Crowdfunding fine for shoplifting

[Rhiannon]

There are some places where there are no jobs to be had.

Being out of work doesn't mean that the state should be allowed to try to starve you into doing what it wants. Five or six years ago a relative of mine was made redundant and claimed the basic jobseekers. He went to the job centre and explained to the girl (young enough to be his daughter, late for work, unwashed and hungover in yesterday's clothes) that on,y half a dozen firms in the UK require his expertise and that he had applied to each of them with his CV, as well as sending it to other firms in associated fields, and that he had a handful of interviews lined up. She told him that unless he went for the interviews she's arranged for him they'd assume he wasn't really looking for work and he'd lose his jobseekers. These days he's be sanctioned.

[Shaker]

Don't even try, Rhi. It's all "Let them eat cake - or starve, I don't care either way" with the likes of LA and his kind.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Lapsed,

Can the real Lapsed stand up!! Where is the guy who went on a pilgrimage, where is the guy who sent me on the journey of ego!!

I will echo our Sanes post, COMPASSION, research that word, it means, to suffer with, walk a mile in another mans shoes.

Gonnagle.

[Anchorman]

Dear Lapsed,

Can the real Lapsed stand up!! Where is the guy who went on a pilgrimage, where is the guy who sent me on the journey of ego!!

I will echo our Sanes post, COMPASSION, research that word, it means, to suffer with, walk a mile in another mans shoes.

Gonnagle.

-

Yep.
As Rhi pointed out, there exist areas where there ARE no jobs, and also adults who cannot find funding for re-training for the jobs which exist.
Also, certain jobs on 'minimum wage' or zero hours contracts mean that even those in such employment rely on benefits to stave off hunger, homelessness or hypothermia.
Compassion, in place of Tebbitism. is needed here.

[Rhiannon]

Lets face it, some places require miracles for meaningful, long-lasting jobs to be created.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Rhiannon and Jim,

Smoke and mirrors from the Tories, they pay lip service to bringing down unemployment.

Their new word is aspire, but aspiration is only a dream if you do not invest in people.

They are cutting further education to the bone, places where people could learn new skills to achieve their aspirations.

The government job centres are staffed by people who have lost any interest in helping anyone to aspire, visiting one of these soulless places gives no one any hope, well that's if you can bypass the security officers on the doors.

Gonnagle.

[Anchorman]

Unfortunately, I agree, Gonners.
Those who staff the jobcentres have a thankless task - knowingg that the courses and schemes they send jobseekers on are really only a way of massaging the figures and getting them out of the way.
The fact is that there are areas in these islands where there is simply no chance of getting any job which would clear the potential employee of the need to claim benefit.

[ProfessorDavey]

The fact is that there are areas in these islands where there is simply no chance of getting any job which would clear the potential employee of the need to claim benefit.

Isn't there a kind of implicit assumption in that comment that people should expect a job to be available on their doorstep.

While that might be nice, it isn't always the case and there are plenty of people who travel half way around the world to gain jobs and a better life for themselves. I sometimes feel that too often people from the UK aren't even prepared to relocate 30 miles in order to get a job, let alone 3000.

I do understand that for some people moving is tricky - for example if they have children in school (although moving schools isn't the end of the world) or perhaps caring responsibilities for elderly relatives. But that isn't the case for everyone. Sure it can be scary to move to another part of the country for a job, to need to start again in a new place, to make new friends etc. But I don't think it is unreasonable to expect people to do that if the alternative is benefits, or at least to consider it.

[Anchorman]

Prof;
you answered your own point.
If a person in lower middle age has such family responsibilities, plus a very limited income which, for example means they cannot afford a car, then moving elsewhere to find work also means finding transport, employment and housing.
Unless the potential job pays substantially more than even the 'living wage' (misnomer alwert), then the costs would outweigh the income.

[ProfessorDavey]

Prof;
you answered your own point.
If a person in lower middle age has such family responsibilities, plus a very limited income which, for example means they cannot afford a car, then moving elsewhere to find work also means finding transport, employment and housing.
Unless the potential job pays substantially more than even the 'living wage' (misnomer alwert), then the costs would outweigh the income.

I'm sorry - I don't agree unless there are caring commitment that mean you can't move - e.g. an elderly relative.

The world is full of people who take the decision (which may be difficult and often very hard to start with) to relocate to another part of a country or even to another country in order to be where the jobs are if there aren't jobs near them. And if you are relocating in the UK, you will still have the safety net (such as it is) of benefits, so if you relocate to Worcester from Sunderland because you can get a job there but not in Sunderland then in work benefits will be available to you.

But there is a broader point about pride (not sure if that's the right word) and future prospects - even if you aren't much better off, or no better off at all, in the early stages, to be in a job rather than unemployed massively improves your prospects in the future. Much easier to move from one job to a better one, than to try to find an employer willing to take a punt on someone who has been unemployed for years, or even never actually had a job.

[Shaker]

The fact is that there are areas in these islands where there is simply no chance of getting any job which would clear the potential employee of the need to claim benefit.

Isn't there a kind of implicit assumption in that comment that people should expect a job to be available on their doorstep.

While that might be nice, it isn't always the case and there are plenty of people who travel half way around the world to gain jobs and a better life for themselves. I sometimes feel that too often people from the UK aren't even prepared to relocate 30 miles in order to get a job, let alone 3000.

I do understand that for some people moving is tricky - for example if they have children in school (although moving schools isn't the end of the world) or perhaps caring responsibilities for elderly relatives. But that isn't the case for everyone. Sure it can be scary to move to another part of the country for a job, to need to start again in a new place, to make new friends etc. But I don't think it is unreasonable to expect people to do that if the alternative is benefits, or at least to consider it.

Are they allowed to consider it and reject it, and how long do they get?

[ProfessorDavey]

The fact is that there are areas in these islands where there is simply no chance of getting any job which would clear the potential employee of the need to claim benefit.

Isn't there a kind of implicit assumption in that comment that people should expect a job to be available on their doorstep.

While that might be nice, it isn't always the case and there are plenty of people who travel half way around the world to gain jobs and a better life for themselves. I sometimes feel that too often people from the UK aren't even prepared to relocate 30 miles in order to get a job, let alone 3000.

I do understand that for some people moving is tricky - for example if they have children in school (although moving schools isn't the end of the world) or perhaps caring responsibilities for elderly relatives. But that isn't the case for everyone. Sure it can be scary to move to another part of the country for a job, to need to start again in a new place, to make new friends etc. But I don't think it is unreasonable to expect people to do that if the alternative is benefits, or at least to consider it.

Are they allowed to consider it and reject it, and how long do they get?

Not sure what you mean?

[Shaker]

You said that you don't consider it unreasonable for people to uproot themselves (avec les enfants if applicable) and move x number of miles away for a job if the alternative is benefits - or at least to consider doing so. What if they consider it and say "No thanks" - and what's the difference between saying that immediately and saying it after a month? It's the same response after all.

[ProfessorDavey]

You said that you don't consider it unreasonable for people to uproot themselves (avec les enfants if applicable) and move x number of miles away for a job if the alternative is benefits - or at least to consider doing so. What if they consider it and say "No thanks" - what's the difference between saying that immediately and saying it after a month? It's the same response after all.

I think there are people who could reasonably relocate, but simple won't consider it - that's where they live, they expect a job to be local to that place or they aren't prepared to contemplate it. I don't think that's right and it shows a real lack of ambition and drive and actually if they do have kids, that' not a great example to be showing them.

So to give an example, I was born near Liverpool - my Dad worked in the docks in Birkenhead. In the early 70s he lost his job with no prospect of employment locally. He got a job near London and we moved. The whole time was extremely stressful for the family (I didn't see this really as I was only 6), not helped by the fact that the new job disappeared very rapidly too, so he got another job in London. For a while our quality of life down south was less than near Liverpool, but I think you've got to be prepared to move at times if there isn't work locally.

[Shaker]

I think there are people who could reasonably relocate, but simple won't consider it - that's where they live, they expect a job to be local to that place or they aren't prepared to contemplate it.

But the same question applies - what if they do contemplate it and say no? Contemplating something doesn't equate to agreeing with it.

[ProfessorDavey]

I think there are people who could reasonably relocate, but simple won't consider it - that's where they live, they expect a job to be local to that place or they aren't prepared to contemplate it.

But the same question applies - what if they do contemplate it and say no? Contemplating something doesn't equate to agreeing with it.

I'm not sure, but I think there does need to be a big push to get people to recognise that part of moving themselves and their family out of a dependency culture may involve ... well ... moving. I think there are too many people whose horizons are massively narrowed, both in terms of their ambitions and also their geography. That's a problem.

It is about expectations I think and that is driven a lot by the society you live in - if you create an impression that there aren't any jobs, that no-one should ever expect to move to get a job, guess what - you'll embed the benefits culture. Create a new, more ambitious and aspirational culture, where people are encouraged to better themselves, and to understand that it may require some sacrifice and moving out of a default comfort zone (which might not be very comfortable anyhow) you begin to empower people toward a better future. And not just for themselves, but potentially for their kids etc as there is an issue with multigenerational non working families.

[wigginhall]

It depends on where the pressure is coming from.   There are arguments at the moment that a kind of social cleansing is going on in the South-East.  That is, poor people are gradually being moved out via various means.   The council estate I used to live on is being knocked down and replaced with 'executive homes'.   Where will the old occupiers go?   All very murky. 

[ProfessorDavey]

It depends on where the pressure is coming from.   There are arguments at the moment that a kind of social cleansing is going on in the South-East.  That is, poor people are gradually being moved out via various means.   The council estate I used to live on is being knocked down and replaced with 'executive homes'.   Where will the old occupiers go?   All very murky.

Not dismissing this as an issue, but it is a different issue.

What you are describing is a situation where people are likely to be able to find jobs, e.g. in London and the South East, but can't afford to live near their work, so must commute or aren't able to take the job because the finances don't stack up.

What I was talking about was a situation where there aren't available jobs locally, but might be some distance away (that might be 10 miles, 200 miles or even in a different country) and the willingness of unemployed people in an area without jobs to move to take a job rather than stay put on benefits (and often with diminishing likelihood of getting a job in the future).

[Rhiannon]

Auf Weidersehen Pet, you mean?

[ProfessorDavey]

Auf Weidersehen Pet, you mean?

Doesn't have to be abroad.

I'm actually quite shocked at times at the lack of vision of some people. As you might know, along with my wife we run a nursery and therefore are regularly recruiting, and this is an area where the positions aren't high paid (perhaps they should be, but they aren't across the sector). I'm regularly amazed when we get people who seem interested in a post (and may be without a job) yet decline to come to interview or take a position, because it's too far. And that often means a 5-10 mile bus journey. We're not recruiting from the other end of the country, merely perhaps from the next town, yet there seems to be a perception that this isn't really good enough, they want a job two minutes away.

[Shaker]

I'm actually quite shocked at times at the lack of vision of some people.

You can't compel people to have ambitions and aspirations they don't have and don't want, or the ambitions you think they ought to have because they would be just like you if only they knew the facts of the case.

And nor should you.

[ProfessorDavey]

I'm actually quite shocked at times at the lack of vision of some people.

You can't compel people to have ambitions and aspirations they don't have and don't want, or the ambitions you think they ought to have because they would be just like you if only they knew the facts of the case.

And nor should you.

You can nuture and encourage aspirational attitudes and also do things to discourage lack of ambition and aspiration.

But remember we aren't talking here about someone comfortable pottering along, making their way rather that being uber-driven to be a world leader in a field. Nope we are talking about people whose cultural dearth of ambitious and aspiration (which lets face it is often from poor role models in the pervious generation and lack of good role models) results in a dependency position which isn't good for either the person, nor those who pay for that dependency through benefits etc.

Is it unreasonable to expect someone to take an available job, that may be 30 miles away rather than love on benefits? Again I mean in circumstances where there is no reasonable barrier to them doing so (e.g. dependents etc).

[Shaker]

You can nuture and encourage aspirational attitudes

Not in those who aren't interested, you can't.

But remember we aren't talking here about someone comfortable pottering along, making their way rather that being uber-driven to be a world leader in a field. Nope we are talking about people whose cultural dearth of ambitious and aspiration (which lets face it is often from poor role models in the pervious generation and lack of good role models) results in a dependency position which isn't good for either the person, nor those who pay for that dependency through benefits etc.

This sounds as though it comes straight from the IBS playbook. (Yes, I know his name is Iain Duncan Smith but I always refer to him as IBS since even the mere mention of his name let alone the sight of his endlessly kickable smirking face gives me the shits).

Is it unreasonable to expect someone to take an available job, that may be 30 miles away rather than love on benefits? Again I mean in circumstances where there is no reasonable barrier to them doing so (e.g. dependents etc).

I can think of umpteen reasons why it could well be unreasonable.

[ProfessorDavey]

You can nuture and encourage aspirational attitudes

Not in those who aren't interested, you can't.

But remember we aren't talking here about someone comfortable pottering along, making their way rather that being uber-driven to be a world leader in a field. Nope we are talking about people whose cultural dearth of ambitious and aspiration (which lets face it is often from poor role models in the pervious generation and lack of good role models) results in a dependency position which isn't good for either the person, nor those who pay for that dependency through benefits etc.

This sounds as though it comes straight from the IBS playbook. (Yes, I know his name is Iain Duncan Smith but I always refer to him as IBS since even the mere mention of his name let alone the sight of his endlessly kickable smirking face gives me the shits).

Is it unreasonable to expect someone to take an available job, that may be 30 miles away rather than love on benefits? Again I mean in circumstances where there is no reasonable barrier to them doing so (e.g. dependents etc).

I can think of umpteen reasons why it could well be unreasonable.

No this isn't from the IDS book, because his approach tends to be punitive and entirely 'stick'. I don't agree with that, but nor do I agree that we should sit aside and accept low aspirations as embedded and hereditary, which we currently do. Actually I think that the 'aspirations' agenda and encouraging aspiration and ambition and social mobility has always been more embedded in left wing politics than right wing, who are actually often rather happy with the status quo where the currently advantaged remain advantage and the current disadvantage remain disadvantages (as long as the advanced aren't expected to pay for them).

And I agree there are plenty of legitimate reasons why this might not be reasonable, but there are also many people who don't have any legitimate reasons not to take a job 30 miles away, but aren't prepared to consider this due to embedded expectations.

[Shaker]

But we're back to your use of the word 'consider' again and my questions about what you propose to do with those who consider it and reject it, or if there's any really meaningful difference between those who say 'no' immediately and those who consider it for three weeks and still say 'no.' I don't think there is.