A Modest Proposal

[sunny-dave]

I was mildly irritated (OK - spitting tacks) to read a statement in this article

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2324671/Migrant-exodus-fruit-fields-send-prices-soaring-Romanians-soon-free-jobs.html

that "the way the benefits system works meant a person working long hours in a field could receive as little as £100 extra per month".

That is a fundamentally wrong way of looking at the income from a job versus the income for not working - but I have actually had it said to me by someone I offered a job to - "you are expecting me to work for 15p per hour" (being the net difference between working and doing nowt).

So - given that there are loads and loads of jobs which will never get done in this country because we can't afford to pay people to do them (just look at the state of crumbling infrastructure and general untidiness of green spaces in towns and litter about the roadside everywhere for instance) - I have a modest proposal :

For every person in receipt of state benefits, we divide the gross amount of benefit by the current minimum wage and they are then required to do that number of hours of 'useful work for the community' - up to a maximum of 37 hours per week.

Obviously not applying to people on any form of incapacity benefit, and also with allowances made for people who are working part-time already.

I suspect people can pick a lot of holes in it - but in essence it doesn't seem unfair?

[Old_Geezer]

This is surely the same issue as has been discussed many times ? (Apologies no time to go through this thread in detail at the moment.)

If there is work one can earmark for insisting benefit claimants must do, then that has to be work that one has failed to find a taker for as a proper job. To hold it back for claimant labour is a retrograde step. Thus any working out of hours you must do is a non-starter since you will not have the work available, it is all out as proper jobs to attract proper employees.

If there has been no takers for the work as paid employment one should look to whether the work has been undervalued (or conditions are unacceptable). Markets are supposed to work such that if there are no buyers then the seller changes the offer/price/whatever. To decide one can force someone to buy is distorting the market, and that effectively is what you do if you insist someone can not get their benefits unless they do as they are told.

I'm not saying there are not limits, one ought not be able to ensure rejection of all employment opportunities safe in the knowledge they can continue to sponge off the rest of us indefinitely, but one applies a widespread forced labour rule at the detriment of society. If work is available to package out, offer an attractive wage for it.

[Octavius]

Quite right, have five people do one day a week each at JSA or one person do five days a week for a salary. Which is best?

[Svejk]

@old geezer. At last, someone gets it. Perhaps now that OG has put it somawhat more eloquently than I could, others will get it.