The Dole

starshine1234 · 10-08-2016 12:54PM

As things stand many people do choose to be on the dole. It is easy to fulfil the requirements as many people make themselves deliberately unemployable by simple methods.

For example, it's often said you have to lie in interviews to get the job. Small white lies of course. A person who doesn't want a job can simply answer questions truthfully.

Why do you want the job?
I don't want the job, I was forced to attend the interview.

Ok, next candidate please.

Social Protection cannot require candidates to lie during interviews. Social Protection cannot really complain if a person gives answers like the one above. SP certainly cannot complain if a person truthfully answers that they haven't worked in three years.

You can lead a horse to water but you will find it difficult to force people to take jobs they don't want.

People are ignoring that taking a job is as much a lifestyle choice as not taking a job.

Under my proposed universal income system all people can choose not to work. So, objections that some people unfairly have to work are not valid; those people can choose not to work if they wish. No questions asked.

The system would only be unsustainable or not workable if too many people chose not to work.

But I feel that isn't a problem. Many people today choose to work even though they could go on the dole. Under my system income taxes are reduced and you get paid the universal income even if you work so working would be far more incentivised that it is in todays system.

There are no welfare traps. You can work 5 hours a week for free or for payment and it doesn't affect your payment. You can volunteer or mind children. There would be no huge bureaucracy required in Social Protection.

It would be a new type of society which would be fairer to all. A more pleasant society which isn't focussed on wealth, and greed, and unsustainable and un-neccessary consumption.

What's not to like?

Who pays for it all?
Companies that wish to operate in out country, and companies have to pay for use of natural resources, like radio and mobile waves, and fishing etc.

Have the people ever been asked what society they want?
Does any politician advocate for a universal income?
If no politician represents this viewpoint then it is not possible to vote for it.

KCross · 10-08-2016 01:09PM

starshine1234 wrote: »

Under my proposed universal income system all people can choose not to work. So, objections that some people unfairly have to work are not valid; those people can choose not to work if they wish. No questions asked.

The system would only be unsustainable or not workable if too many people chose not to work.

But I feel that isn't a problem. Many people today choose to work even though they could go on the dole. Under my system income taxes are reduced and you get paid the universal income even if you work so working would be far more incentivised that it is in todays system.

There are no welfare traps. You can work 5 hours a week for free or for payment and it doesn't affect your payment. You can volunteer or mind children. There would be no huge bureaucracy required in Social Protection.

It all sounds great. But I think it falls down on this point, which you made yourself...
The system would only be unsustainable or not workable if too many people chose not to work.

How do you control that?
If you decide to chose not to work and get your universal income do you still expect all the services that are provided today? Do you expect to be provided with a free house because you dont work?

If yes, and you are also proposing dropping income tax and allowing more people on the dole... what is going to pay for this utopian society you have in mind?... dont give me the old chestnut of the multi-nationals.... everything cannot be paid for by taxing companies.

KCross · 10-08-2016 01:12PM

starshine1234 wrote: »

As things stand many people do choose to be on the dole. It is easy to fulfil the requirements as many people make themselves deliberately unemployable by simple methods.

For example, it's often said you have to lie in interviews to get the job. Small white lies of course. A person who doesn't want a job can simply answer questions truthfully.

Why do you want the job?
I don't want the job, I was forced to attend the interview.

Ok, next candidate please.

Social Protection cannot require candidates to lie during interviews. Social Protection cannot really complain if a person gives answers like the one above. SP certainly cannot complain if a person truthfully answers that they haven't worked in three years.

You can lead a horse to water but you will find it difficult to force people to take jobs they don't want.

Thats why you need a system that removes the free money over time. Dont force them to take jobs they dont want. But dont give them free money that enables them to do nothing for society.

The horse will eventually drink the water.

starshine1234 · 10-08-2016 01:22PM

Housing is a complete failure under the current model. Homelessness is increasing and houses are becoming unaffordable for workers like teachers, nurses and police. This is unsustainable.

The point I'm making is that the current system has major flaws. It's unfair to berate the new system for problems which exist in the current system. A universal income won't solve the drugs problem either.

People today could leave their jobs and collect the dole. They don't. Why not? Whatever reason that is is the same reason they will continue to work under universal income.

The people who today choose not to work, artists, wasters, social activists etc, will continue to choose not to work. People today who find value and pride in their work will continue to work.

People today could close down businesses and claim the dole. They don't. Why would they under the new system when the new system provides a free income and still allows them to work.

The only arguments against universal income are economic. I feel they aren't valid.

Prohibition of drugs is also completely silly and stupid from the point of view of society. I suggest legalisation of cannabis, and perhaps E and heroin. This would provide huge benefits to public health and safety.
Why does our government completely rubbish this idea?
My point here is that government routinely makes decisions which damage society. Whose interests are the government representing when they make decisions which damage society?

Companies make huge profits. I feel of course they could pay. The problem is that all countries have to agree to tax companies very highly. Instead, countries are in a race to the bottom to provide companies with low tax rates.
This is unsustainable and will destroy our countries. The process has already begun. Countries need to re-assert their soveriengity and start taxing companies more.

starshine1234 · 10-08-2016 01:31PM

KCross wrote: »

Thats why you need a system that removes the free money over time. Dont force them to take jobs they dont want. But dont give them free money that enables them to do nothing for society.

The horse will eventually drink the water.

That appears to be either sour grapes (i.e bitterness), or punishment.

Do you begrudge cancer sufferers for taking up resources and hospital beds?

Many people have untreated mental illness which is hard to see but which affects their ability to hold down jobs.

Why should we as a society seek to punish people who find work difficult?
Why should we insist that artists and poets have to find work?
Many artists live in relative poverty by choice. I feel we should respect that choice instead of berating people because they choose not to work.

It seems we value the art but not the artist.

Working is not better than not working. It may produce more, but if what is produced is not necessary then the work itself isn't necessary.

10-08-2016 01:42PM

starshine1234 wrote: »

Working is not better than not working. It may produce more, but if what is produced is not necessary then the work itself isn't necessary.

working is required for the health of the economy and social order. if they can't hold a standard job, there are other jobs available. Now, sure, some people just can't work at all, but I don't think we're talking about them.

The problem I find is that people get stuck into thinking only about traditional job types. But there are plenty of other jobs which may be more suitable given their "disability".

KCross · 10-08-2016 01:48PM

starshine1234 wrote: »

That appears to be either sour grapes (i.e bitterness), or punishment.

Call it what you will. I just dont believe that someone who chooses to not contribute to society should be supported.

starshine1234 wrote: »

Do you begrudge cancer sufferers for taking up resources and hospital beds?

Whaaaa? What did I say that produced that comment? I even mentioned hospitals in one of my posts and how I wanted more resources put in to them!

starshine1234 wrote: »

Many people have untreated mental illness which is hard to see but which affects their ability to hold down jobs.

Why should we as a society seek to punish people who find work difficult?
Why should we insist that artists and poets have to find work?
Many artists live in relative poverty by choice. I feel we should respect that choice instead of berating people because they choose not to work.

It seems we value the art but not the artist.

Someone with mental illness should be supported. Thats not dole. That's illness benefit. I dont advocate punishing anyone. I just dont want to support someone who chooses not to contribute to society.

starshine1234 wrote: »

Working is not better than not working. It may produce more, but if what is produced is not necessary then the work itself isn't necessary.

Of course working isnt better if you can live off those that are working. I can understand that but I dont want to support the idea.

I dont advocate doing unnecessary work but I dont think that exists in any great numbers.... at least not in the private sector anyway as they would be out of business.

KCross · 10-08-2016 02:02PM

starshine1234 wrote: »

The point I'm making is that the current system has major flaws. It's unfair to berate the new system for problems which exist in the current system. A universal income won't solve the drugs problem either.

I take this point on board and yes the current system is full of flaws. However, your proposed system, I think, would just cost too much and the cost of doing business in the country would go through the roof and this in turn has a knock on effect of companies not setting up.... no jobs means no tax to support the universal income.

Have any countries tried this universal income system, apart from communist countries of course!

starshine1234 · 10-08-2016 02:10PM

KCross wrote: »

Call it what you will. I just dont believe that someone who chooses to not contribute to society should be supported.

Mental illness isn't a choice.
There is no objective proof of mental illness. Therefore, there are many sufferers who are not known to be suffering, or who cannot provide proof of their suffering.
A mental illness can cause sufferers not to want to work.
These people are not 'choosing' not to work although it would appear very similar to that from the outside.
For example, some people have social phobias. This is more or less unprovable. These people don't have much choice when it comes to work. They are contributing to society as best they can.

You are unfairly labelling their real problems as being a choice. And you are restricting them based on your incorrect labelling.

You are basically saying that the only way to contribute to society is to take paid employment and pay taxes.
What about contributing to society by being a good citizen, by adhering to the law, by doing jury service if required, by assisting the police with their enquiries etc etc?
There are many ways to contribute to society besides working. You are seeking to deny that.

I said
Do you begrudge cancer sufferers for taking up resources and hospital beds?
You replied.

KCross wrote: »

Whaaaa? What did I say that produced that comment? I even mentioned hospitals in one of my posts and how I wanted more resources put in to them!

You did say this.

KCross wrote: »

I just dont believe that someone who chooses to not contribute to society should be supported.

I agree that being a cancer sufferer isn't a choice but what if the person smoked for a long time. Are they contributing to society by smoking and by potentially giving themselves cancer?

Is it possible to contribute negatively to society?
I would suggest that it is.
A person could be a criminal for example, and prey on other members of society.
What about obese people who put strain on our health service? Are they contributing negatively to society?

Should peoples good bahaviour be offset against their bad behaviour to find out their total or net contribution to society?
It's not fair if you don't do this if you intend to punish what you consider to be bad behaviour.

So things are not as straight forward as you suggest. I am suggesting a less judgemental approach where people are taken at face value. If a person says they hate meeting people and they'd rather spend all their time alone indoors I would allow that and respect that. I wouldn't seek to punish them for that choice, and I wouldn't seek to force them to prove how they feel when that's impossible for them to do.

I would simply be less judgemental overall.

Universal Income for the win.

starshine1234 · 10-08-2016 02:28PM

KCross wrote: »

I take this point on board and yes the current system is full of flaws. However, your proposed system, I think, would just cost too much and the cost of doing business in the country would go through the roof and this in turn has a knock on effect of companies not setting up.... no jobs means no tax to support the universal income.

Have any countries tried this universal income system, apart from communist countries of course!

A province in Canada or Alaska has tried it. Ok results apparently.

Switzerland just voted on whether to give a basic income of over a 1,000 euros per month ($2,000 apparently). Vote said no.

I think Norway is considering it.

I don't agree that cost of business would go up. Why would it?

Imagine a future society. A society where self driving cars and increased automation do much of our work. Professionals have been replaced by artifical intelligient computers who are much better at the tasks than humans.
A computer laywer, doctor or engineer will be much better than the human counterpart. So much so that once people get used to AI computers they will insist on being treated by them as the outcomes are much better.

What work can humans do in such a world?
That world will be here I suspect in 20 years time. Not 200 years. It is extimated that 50% of all current jobs will be obselete and gone by 2030.

This isn't a luddite opinion. This time it's different as we are talking about intelligence, not just brute power or repetition. With AI, all jobs can be replaced except modelling, prostitution and human companions.

In the long term, a new paradigm is needed, and universal income in the only one that works.

The crises in 2008 resulted in about 20% unemployment. No-one suggested that perhaps we should move to a four day week. Everyone stays in employment, more time off, slightly less money but much better quality of life for everyone.

Why was such an obvious solution not suggested?

I know there are some practical difficulties but we are not moving towards a more leisurely society.
Why not?
Technology should be used to allow humans to have more time off.
Citizens should demand it of their governments.

KCross · 10-08-2016 02:38PM

You can contribute negatively, of course.
If you are a criminal you are a burden and thats why we have laws.

Obese people.... hmm... obesity isnt necessarily a choice (i.e. they eat too much therefore its their fault or choice). It can be (and often is) genetic. So, I dont see them as negative contributors and even if they were, society should educate at an early age on that.

Likewise with smoking. Education is key and society should provide that.

Mental illness is a difficult one. I dont have a clear cut answer there but I dont think it, on its own, is enough to support your system. If someone has a social phobia they could look for a job that doesnt involve meeting people. Internet based job, back office job, gardening etc etc. I dont think a universal income with no questions asked is a clear cut solution as you suggest either.

I still dont know what the "cancer sufferer taking up a bed" comment was about.

Lets agree to disagree as neither of us are likely to get what we would like for the forseeable future.

I enjoyed the debate though!

Tony EH · 11-08-2016 03:33AM

andekwarhola wrote: »

Ironically you'd be completely undercutting those people already in employment at stuff like street cleaning, rubbish collecting, cleaning and whatever random low skill job categories people usually pull out of their arses to service handy punition narratives.

It's always gas how people like the OP, who suggest these hair brained schemes, can't see the obvious pitfall in their suggestions.

They're completely blinded by some petty revenge fantasy on unemployed people they know nothing about. It would be kind of funny, if it weren't so malicious.

johnnyskeleton · 11-08-2016 04:41AM

Tony EH wrote: »

It's always gas how people like the OP, who suggest these hair brained schemes, can't see the obvious pitfall in their suggestions.

They're completely blinded by some petty revenge fantasy on unemployed people they know nothing about. It would be kind of funny, if it weren't so malicious.

Mod note:

Constructive posts, not digs at the OP, please.

11-08-2016 09:39AM

Tony EH wrote: »

It's always gas how people like the OP, who suggest these hair brained schemes, can't see the obvious pitfall in their suggestions.

They're completely blinded by some petty revenge fantasy on unemployed people they know nothing about. It would be kind of funny, if it weren't so malicious.

Whereas I've noticed there's always some form of excuse for them. Excuses that wouldn't be accepted for other parts of society being such a drain on resources. (I have been unemployed before, was on the Dole for one year, and then went abroad repeatedly for work)

I suggested placing the unemployed in work in Germany or other EU countries if there was no work in Ireland, and supplementing the dole with some salary from the employer. Then I was accused of suggesting of Press ganging people... I drew the comaprison with 80's Ireland and going to Britain for work, and was told that everything was different now.

I believe It really doesn't matter (judging from the overall thread) what we suggest to change or improve the system. Those with a reason to support the unemployed in, well.. being unemployed, won't accept any change to that status, unless its a perfect job, with high salary/benefits. I'm not even sure they'd accept even that on boards.

I certainly don't think most people on the Dole think that way.... but I suspect many on boards do.

Tony EH · 11-08-2016 05:03PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Whereas I've noticed there's always some form of excuse for them.

Just look at the way you're talking about hundreds of thousands of people of people. :rolleyes:

The unemployed are a vast number, the huge majority of whom are there through no fault of their own and wish NOT to be unemployed. You simply cannot lump them all in one bucket with "them" written on the side.

Don't let bitterness against the tiny minority who grift the system cloud your opinion of the vast majority, who would happily be off social welfare and back in work in the morning.

Deleted User wrote: »

I suggested placing the unemployed in work in Germany or other EU countries if there was no work in Ireland, and supplementing the dole with some salary from the employer.

And it's nonsense. What you're suggesting is that people on the dole be sent to other countries to fill roles that should be filled by a person receiving a proper wage for that role. All that does is displace labour and drive wages down. Why would an employer pay someone the going rate for a job when they could get it for little or nothing?

Have you missed all the abuse of the jobbridge system?

Plus, say a man with a wife and two kids gets laid off from a job he was doing for 20+ years. Finds it hard to get a new job (because it is stupidly hard to get one in Ireland). Does social welfare "place" him in a job in Germany? Sorry, screw you and your family, you're going to Germany.

Deleted User wrote: »

Then I was accused of suggesting of Press ganging people...

Because that's the logical conclusion to what you're trying to suggest.

Deleted User wrote: »

I drew the comaprison with 80's Ireland and going to Britain for work, and was told that everything was different now.

People who did that, did so voluntarily. They did it off there own bat. Like people who do it today. There's no difference.

What you're suggesting is that people are "placed" into this situation and that IS different.

Think.

11-08-2016 09:19PM

I am trying very hard not to be too sarcastic here but he's making it difficult.

Tony EH wrote: »

Just look at the way you're talking about hundreds of thousands of people of people. :rolleyes:

Without placing "them" in bold, its a fairly reasonable sentence. What? I should name them individually? :rolleyes:

The unemployed are a vast number, the huge majority of whom are there through no fault of their own and wish NOT to be unemployed. You simply cannot lump them all in one bucket with "them" written on the side.

Sure I can. The Unemployed. Them. considering the Context of the discussion. The subject we are talking about. A group of people within a particular target of discussion.

You're seeking insults where there are none. Why? Why not address the content of my post rather than argue Grammar, or seek a sympathy vote?

Don't let bitterness against the tiny minority who grift the system cloud your opinion of the vast majority, who would happily be off social welfare and back in work in the morning.

Funny. I never mentioned anything about grifting or such. I spoke about those unemployed past a year, who are physically and mentally capable of working. I've actually said that a few times in this thread.

And it's nonsense.

What you're suggesting is that people on the dole be sent to other countries to fill roles that should be filled by a person receiving a proper wage for that role. All that does is displace labour and drive wages down. Why would an employer pay someone the going rate for a job when they could get it for little or nothing?

Nope. I'm suggesting that people from countries with unemployment are sent to countries who are seeking people to work in their countries. like Germany. Rather than inviting immigrants from outside of Europe, they employ Europeans instead.

As for salary, the employer pays an amount agreed as part of a government initiative and the government pays the remainder as part of the dole payment (they're already receiving). Lodgings could easily be provided within the salary amount. And I suspect the German people themselves would much prefer other europeans to the influx of immigrants.

I don't quite understand why you're so resistant to ideas that essentially get people working again (improving their resume and further chances of employment once the economy recovers), and actually provide a better income. Sitting on the dole doesn't help their future emloyment prospects at all.

Have you missed all the abuse of the jobbridge system?

Ahh yes, because there has been abuse in one system we should never try again with a new system. Good logic there. You haven't learned the concept of learning from mistakes?

Plus, say a man with a wife and two kids gets laid off from a job he was doing for 20+ years. Finds it hard to get a new job (because it is stupidly hard to get one in Ireland). Does social welfare "place" him in a job in Germany? Sorry, screw you and your family, you're going to Germany.

There are cheap flights dublin to munich for as little as 60 euro
(I'm sure a deeper search could find cheaper ones). I think surely the government can arrange cheap flights for monthly/weekly return of employees under the system. Earning a real wage above that of the dole payment, would mean that a person could easily afford such a cost.

Because that's the logical conclusion to what you're trying to suggest.

Only if you don't want to work for your income. Whereas I have had jobs where I commuted three-four hours each way... I didn't just give up and plonk my ass down to receive the dole. Which is what you obviously prefer.

People who did that, did so voluntarily. They did it off there own bat. Like people who do it today. There's no difference.

What you're suggesting is that people are "placed" into this situation and that IS different.

Shock. Horror. They're placed in jobs which pay them a salary instead of just giving them the dole? Seriously?

Maybe I have a different attitude because I believe people should actually work for a living rather than just seeking handouts all the time. After all, It's the people who are working who end paying for "the unemployed" (is that better than using "them"?)

I will repeat something since you seem to keep missing it. I'm referring to people on the dole longer than a year who are physically and mentally capable of working.

I think all unemployed are fully entitled to welfare with the year period... but after a year, if jobs are offered by the government then they should be taken.

Think.

Seriously? You have got to be joking.

kerryguy78 · 13-08-2016 10:13PM

At least 50% of people on the dole longer than ten years are spongers and no one can say otherwise, we all know them, they are the ones who spend all day in the pub, the hardest thing they do every week is draw their money!

Markcheese · 14-08-2016 07:51AM

kerryguy78 wrote:

At least 50% of people on the dole longer than ten years are spongers and no one can say otherwise, we all know them, they are the ones who spend all day in the pub, the hardest thing they do every week is draw their money!

Thats a very broad statement, 10 years is a long time,if you've been unemployed for 10 years chances are your close to unemployable, without some major help... how are you going to spend all day in the pub if you've only got a welfare check..
but I do believe that after a year or so on the dole you should have to be doing 20/25 hours a week of social/ community work or a course to recieve a payment.. even if its just visiting elderly neighbours, or helping at the local soccer/ gaa club ,or tidy towns.

kerryguy78 · 14-08-2016 08:06AM

I use ten years as a timeline because ten years ago there was loads of jobs but people didn't bother getting them. This babysitting culture in this country must stop. I see lots of lazy young people going down the dole road too

Destiiny · 14-08-2016 08:10AM

I know people receiving the dole but having to do courses and such.

NIMAN · 14-08-2016 08:12AM

I know people in NI in their 40s who have never paid a penny in tax from working.
These people worked very occasionally for cash in hand, but most of their adult life they have been on welfare. Taking plenty out of the system but contributing absolutely nothing.

They also have children who appear to be going the same route.

These are the sort of people that need addressing, as they are a real burden on the system and the system is crumbling.

kerryguy78 · 14-08-2016 09:05AM

It is a big drain on the country's purse and I know people get stuck in a rut that is hard to get out of. Young people need a helping hand too to see that they can do it. My son 17 has done the leaving and straight away I got him in to the company I work for, if I didn't give him that helping hand he wouldn't have got there I think. Now he had an interview last week for an apprenticeship and it looked really good for him to be able to tell them he is working for a multinational company, of course he didn't mention I was working there too!!!! But that is the helping hand young people need .

14-08-2016 10:12AM

kerryguy78 wrote: »

This babysitting culture in this country must stop.

Totally agree.

kerryguy78 · 14-08-2016 10:26AM

Like I read yesterday it costs the state €98000 a year to keep one prisoner in max security, they have tv's play stations the finest of food and they are after ruining people's lives with their crimes

14-08-2016 10:36AM

kerryguy78 wrote: »

Like I read yesterday it costs the state €98000 a year to keep one prisoner in max security, they have tv's play stations the finest of food and they are after ruining people's lives with their crimes

Again, I'm in full agreement. I suppose I've become more right winged as I got older because I don't like the leftie idea of giving in to criminals. People or crinimals should fear prison. I know, I already do, and I've never committed any serious crime.

(Not really including having a a joint at home)

Prison should be punishment. Not simply holding them for a period of time. Hard labour, a suspension of "most" rights (they've chosen not to accept anyway), and harsh sentencing for violent crimes. And remove this whole insanity plea. It's just abused anyway. And repeat offenders who see the inside of a prison get a scale of increased punishment until they relent or are removed completely from society.

Just my opinion, and I know I'll probably get slated for saying it. If anyone wants to create a new thread, I'll join in. .

kerryguy78 · 14-08-2016 12:11PM

I totally agree with you, the thing that gets me is concurrent sentencing, if your going to commit one crime you may as well commit a few more it's the same sentence you get

snubbleste · 14-08-2016 12:12PM

kerryguy78 wrote: »

It is a big drain on the country's purse and I know people get stuck in a rut that is hard to get out of. Young people need a helping hand too to see that they can do it. My son 17 has done the leaving and straight away I got him in to the company I work for, if I didn't give him that helping hand he wouldn't have got there I think. Now he had an interview last week for an apprenticeship and it looked really good for him to be able to tell them he is working for a multinational company, of course he didn't mention I was working there too!!!! But that is the helping hand young people need .

It's called nepotism.

kerryguy78 · 14-08-2016 12:23PM

snubbleste wrote: »

It's called nepotism.

It is but our company took on ten students for the summer, it opens their eyes and shows them how the world of work goes, more companies should be doing this to help our youth

NIMAN · 14-08-2016 12:27PM

Nepotism isn't good though.

kerryguy78 · 14-08-2016 12:40PM

NIMAN wrote: »

Nepotism isn't good though.

Well to be fair it got my son on to the employment ladder, I do agree there are people out there who are well capable of doing the job but no one there to pull strings for them.

The Dole

Comments