Because on weekends I try to heal the world
Printable View
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).
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 :oQuote:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
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.Quote:
You are, however, grossly underestimating the number of unemployed who do fit the description Rand provides.
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.
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
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.
Massive selection bias. You only see the ones that care about themselves/employment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
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...
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
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.
True, so-called disability rates are astronomical in some areas. And not a good thing for those who're genuinely disabled.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.
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 Asmodian
Thank you for proving my point!Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
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?
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 Aimless
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
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.
Not to deny your main point, but why exactly did you need unemployment benefits if you were fairly certain you were going to get a well-paying job in three months? The way I see it, unemployment benefits are contingent on you accepting the jobs that you're offered to get you off benefits as quickly as possible. If you know you'll have a job soon, it seems rather dishonest to claim the benefits without doing the second part. Not saying you yourself are dishonest, since German law allows for this nonsense, but I fail to see a reason for allowing it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
Well, way to miss the point. What I was getting from the state was enough for rent, food and other necessities of life. Even a bit less money would've been somewhat uncomfortable.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
So I'm not quite sure why exactly you're overjoyed about this company paying less than the state - unless you want people who cannot turn down such a job offer to be absolutely miserable and dirt poor? Keep in mind that the money we get is calculated to be the minimum living standard.
I don't see the benefit of supporting such scum of the earth.
We're required to file for unemployment or we'll get massive problems when it comes to retirement age. And since it was the state itself which made this three months gap mandatory (ALL universities' summer semesters end in October!), I really don't feel guilty about that. They originally hired people at the end of October - it's only recently that they switched it to the beginning of February.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Now, honestly, would you want to hire someone for a job if you know he'll be gone in two or three months? I remember my times in call centers - and we always needed several weeks to be fully capable with what the job demanded of us.
The unemployment benefits are there to maintain an uninterrupted stream of income for someone in between jobs, a person working surrenders a significant part of his income to this scheme. Therefore is entitled to a certain period when he will continue to receive uninterrupted income for a fixed period of time. System is unfair in that this time period is limited to 2 years for those that have worked for 20 years and those that have worked 2, but I do not see anyway to fix it without creating massive social unrest.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
I don't see why getting you working asap has anything to do with it, if this is to have any benefit at all is to provide me with a grace period to find an acceptable job. I view it same as health insurance, I waste money every month paying for it but when I get sick I expect them to help fix whatever is wrong with me not to get me out of the hospital ASAP.
Like I said above, I don't blame you, but I fail to see a reason for these ridiculous regulations. It's like the state enjoys forcing people into using its services.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
Again, would you have provided me with a decent-paying job for those three months?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Except you're not really unemployed in that you're not actually looking for a job; you already have one. Save some money to last you the three month; and if you have an offer of employment, you should have no problem getting a bank loan if you don't have savings. It should not be the job of government to help skilled workers use loopholes to further increase their income. I'm getting my last pay check this May, and won't start working until late August (assuming I find a job before then). I have no intention of applying for unemployment since I'll know whether I'll have a job by May.Quote:
Originally Posted by Asmodian
Of course not. Use the time to brush up your skills or take a vacation. If you're truly desperate for cash, there are plenty of temp jobs out there that have no expectation of you staying more than a few weeks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
Maybe it's because until now nothing you've said has suggested that talking specifically about long-term the unemployed? Also, your condemnatory tory-boy horseshit is hardly any less offensive when applied solely to the long-term unemployed.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
No, it isn't. Unfortunately, you seem to have no solutions beyond 'lol, get a job dole-scum'.Quote:
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.
Couldn't parse this sentence.Quote:
Further support (and compulsion) for these individuals is completely different to viewing it the same as everyone.
No, it isn't.Quote:
True, so-called disability rates are astronomical in some areas. And not a good thing for those who're genuinely disabled.
Right. "Plenty of temp jobs".Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Heh. Keep in mind that for the duration of these three months I was staying in a small town and that the next bigger town has a university in it.
There was and is nothing "plentiful" about those temp jobs.
Not to mention that you're talking about a country and an area you know next to nothing about, so please, don't try to give me advice about my own country.
I've read plenty about Germans complaining about more and more jobs becoming temporary instead of permanent.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
Yes. Temporary in the sense of "your contract is extended for another six months, a year or some other increment".Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Not in the sense of "you can drop in or out at any time".
All my jobs during my time at university were temporary in that sense. Didn't mean that a guy who only had three months free time was hired, however. I was always asked: "How long do you think you'll remain at the university?", with the implied statement: "Don't bother applying if you're here for less than six months."
Do you not have temping agencies, where you get hired for a few weeks to do (predominantly) secretarial work?
Took slightly over 2 months for the mother of a couple of kids Brandy babysits to land a job through one of those. She makes $10 an hour, working from 3 or 4 till midnight, doing something with home foreclosures.
Yes. But even those agencies want you for longer stints than mere months. Yes, you get hired out for only some months, weeks or only a day. But your contract with the temp agency, that is a bit more long-term.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
The joy of not having at-will employment. :noob:
The unemployment rate is currently at 6.6%.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
So, your point would be exactly ... what?
Immediately? Yeah I can agree to that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
Except Khen said he already had a job arranged and needed something temporary. So this was perfectly suitable.
Also 18+ month unemployed people wouldn't fall under immediately either.
Then fix the problem.Quote:
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.
Really? Because I've mentioned the long term in every post, since the first reply of this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
Yeah, you have that unemployment rate because of your labor inflexibility. :bored: You must have had at-will employment before Merkel, when unemployment stayed at above 10% (http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=gm&v=74). :bored:Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
May Allah bless Gerhard Schroeder's Agenda 2010?Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
What would your limit be?Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Hmm I have a section in my social deductions that is specifically for this purpose, i.e. to maintain my income at roughly the same level (its actually caped at 10k a month so not quite), I together with my employer contribute roughly 10% of my gross salary for this purpose why would I not make use of this and eat in to my savings instead? This is my money, the job I hypothetically found does not begin right away so the government gets to return some of the money it stole from me, it is perfectly legal btw. Its called unemployment insurance it insures me against losses in income during breaks in employment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Now it is caped at one year and a half regardless of how much money the state leached of me before I lost my job and I must have worked at least 2 consecutive years prior to being entitled to it and you must have been fired from your past job to get it. After the 1.5 years expire you can still get something called AI, which insures you have enough to survive but is not dependant on your previous income.