People who can work but don't .......

C B · 10-07-2001 10:09AM #1

..should not expect to eat!

This was one of the statements in the political compass castor posted recently. I'm interested in hearing peoples opinions on the statement.

Dev/ Cloud,
maybe a poll would be worthwhile.

Shiminay · 10-07-2001 10:19AM

I dunno - everyone should be granted basic human rights, but people who can work and don't should not be given full dole or support.

All the best!
Dav
@B^)
So Bob Hoskins was about to roll a spliff when in walks Dana with her 3 foot Bong
[honey i] violated [the kids]
When the Beefy King arrives, I shall be paying homage with Puunack The Receiver in a haze of green curry.

bonkey · 10-07-2001 10:31AM

While in general I agree that those who can work but dont are leeching off the system, and should not be given the free ride they get at the moment, I'm not sure that its all that simple a problem to resolve.

How to we distinguish between those who are non-working and who want employment but cant find it, and those who simply do not wish to work? What about the job locations - should people be forced to move to where the work is (if necessary)?

Should we have some civic work which is mandatory for anyone seeking unemployment benefit? What about parents - are both required to work, or only one?

The problem with any solution is always the "border cases". In general, I tend to find that society has taken the softer approach to try and make sure the border cases get given the benefit of the doubt. Unfortunately this tends to lead to a system open to more abuse.

jc

GreenHell · 10-07-2001 10:36AM

People who don't work but can work hmmm a difficult one since as Kharn said everyone has a basic right to life.

But at the sametime why should the taxpayer have to pay for people who can work but don't. I think the system has far to many gaps in it and if you can work but don't you should be shafted off the dole and put in a position where you have to provide for yourself.

gandalf · 10-07-2001 11:31AM

I think the idea that people on the dole should do voluntary work is a good idea. Many years ago when I was on the dole for a few months I worked voluntarly for the local credit union, not very exciting but it kept me in a routine and when I eventually got a job I was already tuned into a working frame of mine.

If you perfectly fit to work in an area where there are jobs available and you choose not to work then you should not recieve the full dole, its unfair to the people who want a job and can't get one and its unfair to the working taxpayer.

Gandalf.

TwoShedsJackson · 10-07-2001 11:33AM

I'd favour something like Bonkey suggested - civic work projects e.g. road building and other public works for the physically able, administrative work or functions for those not physically able.

Having said that, the dole payment would have to be at least doubled to something approaching what's needed to live on nowadays.

Shinji · 10-07-2001 01:13PM

I've met people who were perfectly capable of working but didn't, saying that they had a right to choose whether they worked or not and that forcing them to work would be an assault on their civil rights. These weren't random dole scrounger types, these were intelligent people who had decided to be anti-society and to milk the system. They were, quite frankly, scum.

Ireland has employment saturation - if you want a job, you can get it. This is true of much of the developed world; there is plenty of work for everyone. The dole should exist as a safety net for people to lean on when they're between jobs or in education and cannot afford to support themselves, nothing more.

Bob the Unlucky Octopus · 10-07-2001 01:59PM

Agreed Rob- intelligent people "rebelling" against globalization are a pet hate of mine. The same intelligent folk who buy the products generating profits that drives the market to globalize further...but I digress.

Bonkey- there's an easy way to distinguish between the two groups you highlight. People who have declared no fixed employment and visit a job agency of some description are actively seeking work. When you read national unemployment figures for any country those are the percentage of the workforce actively seeking a job. The voluntarily unemployed should either cop on and get a job, or be deprived of their welfare. Employment welfare should be the province for the industries not the office-place necessarily. Industrial layoffs are generally speaking, far more difficult to deal with because the work is often specialized (factory assembly work being the classical example), and difficult to take into other jobs. Whereas financiers, lawyers and psycologists have a wide range of job opportunities freely available all the time in the developed world.

It's all down to how far you're willing to waste money on people who don't contribute towards society. The social contract obliges contribution to the state in order for you to expect anything in return. Redistribution of wealth should direct such finances towards educating those who have no job skills, to allow them to earn the right to accrue state benefits if they should need to at any stage. Rather than feeding the leeches, we could give them a way to earn a living- that's a way out of poverty and/or the dole. Giving them handouts doesn't improve their long-term situation- but broadscale investment in welfare is a vote-soaker- especially for those "intelligentsia" who can't be assed to work because they think they're protesting against an evil regime. I honestly have no problem with a nation making a unilateral decision to deport such idiots who should really know better...just send them all to a self-sufficient commune and let them see what it's like having to stay alive on the small scale without the blanket of protection offered by the state.

Bob the Unlucky Octopus
=Veritas Veritas Veritas=

path · 10-07-2001 02:00PM

http://thumped.com/thepath

then go to the 'sugar riot' index.

an anti-work fanzine from two and a half years ago.

regards

Lucy_la_morte · 10-07-2001 02:01PM

People who can work, but don't.. I dunno.. Depends on their past working background and their status. Draco's current girlfriend has a good case I suppose, but what about people who have worked for say 20 years, basically paying for the dole. If they lost their job and could easily get a low paid job, they shouldn't be expected to go for the low paid job. My mother worked for a magasine for the last 9 years, up until January then the magasine went bust and she was out of a job. She has much fashion photography experience and shouldn't have too much of a problem getting a job, but she's waiting out for something really special. She's a single mother, with 3 kids and no job. Does she not deserve benefits?

It's just a tail, but I'm sort of attached to it.

Lucy la morte.

JustHalf · 10-07-2001 02:11PM

XTerminator, you're getting dangerously close to some sort of community spirit there!

I was thinking of something similar for politicians actually... having to do work for the community before being able to run for office; and this paying a fixed amount for their expenses (to run for office) - removing the undue influence of corporations (which shouldn't really have influence over the laws of the country).

But I'm getting off topic. The dole should be increased. Student grants should be increased. They need to show some acceptance of the rising costs of accomodation. The community work scheme is a good idea in theory, and should be raised in government. Only problem is, it will be unpopular with lazy people (me, but I've never been entitled to the dole, so I don't count

), who don't want to work but scrounge off the government. These people are entitled to a vote, and I don't see many politicians trying to put forward something unpopular.

Monitor hurting head. Must stop.

Gladiator · 10-07-2001 02:23PM

every body that can work in ireland does work in ireland now,
thats not to say that all of them are off the dole,
sometimes i am sickened by the way this country treats scum,
Houseing as an example, i know an area were all the cropo house are pained every year, have wall and gates to stop people someing in, but the people in this estate go on the rob in all the estates around them, but keep their estate in great order, their own private park and everything,

i know another guy who got a 3 floor 5 bed room cropo house near dublin centre
moved back into his flat and rents the house out, takes in at lease 2 grand a month renting the house out, a corpo house that tax payers built for the needy and ppor of dublin.

ConUladh · 10-07-2001 02:26PM

I agreed with that statement but it is very general

Draco's girlfriend shouldn't have to be landed in a situation where you're better off unemployed, that's a f_uck-up in the system, further education should be encouraged (within reason of course)

I like the Civic work idea, effectively makes you an employee of the state which I think is quite reasonable

JustHalf, fortunately the numbers that would be against such an idea is at an all-time low

gandalf · 10-07-2001 02:30PM

Originally posted by JustHalf:
......These people are entitled to a vote, and I don't see many politicians trying to put forward something unpopular.

Well I reakon that they may be entitled to vote but given the fact they can't be bothered to work I doubt they would make the effort to go to the ballot box. On the other hand a scheme like that would be popular with the group of people who are voting i.e. the middle classes.

Regarding Student grants for mature students I think it is pathetic that Dracos girlfriend has to go on the dole for 6 months to get funded, I thought this so-called government were trying to encourage people to "upskill". I know I want to go and do a technology course to enhance my skills but I just cannot afford to do it by myself.

Gandalf.

bugler · 10-07-2001 02:45PM

How intelligent can a person who is attempting to live off welfareand has no intention of working be? You hardly get a King's ransom each week. If you are happy to do nothing and take a pittance (in real monetary terms) then you won't have a good quality of life(in materialistic terms at least), and IMO are a bit dim.I doubt many educated or intelligent people will/can take this option, unless they have some sort of family income or something.In this case, exceptions should be made, if you have a wealthy father who is bankrolling your lazy lifestyle then you should not get xx pounds a week off the state.

bonkey · 10-07-2001 02:50PM

Originally posted by Gladiator:
every body that can work in ireland does work in ireland now,

Where did this come from? There are still large numbers of "vuluntarily unemployed" in Ireland.

jc

DadaKopf · 10-07-2001 03:12PM

Ah come on, people don't have to work if they don't want to. Nobody's disputing that are they? The debate is whether any state or people want to support people who make this decision.

1] It's an ideological difference: socialist versus libertarian (and probably Communist)
2] It depends on whether you're a charitable person or not.
3] It's very culture specific

Ireland has a tradition of social responsibility and those who choose not to work can expect a minimum of state support and services - I personally think that's fair enough.

Most people actually forget to mention that most people want to work. Work earns money, and "money can be exchanged for goods and services" so it takes either a severely lazy, mentally deficient or brave person to stay out of work.

PS: In Singapore, if you don't work, you dont get any social services - it's literally sink or swim. It works for them but, though I admire their government because it suits them and they aren't bowing to international pressure, being European, I'd prefer some level of social benefit. Their kind of social benefit includes banning chewing-gum and endorsing voluntary sterilisation for people below a certain IQ with cash incentives.

It's different, that's for sure.

Hobbes · 10-07-2001 03:25PM

Originally posted by DadaKopf:

PS: In Singapore, if you don't work, you dont get any social services

Same in China. However Singapore I don't think it would be possible to live on dole there. It's just too expensive.

A friend explained "Dole" to a Chinese national and her reply was "Oh that's why Europeans are lazy".

Repli · 10-07-2001 03:30PM

I think it is up to themselves whether they want to work or not. We have no right to question that particular person's ethics.

Look at it this way: you spend most your life working (18-66) and most people don't like going to work and they hate their job.
So why spend your whole life doing something you don't want to do?

I know people who choose not to work don't live as good a lifestyle as the working class folk.. but that is their choice, not ours.

What is now was once only imagined.

bonkey · 10-07-2001 03:55PM

Originally posted by DadaKopf:
1] It's an ideological difference: socialist versus libertarian (and probably Communist)
2] It depends on whether you're a charitable person or not.

I disagree wioth both these sentiments.

No mainstream ideology supports the notion that people who could be bothered contributing to society are entitled to anything.

Socialism and Communism involve society and community. There is no allowance in either of those for "opting out" of the giving, and only doing the taking. Libertarianism - the pusruit of liberty - could arguably allow for this, except that it involves people impeaching others freedoms and liberties - you have to work harder to fund me, because I choose not to work.

Nope.

Also, it is not about charity. I will be charitable to those who *cannot* work, to those who *need* help. I begrudge paying a cent/penny to anyone who could cater for themselves, but who simply choses not to.

People like this are making me work for their living. I have a severe problem with this. I work for my living. I will work for my family's living. I do not wish to have someone elses burden added on to mine, simply because they feel that they should have the freedom to allow me to pay for them.

It is not charitable for me to decide that I will no longer contribute usefully to society, and instead will live off it because I choose to. In the same vein, supporting such an ethos is not charity - it is gullibility.

Society has put up with these gits for too long. If we coul drewrite the rulebook into a workable situation, think of the millions we would save - money which we could put into education or health, rather than feeding some useless gimps who dont want to work and want us to pay them for it.

Compare and contrast with the immigrants and refugees - they WANT to work and are being prevented from doing so. People are complaining about the influx of people who are willing to contribute to society - calling them leeches. At the same time, we turn a blind eye to the leeches which are draining our society every day of the week.

jc

Draco · 10-07-2001 03:56PM

Originally posted by Repli:
I think it is up to themselves whether they want to work or not. We have no right to question that particular person's ethics.

Fine. But it's another thing altogether when they are living off the state. They are leeching resources that can be used else where.

bonkey · 10-07-2001 04:02PM

Originally posted by Repli:
I think it is up to themselves whether they want to work or not. We have no right to question that particular person's ethics.

Look at it this way: you spend most your life working (18-66) and most people don't like going to work and they hate their job.
So why spend your whole life doing something you don't want to do?

I dont question someone's right not to work. I question the right they have to expect to be funded for this.

As for spending most of my life working and hating it. I dont - I like my job. Even if I didnt, I would begrudge having to work 1 extra day in my life to help finance some fscker who decided that working was a mugs game.

If 1% of my salary goes on paying unemployment benefits thru tgaxation, that equates to about 6 months of my working life. If half of that is going to fund these people who "choose" not to work, then I want it back. I begrudge them 3 months of my life. There are other people in this world who could benefit vastly more from those three months of my time, but I dont have that choice.

I see these people as stealing my time, my money, and ultimately part of my life. A part I do not wish to give to them

jc

TwoShedsJackson · 10-07-2001 04:25PM

So some people 'opt out of the system' by refusing to work, then expect that same system to subsidise them? Fu<k them, I say, if someone opts out, they should go altogether and do whatever it is they want to do to survive.

and endorsing voluntary sterilisation for people below a certain IQ with cash incentives.

Is that an official policy in Singapore? If so, any links or places where one could find out more information?

DadaKopf · 10-07-2001 04:44PM

What bonkey said:
Socialism and Communism involve society and community. There is no allowance in either of those for "opting out" of the giving, and only doing the taking

It depends how strong your brand of socialism is, I suppose. Of course it's about society as a whole but self-realisation or self-actualisation is a central tenet to most socialist thinkers from John Rawls to G A Cohen to Marx - it's a value judgement to say that sitting on your ar$e isn't a form of self-actualisation.

Castor: I'm not sure of links but I can tell you that it was very much part of government policy when I was living there. The idea was that low earners aren't as intelligent as higher earners and for the good of all society, wouldnt be better to breed only clever, high earners? So, the government offered cash incentives for certain qualifying people (male and female) who chose to be steralized. It was at a time when Lee Quan Yew (People's Action Party) was the elected leader (for 25 years) in a strange kind of democratic dictatorship.

There's plenty of books about it I think.

[This message has been edited by DadaKopf (edited 10-07-2001).]

Bard · 10-07-2001 04:50PM

Originally posted by Gladiator:
every body that can work in ireland does work in ireland now,

Complete and utter b0llocks. Why don't you research FACTS before posting this tripe and claiming that it's true?

I CAN work. I DON'T work right now. The reason? I was made redundant recently (along with practically all of my working colleagues) from a successful e-commerce company that felt the pinch all too well from the slump in the IT/Internet/e-commerce sector and a total crash in sales. I just decided not to post about it at the time because, to be honest, the last thing my employer needed then was that kind of publicity because they haven't "gone under" and are trying to keep the company going as best they can...

Now I realise I don't quite fit perfectly into the category of those that 'can work and choose not to work' as I'm actively seeking employment, but despite my experience, strong portfolio, skills, etc., it's DAMN difficult to find a job in the Web Development sector in Ireland right now, and that's a fact.

Companies are laying people off left, right and centre, and as a recruitment officer said to me today - it's the reverse situation of what we had - say - 6 months ago... back then companies were screaming out for IT graduates, experienced web developers, project managers, etc. to work for them... now it's these people (including myself) who are screaming out for the jobs...

I'm glad of the Social Welfare benefit. Anyone who grumbles at me that THEIR tax pounds are going to "pay for scroungers like me" can basically go fuck themselves ... I PAID for this over quite a number of years of tiring work, with a sh|tload of overtime and I f3ckin' deserve the damn money (FFS!)... I feel absolutely no shame in collecting the dole for the time I'm unemployed (which has already been too long for my liking)...

As regards how much it is... well that depends- depends on how much tax you paid, how long you've been paying it for, and a number of other factors... Personally, I'm receiving over £85 per week on Social Welfare, and I don't think that's really too bad at all... then again... I haven't had to pay rent yet since being made redundant and that's £200 per month. (I'm damn lucky it's not higher..!)

I don't intend to be unemployed for long... and I don't think that anyone really should - those that spend many years living off social welfare when they are perfectly able to go out and earn their pay are nothing more than scroungers and don't really deserve what they're getting... however, the state can't allow it's people to starve, - and that is what the tax and social welfare systems are there for - to look after the interests of the people of the state.

Anyway... that's enough of my rant.

Originally posted by JustHalf:

Monitor hurting head. Must stop.

Try putting it on the desk instead

--

Sorry if I went a little off-topic btw... it's a sore point with me at the moment...

Chill, y'all!

Bard

First motorbike in the bible ???? ---- a Triumph --- 'Yea verily Moses struck down the ammanites and all the land heard the roar of his triumph !!!'

[This message has been edited by Bard (edited 10-07-2001).]

The Corinthian · 10-07-2001 05:34PM

I’ve used and abused the Dole in my time. I’ve also paid back what I got several times over in taxes. So I’d speak from both perspectives.

A few years ago, if you were lucky, you would graduate from college and get yourself a £12k p.a. job. It’s true. Honest. It’s hardly surprising that given (at the time) you got about £60 cash per week, most of your rent, plus free medical and butter vouchers to wipe your ar5e with. If you translated that to a job it was about £9k p.a. All you had to do was turn up to sign on and to pick up your rent cheque once every four weeks. The rest of the time you could do nixers. Certainly made more sense.

Things are different now. Cost of living has meant that the maths behind the dole are not as attractive as they once were. Most unemployed appear to fall into two categories today. The institutionalised and professional.

The former can’t really be blamed, they actually don’t know any other way. Their parents have always been unemployed as have their, 35 year old, grandparents. They are generally the ones patronised by the liberal middle classes, who use them as the reason to introduce free college fees, even when they qualified for them already. Natural habitat is a chipper after the pub on a Monday night getting a ‘batter burger’. And the State has never really done anything to encourage anything different.

The latter are generally the same ones who are so fond of anti-capitalism marches. The World owes them a living - as the old expression goes; ‘a Socialist is one who has nothing and wants to share it with everyone’. For most this is a phase they grow out of (when they realise the benefits of their middle class heritage), some duck and dive indefinitely believing themselves to striking a blow against the system by subscribing to it. After all, someone’s got to pay for all those body piercings.

The issue of “people who can work but don't” is ultimately a trade off between humanitarian and utilitarian outlooks. Taken to one extreme, we should probably give them more Dole in keeping with the current level of cost of living. The other extreme would be conscription and a good, bloody war to clean up the gene pool.

The older I get the more I seem to agree with the latter - “Service Guarantees Citizenship” does have a nice ring about it...

"Just because I'm evil doesn't mean I'm not nice." - Charlie Fulton

[This message has been edited by The Corinthian (edited 10-07-2001).]

androphobic · 10-07-2001 07:30PM

Draco, just out of interest, how much is your girlfriend's grant worth to her (in monetary terms

)?

smoke.me.a.kipper · 10-07-2001 07:57PM

Bard, i agree 100% with you. you worked, and now your outta work through no fault of your own and your seeking work. your damn well entitled to some welfare.

it's the wankers shinji was talking about that really piss me off.

these were intelligent people who had decided to be anti-society and to milk the system.

shame on them.

[This message has been edited by smoke-me-a-kipper (edited 10-07-2001).]

R. Daneel Olivaw · 10-07-2001 08:30PM

Fact is that people who pull this "Choose Life" crap probably had things pretty easy when they were growing up. Heck, I had things pretty easy, but I realise the value of money I think.

The reason I have no pity for welfare-leechers (NOT those who are layed off, etc., as that is the very reason welfare exists, as a buffer to help people exactly for the reasons already mentioned, but being on welfare is not a job); they somehow think they are special, that the rules do not apply to them. Exactly where does it say that life owes anyone dick all? Where does it say that you can breaks in life and live it easy for nothing? NOWHERE.

Like Denis Leary said, life sucks, get a ****ing hard-hat.

Bard · 10-07-2001 08:44PM

As far as the value of money goes, - working in a security company, as I did before, as an MPO (Money Processing Operative), with literally millions of pounds passing through my hands weekly, I lost a lot of understanding of the value of, and a lot of respect for money...

"Sh|t happens, sink or swim", as someone once said...

I intend to swim !

[Edit]: ... not in sh|t, of course

Bard

"I have a plan... and it's as hot... AS MY PANTS!!!" - Lord Flashheart.

[This message has been edited by Bard (edited 10-07-2001).]

gandalf · 10-07-2001 09:25PM

Bard no one was refering to people like you who are actively looking for gainful employment. They were refering to the wasters who don't bother. Good Luck mate in finding a job I know aload of people who have lost jobs in the last 6 months. The company my sister works for is on the brink at the moment as they let go another batch last week, talk about a big change since this time last year.

Gandalf.

People who can work but don't .......

Comments