Are old people bleeding the country dry?

[Cyclone]

I agree with your first point but forcing people to take the job wouldn’t work, they would probably just not work very hard and loose the job. If the farmer as an incentive to take them by only having to top their wage up using some kind of piece work system he would lose nothing if they didn’t work hard, and the benefits claimant wouldn’t gain anything unless they worked.

 

Isn't requiring them to work in order to be given their benefits, the same as requiring them to take the job (and keep it) or be given no benefits?

The only difference is that if still officially unemployed the state is subsidising their wage instead of the farmer paying it all.

[Bassman62]

for example?

 

Make compulsory labour in prison worshops the order of the day for dangerous prisoners, those that refused should be kept locked up with subsistance ratiions only.

Many inmates in the Middlewood Funny Farm worked in the fields within the gounds growing produce.

[andikay]

Isn't requiring them to work in order to be given their benefits, the same as requiring them to take the job (and keep it) or be given no benefits?

The only difference is that if still officially unemployed the state is subsidising their wage instead of the farmer paying it all.

 

Don't get me wrong I would have no problem telling them they have to take the job and that if they lose it they get no benefits for 12 months. The problem the farmer as, he needs someone straight away because he only as a couple of weeks to pick whatever needs picking, and I can't see him taking someone that has been forced to take the job, but he might take someone if he doesn't have to pay their whole wage. Job seekers tend not to like temporary jobs because the problems it causes with their benefits. If the farmer just tops their benefits up, the claimant doesn't have the problems, the farmer loses nothing if they don't work hard and we give a claimant some work experience and a little pride. The claimant would have a big incentive to find a full time job if they have to keep doing all these temporary jobs and community work.

[chem1st]

http://www.straightstatistics.org/article/questionable-claims-graduate-pay

Since using google is beyond you.

This article claims it's about 20k, but discusses why the media reports the 25k I quoted.

http://ww2.prospects.ac.uk/cms/ShowPage/Home_page/Main_menu___Research/Labour_market_information/Labour_market_FAQs/What_is_the_average_graduate_starting_salary_/p!epmglcg

This one says 25k

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/8504999.stm

This one also.

 

You can apologise for claiming this

 

So, average graduate starting salary, between 20 and 25k depending on how you measure it.

 

Any other facts you can't be bothered to look up yourself?

now.

 

Using google isn't beyond me, hence my asking you to provide a source to back up your earlier post where you said the starting salary for a graduate was £25k .

 

The source you finally provided proved the starting salary was well below £25k. I'd already seen it and had been waiting for you to provide a source after I requested you did.

 

1.According to latest figures released by the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA), the average salary for full-time first degree graduates from 2008 whose destinations were known and who were in full-time employment in the UK six months after graduating was £19,677.

 

With graduate unemployment being 20%+.

 

It's a 1 in 5 chance of dole, or 4 in 5 chance of £19,677.

[Anna B]

Don't get me wrong I would have no problem telling them they have to take the job and that if they lose it they get no benefits for 12 months. The problem the farmer as, he needs someone straight away because he only as a couple of weeks to pick whatever needs picking, and I can't see him taking someone that has been forced to take the job, but he might take someone if he doesn't have to pay their whole wage. Job seekers tend not to like temporary jobs because the problems it causes with their benefits. If the farmer just tops their benefits up, the claimant doesn't have the problems, the farmer loses nothing if they don't work hard and we give a claimant some work experience and a little pride. The claimant would have a big incentive to find a full time job if they have to keep doing all these temporary jobs and community work.

 

The problem with part time and sporadic work is that the current benefit system simply cannot cope with it.

It can take up to 6 weeks for a benefit claimant to actually receive any money by which time they are often in debt.

They cannot keep doing this for the sake of a week or two's work. Rent still has to be paid, families fed and bills still keep rolling in.

If the benefits system could find a way of reinstating benefit quickly between jobs then more people would be more than happy to take them.

[Rupert_Baehr]

Make compulsory labour in prison worshops the order of the day for dangerous prisoners, those that refused should be kept locked up with subsistance ratiions only.

Many inmates in the Middlewood Funny Farm worked in the fields within the gounds growing produce.

 

Dangerous prisoners are held in A-Cat or B-Cat establishments. They are (as you suggest) dangerous. The safest place for an 'A' or 'B' is in his peter.

 

I taught in a prison for some years. It was a C-Cat establishment (not high risk, but prisoners who were not deemed to be yet fit to be exposed to society.) We had the 'whole range' of criminals. - most were reasonable people, but there were a few awkward (and possibly dangerous) individuals.

 

One or two were (in)famous.

 

For a (short) time, we had a programme which allowed 'trusted' (approaching D- Cat [open prison]) inmates to work for local farmers.

 

The prison warder thought it was a 'good idea'

The inmates (those allowed to do it) thought it was a 'good idea'

The local farmers thought it was a 'good idea'.

 

There were no problems. Nobody abused the system.

 

Then the local press found out about it.

 

All of a sudden, it became a really bad idea. The prison was castigated, the farmers who had provided the jobs were castigated and the inmates were brought back inside the walls (for the very few months they each had to serve until they were released.)

 

There are considerable tensions between what the (usually ill-informed) public wants, what the prisoner needs, what the system can provide and what politicians want to be seen to be doing to enhance their careers.

 

Guess which is prioritised?

[chem1st]

The problem with part time and sporadic work is that the current benefit system simply cannot cope with it.

It can take up to 6 weeks for a benefit claimant to actually receive any money by which time they are often in debt.

They cannot keep doing this for the sake of a week or two's work. Rent still has to be paid, families fed and bills still keep rolling in.

If the benefits system could find a way of reinstating benefit quickly between jobs then more people would be more than happy to take them.

 

These problems need to be addressed. The social safety does not effectively exist for low wage workers, it is often in their financial interest to remain unemployed.

 

Taking up work is a financial risk.

 

Paying people on top of benefits (a kind of negative income tax), makes a lot of sense.

[Rupert_Baehr]

I hear your argument Chemist - and it does make some sense.

 

Safety nets are vitally important.

 

Why is it, do you think, that although the UK offers safety nets and has no shortage of would-be immigrants so many people try to gain entry to the US, where all they offer is 'Success - and wealth ... if you work hard and earn it'?

[chem1st]

I hear your argument Chemist - and it does make some sense.

 

Safety nets are vitally important.

 

Why is it, do you think, that although the UK offers safety nets and has no shortage of would-be immigrants so many people try to gain entry to the US, where all they offer is 'Success - and wealth ... if you work hard and earn it'?

 

If your emigrating your generally looking for work. You go for the highest wage/standard of living. For many types of worker than standard of living in the US/UK/EU is quite high.

 

The UK attracts both workers and non workers alike. Family networks, immigration laws (EU/commonwealth), common languages, advertising (via news) etc. all play a part.

[andikay]

The problem with part time and sporadic work is that the current benefit system simply cannot cope with it.

It can take up to 6 weeks for a benefit claimant to actually receive any money by which time they are often in debt.

They cannot keep doing this for the sake of a week or two's work. Rent still has to be paid, families fed and bills still keep rolling in.

If the benefits system could find a way of reinstating benefit quickly between jobs then more people would be more than happy to take them.

 

That’s why I said don't stop their benefits, allow them to pick the fruit for a couple of weeks with the farmer making their benefits up to meet minimum wage. The farmer benefits as do we the consumer, and the farmer doesn't have to rely on foreign workers.