What's it really like to claim job-seeker's allowance?

Lang:EN

http://notthetreasuryview.blogspot.s...tory-work.html

Quote:

---

And what happened? Well, drop out was indeed very high; only about 55% of those referred to MWA actually started the programme. But the impacts on benefit receipt were disappointing. Among those who did actually start the progamme, there was essentially no impact. And while there was a substantial impact on those who didn't start - as you would expect, given that the programme was compulsory and they could be sanctioned for non-attendance - this was transitory. Overall, the maximum impact was a 5 percentage point reduction in benefit receipt, and only 13 weeks after starting the programme the impact had disappeared completely. On average, someone referred to MWA spent just 4 days less on benefit as a result.

So what appears to have happened is that while some of those referred did leave benefits as result, they drifted back on quickly. There was no lasting positive impact at all. Indeed,quite the contrary: it appears that some of them returned as ESA rather than JSA claimants:

13 weeks after referral, those referred were 3 percentage points more likely to be on ESA. Not to put too fine a point on it, this is a complete policy disaster. ESA claimants are both more expensive and more difficult to get off benefit than JSA claimants. Indeed, the main thrust of welfare-to-work policy under both this government and the previous one has been to try to move ESA claimants closer to the labour market. MWA appears to achieve precisely the opposite. We can only speculate why, although the obvious answer is that the "hassle factor" of being referred to MWA had the unintended consequence of encouraging some claimants to claim a benefit - ESA - where there is not necessarily any obligation to look for work at all. In any case, whatever the explanation, the long-run costs of moving even a few JSA claimants to ESA will clearly outweigh any possible other benefits of the programme.

Finally, what about employment: no surprises, and no impact at all, here:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-eDnwokYRFr...employment.jpg

---

So basically the only problem is that this is "hassling" people who don't want to work and will do anything to avoid working? Sounds about right.

There's a very simple fix to so-called unemployment: Halve the benefits and cut taxes accordingly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

So basically the only problem is that this is "hassling" people who don't want to work and will do anything to avoid working? Sounds about right.

---

If you're going to cut it here you're going to have to learn to read.

Quote:

---

We can only speculate why, although the obvious answer is that the "hassle factor" ...

---

I can read just fine. The solution is more hassle not less.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

I can read just fine.

---

You really can't, and as evidence of this claim I'd like to point out that you keyed in only one small part of one analysis and failed overall :bulb:

Let me help you some more:

Quote:

---

And what happened? Well, drop out was indeed very high; only about 55% of those referred to MWA actually started the programme. But the impacts on benefit receipt were disappointing. Among those who did actually start the progamme, there was essentially no impact. And while there was a substantial impact on those who didn't start - as you would expect, given that the programme was compulsory and they could be sanctioned for non-attendance - this was transitory. Overall, the maximum impact was a 5 percentage point reduction in benefit receipt, and only 13 weeks after starting the programme the impact had disappeared completely. On average, someone referred to MWA spent just 4 days less on benefit as a result.

---

I'd also like to point out that all the links are right here in this thread in case you ever feel like reviving the intellectual honesty of your academic past.

Quote:

---

And what happened? Well, drop out was indeed very high; only about 55% of those referred to MWA actually started the programme.

---

Of those who had spent more than 18 months without bothering to get a job, when referred to a program to work 45% didn't bother to do that. Is that a failure of the program, or the individuals and our tolerance?

Quote:

---

But the impacts on benefit receipt were disappointing. Among those who did actually start the progamme, there was essentially no impact. And while there was a substantial impact on those who didn't start - as you would expect, given that the programme was compulsory and they could be sanctioned for non-attendance - this was transitory.

---

You can hardly judge the success of a program by those who don't take part :bulb:

Quote:

---

Overall, the maximum impact was a 5 percentage point reduction in benefit receipt, and only 13 weeks after starting the programme the impact had disappeared completely. On average, someone referred to MWA spent just 4 days less on benefit as a result.

---

4 days less is better than 4 days more. Its a start.

I'd like to point out that there are no miracle solutions. These are the hardcore losers who really don't want to work. Getting any to work is an improvement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

without bothering to get a job

---

Okay seriously you have to stop bringing so much stupid to this discussion.

Quote:

---

when referred to a program to work 45% didn't bother to do that. Is that a failure of the program, or the individuals and our tolerance?

---

That depends on the reasons for not joining, and on the outcomes.

Quote:

---

You can hardly judge the success of a program by those who don't take part :bulb:

---

Please read this part carefully:

Quote:

---

Among those who did actually start the progamme, there was essentially no impact.

---

Quote:

---

4 days less is better than 4 days more. Its a start.

---

That's absolute nonsense. Even if those 4 days are significant we have to tackle the problem of costs vs. benefits.

Quote:

---

I'd like to point out that there are no miracle solutions. These are the hardcore losers who really don't want to work.

---

How much do you want to waste on harrassing them?

Meanwhile the "work experience" part of this scheme has (maybe) achieved an astounding 6% improvement :bulb:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

Okay seriously you have to stop bringing so much stupid to this discussion.

---

What was wrong with that one? If they'd bothered to get a job then they wouldn't be enroled on this scheme. Being unemployed after 18 months is either a choice, or you're so incapable of finding your own employment that you need this sort of assistance.

Quote:

---

That depends on the reasons for not joining, and on the outcomes.

---

Laziness, alcohol, drugs, Jeremy Kyle, TV, had an important appointment picking their nose.

I suppose there is a possibility that 45% of the people who'd been unable to get a job in the prior 18 months miraculously got one. And I have a bridge to sell to you.

Quote:

---

Please read this part carefully:

---

And?

What significant impact did the prior 18 months have on these people?

Quote:

---

That's absolute nonsense. Even if those 4 days are significant we have to tackle the problem of costs vs. benefits.

---

Yes the costs of people being parasites which leads to further costs of crime, anti-social behaviour, lost generations, kids being brought up in workless households, etc, etc - quite a lot of costs.

What are the benefits of accepting that?

Quote:

---

How much do you want to waste on harrassing them?

---

Depends, how much are they going to drain off us first ...

If these people are willing to spend a lifetime (remember its a MINIMUM of 18 months) then I'm willing to "harrass" them quite far.

Quote:

---

Meanwhile the "work experience" part of this scheme has (maybe) achieved an astounding 6% improvement :bulb:

---

Excellent!

What precisely is your better alternative to getting these hard-core parasites off their couch and into work?

Quote:

---

And?

---

Quote:

---

You can hardly judge the success of a program by those who don't take part :bulb:

---

Quote:

---

Among those who did actually start the programme, there was essentially no impact.

---

Read the above carefully. And very slowly. If you're still having trouble then let me put it in simple terms: you can [provisionally] judge the success of a programme by comparing outcomes among those who participate in it to outcomes among similar people who don't participate in it. It's similar to what you do in medical research where you sometimes compare outcomes in an intervention group with outcomes in a control group. When you do investigate this particular job intervention you see that it is unimpressive at best, costs a great deal and sabotages the project as a whole.

Quote:

---

Yes the costs of people being parasites which leads to further costs of crime, anti-social behaviour, lost generations, kids being brought up in workless households, etc, etc - quite a lot of costs.

What are the benefits of accepting that?

---

Are we still talking about the 4 days of benefits? :bulb: Dude I'm gonna rate that post "G" for "GGT".

Minxie, do you really think it's a productive an worthwhile use of your time to have a discussion about unemployment benefits with someone who thinks anyone without a job doesn't have one because "they can't be bothered"? Why don't you go heal someone instead?

Because on weekends I try to heal the world

You two really need to stop talking past each other, though at least Rand is talking out of experience, while Minx is talking out of his good-hearted behind. The key issue, I think, is that you two are thinking about different types of unemployed people. Minx is thinking about professionals who lost a long-held job and want to find similar employment. These people aren't necessarily lazy for taking their time; heck, I was only working part-time for over a year before my recent stint in grad school, only looking for jobs that would advance my career; I did make it a point not to take unemployment benefits though (granted, that's not an option everyone can take). Push comes to shove, these people can get employment for which they'd be overqualified, but it might harm their long-term prospects. A balance should be struck between encouraging these people to get off the benefits and having them find the right job (18 months seems more than enough).

Rand is referring to the people who likely never held a long-term job. These are people who have been on and off benefits their entire time. They likely don't have a good education, got knocked/knocked someone up while still young, have a problem with alcohol/drugs, and quite possibly have an attitude problem. These people can do no better than low-wage labor, but low-wage labor doesn't pay much more than benefits. As a result, many of them do their utmost to work just enough to continue getting the dole. After welfare reform in the US in the 1990s, for example, there was a massive decrease in the number of people receiving benefits. I have no doubt the same would be true in any industrialized country. That's not to say that all unemployed people can easily find a job, but quite possibly a majority can (with some leeway during recessions).

http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/ima...0to%20lose.pdf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

while Minx is talking out of his good-hearted behind. The key issue, I think, is that you two are thinking about different types of unemployed people. Minx is thinking about professionals who lost a long-held job and want to find similar employment.

---

Actually Minx is thinking about people close to him and their experiences with being unemployed. You of all people should be able to appreciate this anecdote-based approach to discussions about social problems :o

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

Actually Minx is thinking about people close to him and their experiences with being unemployed. You of all people should be able to appreciate this anecdote-based approach to discussions about social problems :o

---

I'm willing to bet that these people are not very similar to the ones who keep on getting sent to work at Rand's shop.

I was going to mention earlier that older workers get a raw deal, but a vast majority of the unemployed are not old, so this is a problem affecting a minority of job seekers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

I'm willing to bet that these people are not very similar to the ones who keep on getting sent to work at Rand's shop.

---

They're not, but Rand's broad sweeping hate-filled claims about the various traits of the long-term unemployed are directed at the entire group, not just at the specific ones that came into his shop and stole from the petty cash fund.

You are, however, grossly underestimating the number of unemployed who do fit the description Rand provides.

Quote:

---

You are, however, grossly underestimating the number of unemployed who do fit the description Rand provides.

---

To be fair, I have not seen any statistics on the range of character-flaws of the long-term unemployed. But I'll concede that there are probably reasons why many of them never get any good employment to begin with. Those who lose a good job and experience long-term unemployment after that are trickier to make assumptions about. Esp. assumptions that are used to justify the systematic demoralisation of a person by incompetent and uncaring case-workers, rigid and useless programmes, unprincipled "employers" and hate-mongers on the internet.

I have no doubt there are many who, for whatever reasons, are "happier" trying to game the system than to develop their lives. I also know that there are many decent people who're unemployed and would like nothing more than to have a job and maybe not be treated like shit. How do you know who's who, a priori? And how do you know which ones are beyond salvation due entirely to their own flaws? It never ceases to amaze me, the lengths some people--not just Brits :downcast: sorry Steely, Tim--will go to justify rudeness and douchery towards strangers. If I were to treat all patients who come to the ER in pain as if they were evil drug-addicts, or tell every patient at a primary care clinic that they're manipulative time-wasters who're just faking or imagining things, or treating the nurses as if they're totally incompetent, why, I'd be crucified.

My work experience started with ostensibly low-skill jobs, and I've had the privilege of seeing first hand what these schemes can offer and the decency of employers. It irks me to see people turning a blind eye to the problems and justifying the further waste of public funds--not to mention the continued human suffering--just because they have some deep seated need to loudly hate on the unemployed.

I don't think anyone really knows how many of the unemployed really fit the description Rand provides. You have to bare in mind that he actually lives in a nightmarish Doctor Who-esque parallel universe England where social order has all but collapsed due to the malign influence of a being known as The Omnicron. I don't know why his posts end up on our version of the forum.

My impression (and since we're all just exchanging worthless anecdotes and basing everything on our own personal experiences) is that your real shiftless pikers don't even bother with job seekers allowance, because there's all this stuff on there that means you have to at least pretend to look for a job and you only get like £65 a week. It's more lucrative to pretend to have disability, have 26 kids and claim housing and child benefit.

Re. welfare reform in the US, is this the one you're referring to?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...isconsin-model

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/08/us...2&pagewanted=1

Since we're talking about personal experiences I'll, once again, bring up how the large majority of homeless I help with computer use appear to honestly and diligently to be looking for a job. Workforce Alliance around here requires that the people on its support to be actively looking for a job, and they include that requirement without giving them the tools or support they need in order to either find a job or secure a job. Its gotten so bad that the library system had to create a position just to help these people understand the government services and how to manage the changing nature of jobhunting, since both are fast approaching a status of being online only.

We aren't even allowed to sign off on the alliance forms that state the person came in looking for a job, but that doesn't stop them from coming in the next day, or week, or month.


I have no idea how closely Rand's attitude online is to his attitude in real life, but I wouldn't at all be surprised in people turning down working under him after the initial contact, and he has shared enough possible real life stories to back that up; but thats all been brought up and ignored in previous threads.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

JSA (and free Council Tax and everything else claimed for) is far from a pittance. Besides, although the police budget IS a pittance compared to the welfare budget, like education is too - there are these other sorts of things that actually need paying for too so shouldn't mean a sense of entitlement to benefits rather than being humiliated by being made to feel like you should take a job after 18 months.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...diture.svg.png

Welfare expenditure is more than 5 times public order or defence expenditure, more than double education.

---

It's hard to compare your pie chart to others, because of differences in labeling and structure. Does "Social Protection" mean food, housing, utilities, and transportation subsidies for the destitute AND the infirm AND the elderly AND the working poor AND the unemployed? :confused:

Anyway, that brown sliver titled "Defence" is pretty damn small, compared to what the US spends on National Defense (which really means International). Also, where does scientific, medical, and pharmaceutical R & D fall into that pie? Or is that another cost-price-shift?

It seems Rand classifies all people touching unemployment benefits as scum deserving of any and all type of harassment they can get in order to motivate them to get a job. This seem a little ridiculous in particular in view that the author of OP was apparently employed in a lucrative job make high % contribution, why would she not be entitled to receive some of that back now that she is unemployed. I am not sure I myself like the deal of we rob you when you are doing well but we catch you while you are down. I would prefer that the state let me save and create my own safety net, but seeing as things how they are I think I am entitled to benefits relatively hassle free at least until the state has payed me back all it has stolen up until now, and normally it should be adjusted for interest I could have earned on those funds.

I somewhat agree that people who have not contributed are not deserving of a safety net, however I realize society does it to maintain social order, reduce crime and cut down on corpses on the street, so I guess they can use the interest for this.

PS. It always amazed me how closely the government structure resembles organized crime.

http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/...raud-cost/3423

yippie!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer

Since we're talking about personal experiences I'll, once again, bring up how the large majority of homeless I help with computer use appear to honestly and diligently to be looking for a job.

---

Massive selection bias. You only see the ones that care about themselves/employment.

Congrats, you just discovered the super duper hidden point I was making against Rand's selection bias.

If those guys in England are anything like our guys in Germany, then the job agency is really a high point of annoyance for anyone with a skill-set above "low". And I'm not too sure about the ones with low skills, either.

Case in point: My own experience. After I had finished my studies, there was a three months gap until the start of my teaching job (university ends at the beginning of October, hiring new teachers-to-be ("Referendare" in Germany) begins at the end of January).

With my subjects (Physics and Chemistry) I was practically guaranteed a hire, though the acknowledgment of that fact would only arrive in mid-December (Bureaucracy reasons).

So, due to that gap, I had to go to the job agency. Upon meeting my "agent" I was thinking: "Good grief, have those guys never had someone similar to my position in here?"

They were absolutely clueless as to what a Referendar would be. They didn't know why there would be a three months gap. They also didn't consider the fact that it doesn't really make sense for anyone to hire me for less than three months.

Their first act? Put me into a two-weeks training seminar. Subject of the seminar? First week: Learning how to fill out the forms (took me 30 minutes). Second week: Learning how to write a CV (the "teacher" took a look at the one I was already using and said: "That one is ok.")
Okay, some of the other guys there really needed that seminar. Me? Not so much. But having a degree, two scientific subjects and a background in computer administration obviously never factored in.

They sent me job offers which did not make a whole lot of sense. First was an offer for a call-center which would have meant at least three hours of travel time per day. Second one was an offer for a call-center where I would have earned way less than what I was getting from the state. Third one was a job offer which would've required me to move to Dresden.

And when I finally began my job, they told me: "But you'll get your first salary in March! We'll give you money for the time in-between!" I tried to protest that one because the state (my employer) pays for the month in advance (which they should've known, being state employees themselves...) but gave up because it obviously went over their heads.

Three months hence they wrote me nasty letter where they complained that I had gotten money which I did not deserve...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steely Glint

I don't think anyone really knows how many of the unemployed really fit the description Rand provides. You have to bare in mind that he actually lives in a nightmarish Doctor Who-esque parallel universe England where social order has all but collapsed due to the malign influence of a being known as The Omnicron. I don't know why his posts end up on our version of the forum.

---

Please don't generalise and pretend that I'm referring to all unemployed people. I never claimed to be doing so. There is a world of difference between someone who recently lost their job, and someone who's not been working for nearly 2 years now. I don't know if its by accident or design that the sub-category of long-term keeps getting ignored. Bear in mind that approximately 99% of people are not classed as long-term unemployed.

Furthermore it is not healthy or ideal for the individual concerned to spend a lifetime not doing anything, that way is shown to lead to a number of problems (including drugs etc) as well as having an influence on others. Further support (and compulsion) for these individuals is completely different to viewing it the same as everyone.

Quote:

---

My impression (and since we're all just exchanging worthless anecdotes and basing everything on our own personal experiences) is that your real shiftless pikers don't even bother with job seekers allowance, because there's all this stuff on there that means you have to at least pretend to look for a job and you only get like £65 a week. It's more lucrative to pretend to have disability, have 26 kids and claim housing and child benefit.

---

True, so-called disability rates are astronomical in some areas. And not a good thing for those who're genuinely disabled.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Asmodian

It seems Rand classifies all people touching unemployment benefits as scum deserving of any and all type of harassment they can get in order to motivate them to get a job.

---

Really? Show anything I said anywhere that says it was all people and not specifically those who've been on the state for 2 years and are opposed to getting "a job, any job" :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro

Second one was an offer for a call-center where I would have earned way less than what I was getting from the state.

---

Thank you for proving my point!

There was a job out there available to you, but you didn't want it. Same as I've said countless times in this thread and you're backing it up thank you :). You should have been in a position where you took that job. A system whereby its more productive to not work than to take a job like that is a completely broken system.

Surely it can not be better for you to be withdrawing from the taxpayer rather than supporting yourself in a call centre job?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/...raud-cost/3423

yippie!

---

From your one word post kind of hard to figure out what your point is. £5.2bn (or Fact £5.3bn) of fraud and error is nothing to be sniffed at.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

There was a job out there available to you, but you didn't want it. Same as I've said countless times in this thread and you're backing it up thank you :). You should have been in a position where you took that job. A system whereby its more productive to not work than to take a job like that is a completely broken system.

Surely it can not be better for you to be withdrawing from the taxpayer rather than supporting yourself in a call centre job?

---

This is extremely short sighted. One shouldn't immediately move down several rungs in the workforce because they found something they are simply capable of doing. By taking that lower job you are removing your ability to fully commit to finding the right job. A job that would pay the taxpayers back several times over.
There is also the problem of states over here cancelling support for just about anything, including adsense accounts that don't make enough to pay for a lunch.