I was a prospective employee. Which is how I got the job.

I mistyped. It’s besides the point. If someone thinks certain work is beneath them, the blame doesn’t lie with billionaires, the blame lies with a stinking attitude problem.

oceanman

Eric Cartman wrote: »

fantastically for those who work and contribute, miserably for those who do not.... so how it should really. With the exception of access to healthcare, the US is great for almost anyone working above minimum wage.

the US is a broken country with huge problems and social divides, a place we should never try to aspire to...

gailforecast

oceanman wrote: »

the US is a broken country with huge problems and social divides, a place we should never try to aspire to...

Sure, but people aren’t taxed to the hilt there.

osarusan

There's only three ways to spend the taxpayer's hard-earned money when it come to welfare reform. More walls. More bars. More guards.

gailforecast

gailforecast wrote: »

I mistyped. It’s besides the point. If someone thinks certain work is beneath them, the blame doesn’t lie with billionaires, the blame lies with a stinking attitude problem.

Still none the wiser on what you mean.


There's a large sociology base around this question, built up over more than a century. David Graeber is fashionable at the moment for what he calls 'búll**** jobs'.


I'm lucky that I'm in a job that I find meaningful and I can talk about having a work ethic and so on. But zooming out, so many of the jobs that we do either have no meaning or actively make the world a worse place.


I've worked in the latter category and hated myself for having to do so. That was the most toxic time of my life; I shouldn't have done it but I had no choice. Sociologically this whole question is a far more complicated scenario than just being annoyed at strangers for not working harder.



And all throughout human history the concept of the work ethic has been related to the idea of the 'dignity of labour'. That's another thing that's broken for many people today and needs to be solved if you want people to work more.

Irish Praetorian

Yeah I've no problem with some of these measures around tightening up welfare in order to discourage long term dependency in all but the most appropriate cases (I wouldn't mind seeing things like respite for carers of the seriously disabled and even more facilities for the seriously disabled).

But let's not leave one half of the equation alone - I hear plenty of young couples speaking of the difficulty of getting a family started even when both are working full time and often leading them to only have one child or two. The biggest expense? Property, in the form of rent or mortgage payments.

I would suggest a draconian culling of the rental sector outright;

1. Property tax (think LPT on steroids) on all but a person's primary residence - if you're in the business of owning a house/apartment so that you can accrue a rental income then its time for you to find a new investment opportunity. Seasonal rentals are fine, apartment complexes I would be open to exempting or making encouraging some kind of co-op structure, but the basic idea is you own a house you intend to use, not just to make money off. You want somewhere to sleep in the city when you finish work, you had better be some high flying over worked git who's willing to pay for the pleasure.

Possible problems; who would invest in building a house if they can't profit off it/won't people just collude to say a friend 'owns' a property.

2. State development and redevelopment - partly in answer to the problem above, the state needs to get a lot more aggressive about developing and redeveloping areas as appropriate. Lovely historic terrace houses look nice with their semi-elliptical transom, but guess what looks nice? A new family able to live in the city close to their work and schooling without having to commute 90 minutes every day. If there is demand then build, and if it is dilapidated develop.

Possible problems; the planning infrastructure needed for centralized development, possibility for the usual feeding at the state trough.

3. Get a hell of a lot tighter on tenant responsibilities and tie that in with welfare reform - the state ought not to be in the business of providing housing and free services for those who scorn their basic duties as citizens (let alone human beings). A person might not be able to pay rent once in a while, a person might occasionally get in a scuffle - fine people can be in error and we should be understanding. But persistent abuse of a service should be dealt with far more severely far more quickly - if the rent is consistently in arrears eviction should be streamlined, if anti-social behaviour becomes a regular occurrence it should not be the burden of decent neighbours to endure it.

Possible problems; problematic individuals and their dependents ending up on the streets, overzealous enforcement.

And since ideas sound best in threes I'll leave it there, come decry me as a heartless fascist or a hippie communist, I'm eager to see which prevails XD

Josh.

The US and the UK are fukked

We don't want to aspire to be like them

gailforecast

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Still none the wiser on what you mean.


There's a large sociology base around this question, built up over more than a century. David Graeber is fashionable at the moment for what he calls 'búll**** jobs'.


I'm lucky that I'm in a job that I find meaningful and I can talk about having a work ethic and so on. But zooming out, so many of the jobs that we do either have no meaning or actively make the world a worse place.


I've worked in the latter category and hated myself for having to do so. That was the most toxic time of my life; I shouldn't have done it but I had no choice. Sociologically this whole question is a far more complicated scenario than just being annoyed at strangers for not working harder.



And all throughout human history the concept of the work ethic has been related to the idea of the 'dignity of labour'. That's another thing that's broken for many people today and needs to be solved if you want people to work more.

None the wiser? It’s pretty straightforward. If you think you’re above certain types of work, you have a dreadful attitude. I spent my teens and college years working in Lidl on the bottom rung. I never thought the work was too good for me. It paid the rent and bills. There’s no such thing as a meaningless job. If it was meaningless, it’d be cut.

Referring to any job as a “bull**** job” is snobby, irresponsible and downright idiotic.

At what point does a job become meaningful?

gailforecast

gailforecast wrote: »

None the wiser? It’s pretty straightforward. If you think you’re above certain types of work, you have a dreadful attitude. I spent my teens and college years working in Lidl on the bottom rung. I never thought the work was too good for me. It paid the rent and bills. There’s no such thing as a meaningless job. If it was meaningless, it’d be cut.

Referring to any job as a “bull**** job” is snobby, irresponsible and downright idiotic.

Mmm, I did much the same at various times.



But I also had jobs where the company I worked for was the public face of a tax scam and it really didn't make a difference if we answered our phones or masturbated under the desk, or where the only work was done by a roomful of unpaid college interns who had their smoke break cancelled one day because the company owner was having his Merc valeted where they usually smoked, or where we were instructed to break the law to ship an illegal product or else the payroll wouldn't happen this month.



I did those jobs (and I reported offences as appropriate, with no action from the guards/Revenue/regulators). Now that I'm out of those environments I must say I am indeed above "certain types of work" and that I don't think this is a "stinking attitude problem" as you say.



There must be a point whereby "you have a dreadful attitude" is overtaken by "I'm enabling white-collar crime and I hate myself for being here". Yes, a work ethic is admirable and I think we agree on that.



But a lot of jobs make the world a worse place - imagine being the advertising account manager for an over-the-counter opioid, for example.



And a lot of jobs make people sick and unhappy in a way that work ethic just can't compensate for. It's a very harsh position to insist that people commit their lives to work-for-the-sake-of-work; if you're proud of your working life then of course that's a positive thing for you but that's just not a universal experience and solving the problem of workplace-withdrawal just won't come down to work ethic alone.



All the above is personal anecdote of why a cast-iron work ethic just can't be the be-all-and-and-all, but there's been a ton of social-science research on the topic that's worth delving into if you haven't already.

bfa1509

Have a weekly 5k race for everyone on welfare. Whoever is in the bottom 10% gets no dole.

Eric Cartman

Deleted User wrote: »

People withdraw when they feel that the jobs available to them are meaningless and that the lads at the top are complete scam artists.


Both of those judgements are correct.

anyone not working because somebody is doing better than them really needs to be sent down a coal mine.

Eric Cartman

Eric Cartman wrote: »

anyone not working because somebody is doing better than them really needs to be sent down a coal mine.

Your comment has nothing to do with anything I've ever written or thought in my life. A pathetic attempt at trolling.

bfa1509

bfa1509 wrote: »

Have a weekly 5k race for everyone on welfare. Whoever is in the bottom 10% gets no dole.

What a clever idea. Of course you realise that in the first week the spina bifida kids in electric wheelchairs will have a huge advantage over the terminally ill hospice patients under heavy sedation as well as the quadriplegics who can't push their own chairs or communicate verbally.


I'll be backing the spina bifida team when it goes live on Paddy Power; I'd get on it. You heard it here first.

bfa1509

gailforecast wrote: »

How do we stop generational welfare recipients?

Do CE schemes or other work programs work? Or is there another approach we can take which will be effective?

Deleted User wrote: »

What a clever idea. Of course you realise that in the first week the spina bifida kids in electric wheelchairs will have a huge advantage over the terminally ill hospice patients under heavy sedation as well as the quadriplegics who can't push their own chairs or communicate verbally.


I'll be backing the spina bifida team when it goes live on Paddy Power; I'd get on it. You heard it here first.

Not sure spina bifida or terminally ill hospice patients contribute much of the cohort of generational welfare recipients...

bfa1509

bfa1509 wrote: »

Not sure spina bifida or terminally ill hospice patients contribute much of the cohort of generational welfare recipients...

bfa1509 wrote: »

Have a weekly 5k race for everyone on welfare.

Did you write this or not?


In any case, there's no shortage of studies showing that disability and terminal illness are huge factors inside households caught in welfare traps. Add to that factors such as addiction and sexual abuse within the home. So perhaps think of these welfare service-users before you declare your desire to chase vulnerable people around the place for five kilometres.


Looking forward to the betting on your 5K race though! Thanks for your helpful and intelligent contribution.

Eric Cartman

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Your comment has nothing to do with anything I've ever written or thought in my life. A pathetic attempt at trolling.

Not really though. Do you agree that there are a large proportion of welfare recipients who could physically work but choose not to or have actively caused themselves conditions which have led to them being unable to work ?

Eric Cartman

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Not really though. Do you agree that there are a large proportion of welfare recipients who could physically work but choose not to or have actively caused themselves conditions which have led to them being unable to work ?

I've never expressed an opinion one way or another. What is the exact proportion?

screamer

We also need low skilled jobs back, from what I see there’s a good portion of the lifer welfare cohort who are just never going to be able to do intellectual work. We need manual roles again. I think Ireland trying to move to a knowledge economy has simply not served people who are not suited to such roles. Historically these people would have been labourers/ miners/ factory workers etc. If there are no roles suitable for their level of a ability, how can they ever get off welfare. Getting rid of our manufacturing industries was a huge mistake, even the Germans still have this.

screamer

screamer wrote: »

We also need low skilled jobs back, from what I see there’s a good portion of the lifer welfare cohort who are just never going to be able to do intellectual work. We need manual roles again. I think Ireland trying to move to a knowledge economy has simply not served people who are not suited to such roles. Historically these people would have been labourers/ miners/ factory workers etc. If there are no roles suitable for their level of a ability, how can they ever get off welfare. Getting rid of our manufacturing industries was a huge mistake, even the Germans still have this.

I've a huge amount of sympathy for that position because manual work does carry its own dignity.



But in school were taught that 1) Ireland has very few natural resources and 2) we never really experienced the Industrial Revolution apart from pre-Independence Belfast.


So we didn't have the same working-class experience of mines and factories that the UK and Germany had and retain today. Because we had no coal or ore in the 19th century. That narrative says that we went from an agricultural economy to a services economy between the '60s and the '90s (it's often ignored that the agri element in the economy is still immense today).



Some say that we benefited from jumping straight into computers and services without having to wind down primary and secondary industries... hard to know. We didn't have much of that apart from farming.

Eric Cartman

Deleted User wrote: »

I've never expressed an opinion one way or another. What is the exact proportion?

Well aside from the over 43,000 working age people in Ireland who have never paid a prsi contribution , the massive fraud in the disability system, I would say that almost the entirety of the population who have been on JSA for over 2 years now are intentionally avoiding work.

Biker79

Mcwilliams spoke of disability claims some years ago. They aren't included in the unemployment stats.

Very strange indeed.

http://www.davidmcwilliams.ie/the-mystery-of-disability/

conndeal

I wonder if there was some bonus built into the social welfare system for education - 1000 euros if your child completed their leaving certificate, 5000 for someone who got a degree. If a number of people from these areas completed third level education and hopefully got employment it would encourage others.