# Should people who receive welfare be required to do community service?



## Cosmos (Sep 7, 2015)

I see this debate pop up now and then and I'd like to see what my fellow Kiwis think.

Personally, I don't see how this has a downside. Of course, some people would be exempted (like the disabled and people who are taking job training courses), but I think if you have a healthy body and you're receiving government benefits you should be required to do a few hours of community service per month. People should also be allowed to choose what they want to do (be it working in an animal shelter, a food kitchen, a library, organizing events, etc).

I've seen people complain about how "insulting" this is to welfare recipients, but is it really? There's nothing bad about giving back to the community that's been supporting you. Plus, volunteer work is good for the soul; I've worked in animal shelters, food kitchens, and other places and I have nothing but positive things to say about my experiences. I'm sure that a lot of other Kiwis feel the same way. Getting out and helping other people never has any downsides.


----------



## Joan Nyan (Sep 7, 2015)

Forcing people to do community service would take away from time they could be working or trying to get a job.

Wouldn't that make it harder for people to get off welfare, which is the whole goal of welfare itself?


----------



## Cosmos (Sep 7, 2015)

Jon-Kacho said:


> Forcing people to do community service would take away from time they could be working or trying to get a job.
> 
> Wouldn't that make it harder for people to get off welfare, which is the whole goal of welfare itself?



I said something about that in my original post ["Of course, some people would be exempted (like the disabled and people who are taking job training courses)"]. Imo, people should be given a choice between either community service or job training courses (or anything else that will help them find/prepare for a job). And if they're already employed, they shouldn't have to worry about either of those things.

Also, just to clarify, I'm not one of those "fuck the poor" people who thinks that we should get rid of welfare, I just think that if you're on welfare but not actively trying to find a job you should be doing _something _to give back to the community.


----------



## Grand Number of Pounds (Sep 7, 2015)

From what I understand a lot of people who are on government assistance are the working poor, so they're already working.

I would certainly support everyone to do community service and contribute to charities as they see fit, but I don't think the government should force people to do community service unless it's part of a sentence, like they do for mischievous people who have too much time on their hands and get into trouble.


----------



## Pikonic (Sep 7, 2015)

I like the idea. As long as it's not a crazy amount like 60+ hours a week. An hour a day, 5 days a week wouldn't be bad. They could even volunteer at a place that'll  get them real job experience.
However,


			
				The 13th Amendment said:
			
		

> Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime where of the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.


It doesn't take a Harvard lawyer to say "Hey, this is involuntary servitude. These people didn't get convicted of a crime. This violates the 13th amendment." 
Now, can we argue that receiving welfare is payment for their work and people still have the choice not to work/collect? I guess so, but that's really for the Supreme Court to decide.


----------



## SpessCaptain (Sep 7, 2015)

They do this in Australia which is known for Work For The Dole. A lot of people are stuck in the system where people value experience more than the willingness to learn and get trapped.

Unfortunately I've heard that a lot of the Work for The Dole is unregulated: in one situation my friend was cleaning up Airplane blankets and found syringes and shit on many of em and had to stop when someone reported to a OH&S officer. Yes you get experience but in the end you're prone to less than acceptable conditions.


----------



## MrTroll (Sep 7, 2015)

No, it would take away from their precious Kiwi Farms-browsing time.


----------



## Dudeofteenage (Sep 8, 2015)

It's a bad idea.  It's been tried in many places and it doesn't help get long-term unemployed back into work, because the work you do is not of the kind that employees value.  All it does is satisfy some moralistic impulse to punish the unemployed for their supposed laziness, which is bullshit anyway.


----------



## Oglooger (Sep 8, 2015)

Receiving welfare in exchange of community service?
the sounds like a Job.

although this sounds like something that should be done to individuals like ADF, but I don't know on a mass scale. I don't have enough knowledge on this issue.


----------



## Cosmos (Sep 8, 2015)

Oglooger said:


> Receiving welfare in exchange of community service?
> the sounds like a Job.
> 
> although this sounds like something that should be done to individuals like ADF, but I don't know on a mass scale. I don't have enough knowledge on this issue.



That's a very good point, actually; it would be great if something like this could be done on a case-by-case basis instead of as a blanket rule. There are lots of people on welfare who are doing all they can to get by and are very hardworking, virtuous people... and then there are some people like ADF, who sit on their asses collecting free money while outright refusing to contribute _anything_ to society.

I gotta say, the mental image of ADF collecting trash by a highway while he thinks of ways to bitch about it on FaceBook later (definitely something involving how the white cishet government is _literally_ _enslaving_ poor Latinx transwomyn) made me giggle.


----------



## Save Goober (Sep 8, 2015)

I think it would be a lot of trouble and would only apply to small groups of people. People like CWC and ADF, while technically fit to work, cause a huge amount of problems when they do.. Len Shaner was a "special hire" at Sears according to Gook Choy and he caused far more problems than he was ever worth. Then again, maybe lolcows aren't the best example.
Plus I think there are quite a few people on government assistance who do volunteer work anyway.


----------



## QI 541 (Sep 8, 2015)

Pikonic said:


> It doesn't take a Harvard lawyer to say "Hey, this is involuntary servitude. These people didn't get convicted of a crime. This violates the 13th amendment."
> Now, can we argue that receiving welfare is payment for their work and people still have the choice not to work/collect? I guess so, but that's really for the Supreme Court to decide.



I'm curious on how prisons resolve this issue.


----------



## Holdek (Sep 8, 2015)

It depends on what you mean by "welfare," specifically.

If it's Social Security , then, generally speaking, no, because that's an insurance program that you pay into.

If it's Medicaid or food stamps, maybe.

Either way, it would require additional layers of bureaucracy and supervision that would end up costing more money, particularly if the government has to expend resources selecting out people like ADF, which is something that should be considered.



raymond said:


> I'm curious on how prisons resolve this issue.





			
				13th Amendment said:
			
		

> Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, _except as a punishment for crime where of the party shall have been duly convicted_, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.


----------



## KatsuKitty (Sep 8, 2015)

Holdek said:


> It would require additional layers of bureaucracy and supervision that would end up costing more money, also.



This is really the problem I have with "workfare". It ends up costing more money because people have this Christian work ethic notion of nothing earned, nothing gotten. That and drug testing welfare recipients. They can't afford to pay for any of this, _they're on welfare_. So you and I foot a larger bill because Rusty Redneck believes it's a sin to get free stuff or that you should've prayed your heroine addiction away.

Unless you literally just kill poor people, they're going to cost you money one way or another. A solution should optimise for a minimum and not aim for an elimination of welfare dependency, because you're not going to eliminate poverty without sentient-machine-powered abundance. I'm an engineer and a pragmatist; I go with the most _efficient_ solution no matter how unorthodox it may seem. Just _giving_ people money, without any means testing or restriction, may ultimately prove to be the best way to alleviate poverty and eliminate bureaucratic overhead. Just a small amount, it's not even enough to live off without working so the supply chain will still survive. Everyone gets the same amount of money, so there's no perverse incentives near the end of the means-testing line. We already do this in Alaska in the form of the Permanent Fund, a citizen's dividend of sorts, and it's been very effective in helping out the lowest income brackets.

This is going to get more and more important as the barrier for entry to any form of employment requires more and more brainpower and creativity. Not everyone's got it. Automation will reshape our society and culture profoundly unless everyone starts pumping out geniuses immediately. When we reach a point where the supply chain can mass-produce common items by rote on its own or with minimal human intervention, we're going to come to a point where we either issue a citizen's dividend for the people who simply _can't_ work/can't find work valuable enough to sustain themselves...or just shoot 'em.


----------



## Watcher (Sep 8, 2015)

There are ways I think this can work in a less bigoted "stop leaching off our good fortune" way.

The biggest being if it was more akin to work experience. (IE: You work unpaid somewhere and after a certain amount of time the government finds you a job). Something that is a problem in modern society at the moment is people must go to college to get any sort of job. And if you don't have the money to go or if your specific field lacks jobs you're completely SOL. And you either need to get a good referral or a work experience placement to even get your foot in the door.

The problems I have with "force the poor to do work experience" mostly amount to slippery slope arguments based on other circumstances where people are forced to work for free. IE: They start defunding government workers because they can just get people on welfare to work for free. Or they start pressuring you to not look for work because they need X amount of workers that they'll pay less than minimum wage to work for something. Or "Hey the governor is getting re-elected. Start handing out flyers for his campaign or no money this month."

If such a system were in place I feel it should benefit both sides, and not just be made based on a "well everyone who's on government assistance is lazy and they should be punished attitude". Because it doesn't lead to more people coming off assistance to treat them like they're parasites in a system. We need to view this problem logically and without making moral judgements on people.


----------



## DNJACK (Sep 8, 2015)

My opinion on the problem?


----------



## Oglooger (Sep 8, 2015)

Why does this all remind me of feudalism and shit?
I dunno why it just does.


----------



## Some JERK (Sep 8, 2015)

Also, keep in mind that some people can't find or keep a job because they've got serious attitude and substance abuse problems that aren't on any official radar. Forcing others to work with them is fucked up. Forcing those kinds of people to work _together_ is a recipe for disaster.


----------



## chimpburgers (Sep 8, 2015)

I'm skeptical of the idea for the reasons that have been brought up. I think about what would happen if this same logic was applied to those who are receiving unemployment benefits for example.


----------



## AnOminous (Sep 8, 2015)

The concept of this is generally punitive.  They want to punish people for getting something for nothing.  The problem is babysitting a useless freak like ADF would waste the time of multiple people.  It would be even more of a waste of money than just giving this freak free money.

And when the money isn't pure welfare, but disability, you have to prove (at least to a legal standard) that you're incapable of work.


----------



## Holdek (Sep 8, 2015)

KatsuKitty said:


> This is really the problem I have with "workfare". It ends up costing more money because people have this Christian work ethic notion of nothing earned, nothing gotten. That and drug testing welfare recipients. They can't afford to pay for any of this, _they're on welfare_. So you and I foot a larger bill because Rusty Redneck believes it's a sin to get free stuff or that you should've prayed your heroine addiction away.
> 
> Unless you literally just kill poor people, they're going to cost you money one way or another. A solution should optimise for a minimum and not aim for an elimination of welfare dependency, because you're not going to eliminate poverty without sentient-machine-powered abundance. I'm an engineer and a pragmatist; I go with the most _efficient_ solution no matter how unorthodox it may seem. Just _giving_ people money, without any means testing or restriction, may ultimately prove to be the best way to alleviate poverty and eliminate bureaucratic overhead. Just a small amount, it's not even enough to live off without working so the supply chain will still survive. Everyone gets the same amount of money, so there's no perverse incentives near the end of the means-testing line. We already do this in Alaska in the form of the Permanent Fund, a citizen's dividend of sorts, and it's been very effective in helping out the lowest income brackets.
> 
> This is going to get more and more important as the barrier for entry to any form of employment requires more and more brainpower and creativity. Not everyone's got it. Automation will reshape our society and culture profoundly unless everyone starts pumping out geniuses immediately. When we reach a point where the supply chain can mass-produce common items by rote on its own or with minimal human intervention, we're going to come to a point where we either issue a citizen's dividend for the people who simply _can't_ work/can't find work valuable enough to sustain themselves...or just shoot 'em.


Milton Friedman (and even Friedrick Hayek) supported the idea of a Guaranteed Minimum Income given to all citizens by the government concurrent with eliminating a lot of welfare programs and the minimum wage because it would be more cost-effective and decrease market distortions.


----------



## AP 297 (Sep 8, 2015)

KatsuKitty said:


> This is really the problem I have with "workfare". It ends up costing more money because people have this Christian work ethic notion of nothing earned, nothing gotten.



Actually a man named Max Weber wrote a book on the concept and coined the phrase Protestant Work Ethic in 1904. It was called _The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism_. 

http://www.amazon.com/The-Protestant-Ethic-Spirit-Capitalism/dp/1603866043



Valiant said:


> They do this in Australia which is known for Work For The Dole. A lot of people are stuck in the system where people value experience more than the willingness to learn and get trapped.
> 
> Unfortunately I've heard that a lot of the Work for The Dole is unregulated: in one situation my friend was cleaning up Airplane blankets and found syringes and shit on many of em and had to stop when someone reported to a OH&S officer. Yes you get experience but in the end you're prone to less than acceptable conditions.



Interesting. This is what troubles me about a lot of these programs. Companies are too eager to have unpaid internships and projects like this in order to get "free labor". They justify it to themselves by saying they are giving the person experience, but really the worker gets nothing in this. 

I would be for creating some type of Civil Service Administration or a Public Works Administration(similar to what happened during the American New Deal under Roosevelt). I am pretty conservative, but these are unique circumstances and we have a lot of people unemployed in the US(Many who want the opportunity to work and for their work to be meaningful) and a lot of infrastructure that needs to be developed. If people work, they should be paid for it.


----------



## Dudeofteenage (Sep 9, 2015)

SunLightStreak said:


> Actually a man named Max Weber wrote a book on the concept and coined the phrase Protestant Work Ethic in 1904. It was called _The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism_.



Weber did not use that book to advocate anything like "work for the dole".


----------



## AP 297 (Sep 9, 2015)

Dudeofteenage said:


> Weber did not use that book to advocate anything like "work for the dole".



Relax man, I never said he did. I was talking about the origin of the concept.

Simply put Calvinism put forth a notion that certain people were predestined and saved from the beginning. That these were the people chosen by god and therefore granted his noble spirit and divine blessing. So to many the idea that if you are thrifty, hard working, temperate, and successful then you are obvious one of his chosen has taken root in our Cultures. A takeaway from the book of James - Faith and Deeds James 2:14 - 26 and basically the 2 books of Thessalonians. (Particularly the passage "If one does not work they do not eat")

People believe the opposite is true as well. If you are live beyond your means, lazy, indulgent, and a failure then you are clearly a sinful person devoid of god's providence and that it is evident of your deeds.

In many countries like America, this idea has evolved because people reject the idea of predestination. They accept that a person who is godly would be thrifty, hard working, temperate, and successful, but they reject the notion that those who are unsuccessful cannot be saved. To them there is a mantra of trying to save a person by making them work.


----------



## SU 390 (Sep 9, 2015)

Cosmos said:


> I see this debate pop up now and then and I'd like to see what my fellow Kiwis think.
> 
> Personally, I don't see how this has a downside. Of course, some people would be exempted (like the disabled and people who are taking job training courses), but I think if you have a healthy body and you're receiving government benefits you should be required to do a few hours of community service per month. People should also be allowed to choose what they want to do (be it working in an animal shelter, a food kitchen, a library, organizing events, etc).
> 
> I've seen people complain about how "insulting" this is to welfare recipients, but is it really? There's nothing bad about giving back to the community that's been supporting you. Plus, volunteer work is good for the soul; I've worked in animal shelters, food kitchens, and other places and I have nothing but positive things to say about my experiences. I'm sure that a lot of other Kiwis feel the same way. Getting out and helping other people never has any downsides.



I don't see a downside for this either. It just makes people feel entitled and spoiled. Ever since I started working recently, I feel fuck tons better making my own money and buying my own shit and my own food, though my life is still shit right now.



Jon-Kacho said:


> Forcing people to do community service would take away from time they could be working or trying to get a job.
> 
> Wouldn't that make it harder for people to get off welfare, which is the whole goal of welfare itself?



Not quite, it gives them experience. Employers are picky as shit nowadays. They always want to hire someone that their employee already knows or at least have some experience in their resume. They're not going to pick some schome who doesn't have volunteer or at least something credible in their resume. It's funny that it happens a lot in the retail industry where it doesn't take much to stock shelves and ring out transactions. Seriously, you expect someone to have 1-3 years experience in retail when they haven't got retail experience at all but have volunteer experience? And these are the same assholes who complain about people on welfare. WELL YOU REJECT THEM YOU FUCKS. So yeah, force them if they are able bodied.



Grand Number of Pounds said:


> From what I understand a lot of people who are on government assistance are the working poor, so they're already working.
> 
> I would certainly support everyone to do community service and contribute to charities as they see fit, but I don't think the government should force people to do community service unless it's part of a sentence, like they do for mischievous people who have too much time on their hands and get into trouble.



It should only be for people who are able bodied but give them a choice in terms of what do. For example, if someone is good at cleaning and filling out paperwork, why not have them pick up trash and refer them to a janitorial job if cleaning and maintenance is more of their vocation?



Dudeofteenage said:


> It's a bad idea.  It's been tried in many places and it doesn't help get long-term unemployed back into work, because the work you do is not of the kind that employees value.  All it does is satisfy some moralistic impulse to punish the unemployed for their supposed laziness, which is bullshit anyway.



Why is it bullshit? Because some people don't want to work at all and live the easy life coasting? This is the problem here in America. For someone who spent 7 years of his pathetic excuse of a life trying to get a part time job to support himself while others who don't care about work getting a part time job this is what pisses me off. It's about helping people feel good about themselves not resorting to crime or sex work just get through rough times in the most 'greatest/richest country' in the world. If you call helping others to have self esteem and work ethic punishment then go fuck yourself.


----------



## Clown Doll (Sep 9, 2015)

AnOminous said:


> The concept of this is generally punitive.  They want to punish people for getting something for nothing.


Plus the system "steals" a job(say, as a library assistant) from somebody who would want the job as full-time, paid job instead of a mandatory chore for people who do it occasionally just to collect their welfare.


----------



## LazarusOwenhart (Sep 9, 2015)

UK opinion here. Any person who has been claiming Job Seekers Allowance for six months should be required to perform a minimum of 20 hours of unpaid work for either charities or public services per week for the remainder of the time he/she is claiming JSA. The 'employers' of these people should be required to write references for them to aid them in gaining paid work. Refusal to perform voluntary work would then constitute a criminal offence resulting in judiciary community service and, eventually a custodial sentence.

Anyone claiming disability should have regular health checks to A) insure their welfare but B) stop layabouts defrauding the system. Being fat and lazy isn't a disability and we shouldn't pay for it. That being said if a ham beast chooses to stop claiming benefits instead of volunteer work then they are well within their rights to starve to death on the streets. People with a genuine disability who still find gainful employment should not have their benefits cut as they are demonstrating a true English spirit.

Finally, benefits, where possible, should be paid in vouchers, not cash. Sky TV, a 52 inch TV and a PS4 are not the basic necessities for life, stop buying them with taxpayer money. Enjoy your food vouchers, clothing vouchers and housing vouchers, redeemable at all good supermarkets and local authorities.

As for the bedroom tax, it's awesome. That local authority house isn't yours, it's the peoples. If you're a single woman in a 3 bed house because your kids have moved out, either pay up or go to a one bedroom flat, your choice.

The right wing has spoken. EDIT: Not a troll post. I am a conservative.


----------



## Watcher (Sep 9, 2015)

WanderingVagabond said:


> I don't see a downside for this either. It just makes people feel entitled and spoiled. Ever since I started working recently, I feel fuck tons better making my own money and buying my own shit and my own food, though my life is still shit right now.


That's you.

Not everyone is in a position to find work, and not everyone is in a position where they can work. Some people require legitimate amounts of time to find work and get their affairs in order so they can eventually get back into work. A good example is if someone feels they're not mentally qualified (as in they get diagnosed with a psychopathic disorder and they need to take medication for it for a certain amount of time).

Yes I agree people "Should" work and should find jobs and make their own money. The problem is not everyone is able to. And we don't live in a society that bases it's policies on what the ideal is but instead what leads to less prostitution and petty crime.


WanderingVagabond said:


> Not quite, it gives them experience. Employers are picky as shit nowadays. They always want to hire someone that their employee already knows or at least have some experience in their resume. They're not going to pick some schome who doesn't have volunteer or at least something credible in their resume. It's funny that it happens a lot in the retail industry where it doesn't take much to stock shelves and ring out transactions. Seriously, you expect someone to have 1-3 years experience in retail when they haven't got retail experience at all but have volunteer experience? And these are the same assholes who complain about people on welfare. WELL YOU REJECT THEM YOU FUCKS. So yeah, force them if they are able bodied.


This is a terrible argument.

Community service does not give a person experience that they need usually. Walking a person's dog and handing out flyers is completely useless. If a person is more geared toward customer service, helping pick up trash on the side of the road is also completely useless. If a person is on welfare because they lost their job and their legal practice, volunteering at a homeless shelter is again completely useless to them.

Yes it can help a person but it should not be used as a justification to remove time from a person who is trying to find work. This just prolongs the problem longer and leads to more less skilled labor in the workforce. Which is already a big enough problem.

And yes there are jobs that pay attention to community service. Once you get past things like minimum wage jobs those steadily decrease. Due to how low the minimum wage typically is people also cannot usually live off it by themselves (especially if they have children/high medical costs) so they will also require government assistance. So the community service argument is useless there if a person is also working.


WanderingVagabond said:


> It should only be for people who are able bodied but give them a choice in terms of what do. For example, if someone is good at cleaning and filling out paperwork, why not have them pick up trash and refer them to a janitorial job if cleaning and maintenance is more of their vocation?


Volunteer jobs are based on demand. Not on who is available to take them.


WanderingVagabond said:


> Why is it bullshit? Because some people don't want to work at all and live the easy life coasting? This is the problem here in America. For someone who spent 7 years of his pathetic excuse of a life trying to get a part time job to support himself while others who don't care about work getting a part time job this is what pisses me off. It's about helping people feel good about themselves not resorting to crime or sex work just get through rough times in the most 'greatest/richest country' in the world. If you call helping others to have self esteem and work ethic punishment then go fuck yourself.


Would you rather have high crime rates or have a welfare system? Honestly answer this. One benefits absolutely nobody and harms everyone, wheras the other helps people who need it and can help people who don't need it.

Because you cannot erase the welfare state without having higher crime. This is an impossibility. Creating these roadblocks leads to further problems and costs the state far more than just giving them money would. At this point you have to determine whether you want a moral "but people should work" argument or a "this costs the state the least amount and helps the most people" argument.

Crime costs the state a great deal, homelessness costs the state a great deal. Welfare fixes much of this and the only argument here is "well people should" which isn't a pragmatic argument when it costs the state more and hurts everyone equally. 

~~~
Now onto Lazarus Owenhart

I know this is a troll post but there are some actual arguments here I've heard.


LazarusOwenhart said:


> Refusal to perform voluntary work would then constitute a criminal offence resulting in judiciary community service and, eventually a custodial sentence.


The court fees alone would cost much more than simply giving them money.


LazarusOwenhart said:


> Anyone claiming disability should have regular health checks to A) insure their welfare but B) stop layabouts defrauding the system. Being fat and lazy isn't a disability and we shouldn't pay for it. That being said if a ham beast chooses to stop claiming benefits instead of volunteer work then they are well within their rights to starve to death on the streets. People with a genuine disability who still find gainful employment should not have their benefits cut as they are demonstrating a true English spirit.


If the person doesn't have health insurance or the person lives in a country that lacks socialized healthcare (IE: The US) the amount of money the state would have to spend annually to continually medically test disability recipients would cost far, far more than just giving them money would.

It also gets into the subject of what constitutes "layabouts defrauding the system". I knew someone who had a muscle disorder that made him get fatigued very easily, and was told it would lead to further complications with things like his heart and circulation. He tried to get disability but was unable to until he retried over 10 times. There's a large grey area between "ham beast" and "cripple" here and intentionally limiting people will have some people starve to death despite actually requiring assistance.


----------



## AnOminous (Sep 9, 2015)

Watcher said:


> It also gets into the subject of what constitutes "layabouts defrauding the system".


----------



## Dudeofteenage (Sep 9, 2015)

SunLightStreak said:


> Relax man, I never said he did. I was talking about the origin of the concept.
> 
> Simply put Calvinism put forth a notion that certain people were predestined and saved from the beginning....



Yeah, thanks, I've read the book.

I don't really think they're related, though. Weber was arguing for something that was innate to people raised in largely Protestant cultures. I've never heard anybody mention protestantism when arguing for work for the dole.

The concept of a "work ethic" predates Weber. Weber's main theoretical leap was to try to argue that there was a particular work ethic that was found only among Protestants or those influenced by Proestantism.



WanderingVagabond said:


> Why is it bullshit? Because some people don't want to work at all and live the easy life coasting?



Because, while some unemployed people are doubtless lazy, there's zero evidence that laziness is the cause of unemployment.

Globally, unemployment rises and falls as economies grow slower or faster. It is very hard to believe that people just happen to always get lazier or more hard working _en masse_ as the economy contracts or expands, respectively.

You can always find some lazy unemployed people because unemployed people are always a large group and unusually lazy people are going to be represented in any large group (just like it's not hard to find unemployed people who are foot fetishists, or have unusual eye colour, or are fans of K-pop). But any analysis that rises above anecdotes is going to abandon the "unemployed people are lazy" narrative pretty quick.



LazarusOwenhart said:


> The 'employers' of these people should be required to write references for them to aid them in gaining paid work.



When I'm reading somebody's CV, and I look at their references, I'm always trying to figure out why the employer felt driven to write them a good reference.

If the reason is 'because they had literally no choice on the matter' I learn nothing about the person the reference discusses. These enforced references would be worthless.


----------



## LazarusOwenhart (Sep 10, 2015)

@Dudeofteenage It's not about the cost and anyway the reduction in benefits scroungers would offset the additional cost of prosecutions long term. As for references in the UK it's against the law to give somebody a 'bad' reference. You either get a neutral one or a good one. Most companies give out stock references, ours for instance says "XXX worked as a _job position_ at _company_ between the dates of xx/xx/xxxx and xx/xx/xxx and performed his/her job role adequately."


----------



## Dudeofteenage (Sep 10, 2015)

LazarusOwenhart said:


> @Dudeofteenage It's not about the cost and anyway the reduction in benefits scroungers would offset the additional cost of prosecutions long term.



Highly doubtful



LazarusOwenhart said:


> @Dudeofteenage As for references in the UK it's against the law to give somebody a 'bad' reference. You either get a neutral one or a good one. Most companies give out stock references, ours for instance says "XXX worked as a _job position_ at _company_ between the dates of xx/xx/xxxx and xx/xx/xxx and performed his/her job role adequately."



I'm aware, but that doesn't change my point.  If your prospective employer knows your previous employer had to write you a good reference, the reference is meaningless.


----------



## LazarusOwenhart (Sep 10, 2015)

@Dudeofteenage Employers in the UK are generally far more concerned with employment history. If you have big gaps in your work history you have real trouble getting a job. Volunteer work is quite highly regarded as it shows a pro-active willingness not to be idle. As for cost of prosecutions, my issue with our benefits system is not that it costs money, it's that it's tremendously easy to abuse. Before I got into my current career I did a lot of agency work, mostly delivery jobs. I used to do a lot for John Lewis which is a high end UK department store. I spent my days delivering expensive furniture to rich people and stupendously expensive electronics to council estates. I'm not talking one or two either, between my work for John Lewis, Argos and White Arrow Couriers I probably went to at least three or four houses every day to deliver something absurdly expensive to people who are obviously not employed. The worst part is that these people can be granted a store credit agreement. The worst example I saw was a £4000 Bose Plasma TV going into a house on a £100 per month HP agreement. When we arrived at 10 in the morning both occupants of the house, which was filthy beyond all rational belief and STANK of nicotine and shit, were drinking vodka and chain smoking. They had a SKY TV box and a couple of games consoles under their existing TV which was a 42 inch flat screen. We installed the TV (they'd paid £100 up front for that) and then they had the cheek to demand we move the other TV up to thier bedroom. When we refused they phoned our depot and complained. This is an extreme, but not uncommon occurrence. 

When I were a lad, being "on the dole" as it was called back then, was a shameful thing. It was stigmatized. People fought tooth and claw to get off benefits. Nowadays it's seen as being clever to game the system and get free money from the state.


----------



## AnOminous (Sep 10, 2015)

Dudeofteenage said:


> I'm aware, but that doesn't change my point.  If your prospective employer knows your previous employer had to write you a good reference, the reference is meaningless.



It is also quite possible to give a "positive" reference that would pass legal muster for any such requirement but would nevertheless make it entirely clear that it wasn't really a recommendation.  Damning with faint praise.


----------



## Dudeofteenage (Sep 10, 2015)

AnOminous said:


> It is also quite possible to give a "positive" reference that would pass legal muster for any such requirement but would nevertheless make it entirely clear that it wasn't really a recommendation.  Damning with faint praise.



Especially if there were enough of these flying around that employers had seen a wide sample and could tell the difference between the reference given to satisfy a legal requirement and the reference given because of genuine endorsement.


----------



## LazarusOwenhart (Sep 10, 2015)

Dudeofteenage said:


> Especially if there were enough of these flying around that employers had seen a wide sample and could tell the difference between the reference given to satisfy a legal requirement and the reference given because of genuine endorsement.


You have literally no idea how employment in the UK works. I get to choose what references I give to an employer. I provide them with my work history, they cannot then contact somebody else for a reference. All an employer would see would be a long list of places worked and two references from any place I choose to give them. Most people use friends and family.


----------



## Save Goober (Sep 10, 2015)

Frankly I don't see the reference thing being a huge deal. I don't know what industry you work in or what level you hire at but people have regularly given me as a reference (me being their friend, not even a coworker/authority) and somehow that's accepted. A lot of places give bullshit references to get rid of someone, or due to some other obligation. I'm sure many places consider "did they have to give this reference?" as much as you do, but a lot don't.


----------



## Dudeofteenage (Sep 10, 2015)

LazarusOwenhart said:


> You have literally no idea how employment in the UK works. I get to choose what references I give to an employer. I provide them with my work history, they cannot then contact somebody else for a reference. All an employer would see would be a long list of places worked and two references from any place I choose to give them. Most people use friends and family.



So what's the point of the mandatory references from work experience employers?  To ensure that everybody has at least one work-related reference?



melty said:


> Frankly I don't see the reference thing being a huge deal. I don't know what industry you work in or what level you hire at but people have regularly given me as a reference



In and of itself it's not, you could cut it out of @LazarusOwenhart 's plan and it would still be largely intact. But the problems with it are symptomatic of the idea that you can use government compulsion to move people into jobs that don't exist.


----------



## AnOminous (Sep 10, 2015)

LazarusOwenhart said:


> You have literally no idea how employment in the UK works. I get to choose what references I give to an employer. I provide them with my work history, they cannot then contact somebody else for a reference. All an employer would see would be a long list of places worked and two references from any place I choose to give them. Most people use friends and family.



How is this unique to the UK?  I assure you people around the world have jobs.

Other than being somewhat more protective of employee rights ("at-will employment" does not exist for instance), how would it be possible for any person of normal intelligence to have "literally no idea" how it works in the UK?


----------



## Holdek (Sep 11, 2015)

LazarusOwenhart said:


> Most people use friends and family.


How is this helpful in a job application?



Dudeofteenage said:


> So what's the point of the mandatory references from work experience employers? To ensure that everybody has at least one work-related reference?


I think it's more just confirmation of your work experience/skills.  That you actually did work at a company with a certain title for an amount of time.


Dudeofteenage said:


> But the problems with it are symptomatic of the idea that you can use government compulsion to move people into jobs that don't exist.


Welfare-to-work programs have been successful in the US.  There are lot of sectors with labor shortages but people don't want to do that kind of labor.  So sometimes it's good to force them.



LazarusOwenhart said:


> Employers in the UK are generally far more concerned with employment history. If you have big gaps in your work history you have real trouble getting a job.


Couldn't you just make shit up?  Say you were self-employed selling stuff on eBay or whatever?



AnOminous said:


> ("at-will employment" does not exist for instance)


Interesting.  I didn't know that didn't exist in the UK.  Besides the US, what other first-world countries have at-will employment?


----------



## AnOminous (Sep 11, 2015)

Holdek said:


> Interesting.  I didn't know that didn't exist in the UK.  Besides the US, what other first-world countries have at-will employment?



So far as I know, actually calling it that is unique to the United States.  Most of the countries considered civilized don't have it, and having a low level of employee protection is generally not considered good.  There are certainly other countries with worse protection of employees than the U.S., but those generally also have a shitty quality of life in general, such as having barely functional court systems, no unemployment insurance, being outright failed states, etc.


----------



## Holdek (Sep 11, 2015)

AnOminous said:


> So far as I know, actually calling it that is unique to the United States.  Most of the countries considered civilized don't have it, and having a low level of employee protection is generally not considered good.  There are certainly other countries with worse protection of employees than the U.S., but those generally also have a shitty quality of life in general, such as having barely functional court systems, no unemployment insurance, being outright failed states, etc.


I generally agree with you.  But, on the other hand they do create a more flexible labor market.  And in many countries with due process for workers companies get around that by hiring people under temporary contracts (with few benefits), then evaluating them every year.


----------



## Jack Haywood (Oct 12, 2015)

Cosmos said:


> I see this debate pop up now and then and I'd like to see what my fellow Kiwis think.
> 
> Personally, I don't see how this has a downside. Of course, some people would be exempted (like the disabled and people who are taking job training courses), but I think if you have a healthy body and you're receiving government benefits you should be required to do a few hours of community service per month. People should also be allowed to choose what they want to do (be it working in an animal shelter, a food kitchen, a library, organizing events, etc).
> 
> I've seen people complain about how "insulting" this is to welfare recipients, but is it really? There's nothing bad about giving back to the community that's been supporting you. Plus, volunteer work is good for the soul; I've worked in animal shelters, food kitchens, and other places and I have nothing but positive things to say about my experiences. I'm sure that a lot of other Kiwis feel the same way. Getting out and helping other people never has any downsides.



If they're deliberately refusing to work, *YES.*


----------



## Le Bateleur (Oct 12, 2015)

The system is broken. The "strivers vs skivers" rhetoric is a deliberate tactic pushed out through a compliant media industry to distract from the fact that the real con trick is happening at the top, rather than the bottom.


----------



## Enclave Supremacy (Oct 12, 2015)

Le Bateleur said:


> The system is broken. The "strivers vs skivers" rhetoric is a deliberate tactic pushed out through a compliant media industry to distract from the fact that the real con trick is happening at the top, rather than the bottom.



As much as I don't like welfare cheats, obviously, stealing what amounts to a penitence versus rampant theft by officials is inexcusable. All those whom obviously gamed the system during the MP's expenses scandal should have been tried. Public money for a fucking moat cleaning.


----------



## autisticdragonkin (Oct 12, 2015)

Maybe we should make welfare recipients wear blue badges in addition to working in workhouses like they were required to do in the English poor laws


----------



## AnOminous (Oct 12, 2015)

Enclave Supremacy said:


> Public money for a fucking moat cleaning.



I'm trying to imagine the kind of life you lead where you even have a fucking moat to clean, much less the brass balls to charge the public for it.


----------



## Enclave Supremacy (Oct 12, 2015)

autisticdragonkin said:


> Maybe we should make welfare recipients wear blue badges in addition to working in workhouses like they were required to do in the English poor laws



Do you really think that the homeless would object to being given accommodation, food and some wages in-return for being given work to do or do you think that they'd make references to Charles Dickens and sleep out on the streets. Reading is full of the poor bastards.



AnOminous said:


> I'm trying to imagine the kind of life you lead where you even have a fucking moat to clean, much less the brass balls to charge the public for it.



It has to be the most Upper-class thing I've ever heard.


----------



## Magpie (Oct 12, 2015)

People are absolutely off their goddamn rockers if they think people who are on benefits because they need benefits are living the high life. You're willing to tell me that not even £60 (edit: and this is for TWO ADULTS) a week translates to rolling in dough? Jesus Christ, are you from the 1800's? I would love a job but at the entry level there are none to be had, and when someone is disabled and the gov is clamping down and fucking over said disabled things get really twisted, really fast.

The poor shouldn't be punished for being poor - that's just kicking those who are already down.


----------



## Dudeofteenage (Oct 12, 2015)

Enclave Supremacy said:


> As much as I don't like welfare cheats, obviously, stealing what amounts to a penitence versus rampant theft by officials is inexcusable.



It's impossible to run a large complex system without some people taking unfair advantage of it, and it's impossible to effectively administer benefits in anything other than a very small country without a large, complex system. This isn't to excuse welfare fraud, which is and should be considered a crime, but minimising welfare fraud shouldn't be the main goal of welfare policy.


----------



## Enclave Supremacy (Oct 12, 2015)

Dudeofteenage said:


> It's impossible to run a large complex system without some people taking unfair advantage of it, and it's impossible to effectively administer benefits in anything other than a very small country without a large, complex system. This isn't to excuse welfare fraud, which is and should be considered a crime, but minimising welfare fraud shouldn't be the main goal of welfare policy.



Yeah obviously. We're talking about 70 million people. That's what I am saying. Welfare frauds must take so little compared to the rich and at-least the welfare cheats are probably poor, probably have kids and stuff.


----------



## autisticdragonkin (Oct 12, 2015)

Magpie said:


> The poor shouldn't be punished for being poor - that's just kicking those who are already down.


If that doesn't happen then it will reduce the incentive for productivity in the capitalist economy


Spoiler: content



This is meant as a criticism of both capitalism and ethical socialism


----------



## Magpie (Oct 12, 2015)

I still find it amusing that people will always give the poor guilt trips and shame them for being "leeches on society," daring to need help to get their daily bread. Then the same lot will never question the obscenely wealthy who have so much money they couldn't spend it in 10+ lifetimes, and will go so far as to not only not contribute to society, but actively take from it as well. Do the people born into that work for their money? Of course not. Or if they do they get a job through nepotism. How about they get forced into community service - they already have the financial security to give them anything they could possibly want and need in life. 



autisticdragonkin said:


> If that doesn't happen then it will reduce the incentive for productivity in the capitalist economy
> 
> 
> Spoiler: content
> ...



"Incentive" my feathered ass. You can hardly be productive if you're being treated as subhuman by society. The stress of managing financial crumbs alone can make someone crack, so can looking for work so you can afford to live but not having success, and so can being sick/fucked up to the point that probably got you landed needing benefits anyway. Give people a life where they can do more than just cling to existence so they can actually have the means and energy to work.  

Trust me, nobody and _I mean nobody _I know who is stuck on benefits wants to be. They all want work, but they can't find it. So instead they are stuck below the poverty line.


----------



## autisticdragonkin (Oct 12, 2015)

Magpie said:


> I still find it amusing that people will always give the poor guilt trips and shame them for being "leeches on society," daring to need help to get their daily bread. Then the same lot will never question the obscenely wealthy who have so much money they couldn't spend it in 10+ lifetimes, and will go so far as to not only not contribute to society, but actively take from it as well. Do the people born into that work for their money? Of course not. Or if they do they get a job through nepotism. How about they get forced into community service - they already have the financial security to give them anything they could possibly want and need in life.


The topic being discussed is not the rich but the poor


Magpie said:


> "Incentive" my feathered ass. You can hardly be productive if you're being treated as subhuman by society.


There should be a form of government assistance to assist people in being productive. Probably the best thing would be a negative income tax and some sort of program to help negate job search costs. But allowing a too generous benefits system will disincentivise productivity both on the sides of the rich who will suffer from increased taxation and the poor who will suffer from welfare cliffs both in the conventional financial form and in the opportunity cost form


Magpie said:


> Trust me, nobody and _I mean nobody _I know who is stuck on benefits wants to be. They all want work, but they can't find it. So instead they are stuck below the poverty line.


We should eliminate the minimum wage to reduce unemployment. Additionally the majority of these people would be able to find a job if they spent 100 hours a week trying to get a job for most of their life.


----------



## Jewelsmakerguy (Oct 12, 2015)

I personally think it depends on how bad the disability is. For example, if the person is unfit to work, be it heavy mental illness or a physical disability that makes them unable to move around for more than a few minutes at a time. Then I don't think they need to do it.

However, if you're still fully capable (and most people on Welfare tend to be), then get off your lazy ass and find something constructive to do.


----------



## AnOminous (Oct 12, 2015)

autisticdragonkin said:


> We should eliminate the minimum wage to reduce unemployment.





Name a place that worked.


----------



## Vitriol (Oct 12, 2015)

The greens had an interesting idea: give every household £50 per week and offset the cost by doing away wuth tge entirety of the dwp. Housing benefits and ct benefits would be unaffected as these are carried out by local authorities. With this system there is no way to game the system and anywork leaves one better off than on benefits alone.

The greens never stood in my constituency so i never checked their costing but its an interesting idea at least. I believe something similar has been proposed elsewhere as a 'citizens dividend'.


----------



## Ravenor (Oct 12, 2015)

Vitriol said:


> The greens never stood in my constituency so i never checked their costing but its an interesting idea at least. I believe something similar has been proposed elsewhere as a 'citizens dividend'.



Yea they got savaged for it, the amount was to little and the savings they would make by axeing the DWP didn't quite work out. It's a nice idea but not workable the way they wanted to do it. The Citizens Dividend might have leg's however and it's being pondered as a way of combatting baseline poverty but it's a tricky balancing act we won't see get used at least in our life times.


----------



## autisticdragonkin (Oct 12, 2015)

AnOminous said:


> Name a place that worked.


In addition to a negative income tax it would be very productive and equitable
We should also have https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen's_dividend


----------



## moorhen (Oct 12, 2015)

I'm sort of on the fence about this, because in the UK, the majority of people who are claiming something like Job Seekers or whatever the fuck it's called now, are actively looking for work, and there are different kinds of benefits in the UK depending on your age and if you have kids. It's a complicated system. 

I will, however, that while I was unemployed there were people who I see when I was signing on that were actively cheating the system. The kind of people who'd sit next to me while I was tearing my hair out because I couldn't find a job (I was a drop out at the time, made it super hard to get places to take me seriously), and brag about how they'd forged their job book (while claiming job seekers you have to apply to a certain amount of jobs a week, and if you get a certain amount of job offers and turn them down, you'll get your benefits revoked. It's an online system now that makes it easier to track, I believe) and spent all their JSA on weed. 
Those people should have to do some community work. If you've been claiming JSA for over 6 months and are not showing up to job interviews or actively rejecting jobs, then something should be done about it. 

Although in the UK (I'm not sure if they still do this) if you're on JSA and you go a certain amount of time without finding work, they start to submit you to training courses in your fields of interest, and if you refuse to do the courses, your benefits will be stopped. (Everything you do while you're there, down to food and travel, is paid for by the job center.) Which I think is fair. 

Obviously this doesn't apply to other benefits like Disability or Child Support or Working Tax, because those are in place to help you while you're working.

That being said, I think arranging that would be a huge draw on an already overworked system, and that the people who're actively trying to find work will end up getting fucked over. It's one of those "you either believe everybody or believe nobody" deals, and it'd end with a lot of innocent people getting unfairly pushed into things that would detract from their job search, etc.


----------



## AnOminous (Oct 12, 2015)

autisticdragonkin said:


> In addition to a negative income tax it would be very productive and equitable



That's nice, but I asked for examples of where this has actually worked.


----------



## Pope Gregory IX (Oct 12, 2015)

Ultimately I think this depends on what you actually think the purpose of these benefits are, not to mention which benefits specifically..

If you think that the majority of people on them are transiently out of work, and are just waiting for the economy to pick up before the estates will all head _en masse_ to Glaxo Smithkline to sign up for their shiny new temporary contracts, then I suspect you will find this a good idea. I also suspect you have the kind of dinner conversations that make me want to swallow a bread knife.

We pay roughly 10% of people a bearably acceptable amount to stop them from flipping out and setting fire to our cars and shopping centres. We do this because they are superfluous to the economy. Not now, not for five years, but for most if not all of their lives (I'm covering the US and UK in these sweeping statements, although I acknowledge the differences). You think McDonalds is hiring that single mum in her 40s with no work experience who needs to leave at 3pm to collect her brood, or are they gonna hire Akshay the Engineering Student/Mexican/Indian with a fibre optic connection? Who the fuck do you think is coming along with all these jobs for people with 5/10/15 year employment gaps? Monsanto?

The majority of people on a long-term benefit will not get off it, or if they do then they are shunted to another. Helps the figures.

Questions like this seem to come from a rage directed at the people on benefits, but that rage is necessary to make you pay for those benefits. You'll pay it, only if you can stomp and shout and feel the power first... But you'll pay. This is the system, and you and these questions form part of it. 

Enjoy it. It won't change in our lifetimes.


----------



## autisticdragonkin (Oct 12, 2015)

AnOminous said:


> That's nice, but I asked for examples of where this has actually worked.


I don't believe that minimum wage has ever been abolished so we cannot have any examples


----------



## Magpie (Oct 12, 2015)

autisticdragonkin said:


> I don't believe that minimum wage has ever been abolished so we cannot have any examples



Probably because it's a stupid idea.


----------



## Jack Haywood (Oct 12, 2015)

Le Bateleur said:


> The system is broken. The "strivers vs skivers" rhetoric is a deliberate tactic pushed out through a compliant media industry to distract from the fact that the real con trick is happening at the top, rather than the bottom.



Thank you very much for your amazing insight. It's clear that you're much better at this politics stuff than most people are.


----------



## autisticdragonkin (Oct 12, 2015)

Magpie said:


> Probably because it's a stupid idea.


You could have said the same thing about pretty much any innovation throughout history


----------



## AnOminous (Oct 12, 2015)

autisticdragonkin said:


> You could have said the same thing about pretty much any innovation throughout history



It wouldn't be an innovation, though.

It would be a radical, reactionary move back to the past before we had it.

Most people don't think things were particularly great back then.


----------



## autisticdragonkin (Oct 12, 2015)

AnOminous said:


> It wouldn't be an innovation, though.
> 
> It would be a radical, reactionary move back to the past before we had it.
> 
> Most people don't think things were particularly great back then.


A lot of things good and bad have happened between 1389 and the present. To say that something that was implemented in 1389 would be necessarily good today or even in 1389 is ridiculous. Technological improvement was what improved things, not price regulations. The same argument could have been used against the adoption of democratic political systems citing the improvement in standards of living between antiquity and the Baroque period.

Why should minimum wage exist in the first place. Why cannot the free market simply provide the equilibrium wage for unskilled labour (or possibly efficiency wages)


----------



## AnOminous (Oct 12, 2015)

autisticdragonkin said:


> Why should minimum wage exist in the first place. Why cannot the free market simply provide the equilibrium wage for unskilled labour (or possibly efficiency wages)



Because we tried it through the entire rest of history and it didn't work that way.


----------



## autisticdragonkin (Oct 12, 2015)

AnOminous said:


> Because we tried it through the entire rest of history and it didn't work that way.


If you are going to make such historical claims you should provide a source
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2013-09-05/how-the-black-death-spawned-the-minimum-wage


----------



## introman (Oct 12, 2015)

My views on Welfare. I'm not the black cross-dresser by the way. 

http://www.funkydineva.com/maine-fo...to-work-for-their-benefits-these-hoes-is-mad/

"After forcing these individuals to either work part-time for twenty hours each week, enroll in a vocational program, or volunteer for a minimum of twenty-four hours per month, the numbers showed a significant drop from 12,000 enrollees to just over 2,500.”


----------



## MarvinTheParanoidAndroid (Dec 6, 2015)

I thought the whole point of welfare was that the people receiving it couldn't work or were working but don't make enough? Wouldn't that just be a government job by that point?


----------



## moorhen (Dec 6, 2015)

MarvinTheParanoidAndroid said:


> I thought the whole point of welfare was that the people receiving it couldn't work or were working but don't make enough? Wouldn't that just be a government job by that point?



In the UK, if you're not working you can claim Job Seekers Allowance, which is supposed to help you get back onto your feet and find a new job. 
There are stipulations, like you can't claim for a certain amount of time if you quit your job rather than getting laid off or fired, or you have over a certain amount in savings, and you have to meet certain criterion each week for them to give you the money. 
Unfortunately, as you can imagine, it's pretty easy to game the system, and once you've signed on, they'll pay certain bills for you (like rent and council tax) and some people just think it's easier to stay on welfare/benefits rather than find a job.


----------



## ToroidalBoat (Oct 19, 2017)

I think it's a good idea. Even if someone is too disabled to work, they should still contribute to society somehow if they're able to.


----------



## Varg Did Nothing Wrong (Oct 20, 2017)

Germany does something similar (at least as far as my relatives have told me). If you collect the German equivalent of welfare you sometimes get a phone call or a letter telling you that you'll need to do a certain job (yard work for a local church, sweeping something, etc) for a few hours of a certain day. There's no welfare police making sure you show up, but if you miss too many of these little appointments you stop getting welfare eventually.

I think that's a fair way to do it, IMHO. Someone is not looking for work 100% of the time they are on welfare. You can take a few hours out of one day every week or so to go sweep some gutters or help the local pastor weed his churches garden, because you are getting room and board and money to spend from the government. It's fair to give the government a little of your time in return. IMHO.


----------



## Big Nasty (Oct 21, 2017)

I am afraid that any form of welfare state is unsustainable in the long run. The welfare state as we know it was probably only affordable when we had a long period of increasing industrial output, which we don't have anymore. I don't think we have any choice but to cut back on benefits.


----------



## Joan Nyan (Oct 21, 2017)

If you're doing work and receiving pay contingent on doing that work, that's a job. The real question being asked here is "Should the government do away with welfare and instead employ people to work at charitable foundations?" With the coming of self driving cars and other automation that will destroy millions of jobs, the government as an employer of last resort might be a good idea.


----------



## Manah (Oct 23, 2017)

Sounds like commie talk to me, op.

e: How did you manage to dredge a thread up from 2 years ago?



ToroidalBoat said:


> I think it's a good idea. Even if someone is too disabled to work, they should still contribute to society somehow if they're able to.



Typically people want to be doing something as opposed to sitting and thinking about how meaningless life is, so it's win-win.


----------



## DNA_JACKED (Nov 1, 2017)

Big Nasty said:


> I am afraid that any form of welfare state is unsustainable in the long run. The welfare state as we know it was probably only affordable when we had a long period of increasing industrial output, which we don't have anymore.* I don't think we have any choice but to cut back on benefits.*


Well, that is one way of looking at it. I respectfully disagree. 

Rampant corruption at the federal level costs more then any cut in benefits could make up. Just look at the cost of supplies for the military. The F-35, a plane originally budgeted for 233 billion, is currently over 1 trillion, years late, the cost per plane has ballooned to over 600 million for it's total lifetime, ece. The DOD also seems to have terrible bookkeeping records, with billions if not trillions going missing. The military also pays obscene amounts for things. Back in '85, the military was paying nearly $700 for an ash tray, $37 for a common screw, over $7k for a coffee machine, ece, and it has only gotten worse. 

there are also ridiculous pork projects shoved into congressional bills. The most famous pork barrel project was the "bridge to nowhere, which would have cost $389 million https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravina_Island_Bridge

And even forgetting all that, the US spends more per citizen on things like healthcare then any other western civilization, yet receives worse care due to ridiculous pricing. This graph from 2010 is particularly sobering:
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





I am sure we have a lot of fat that could be cut in welfare spending, but I also feel there is a LOT of corruption and pork that we could cut, without cutting people's benefits, and get a much larger return from. Unscrewing healthcare costs alone could probably fund welfare needs for quite some time.


----------



## Clownfish (Nov 1, 2017)

I'm for preventing people becoming disabled and going on the dole.

How many lolcows are on tugboat for emotional problems and said problem can be traced to shitty upbringing?


One idea to prevent is have a ten commandments of how not be a lol cow or some thing like that.


----------



## Bass (Nov 2, 2017)

I don't know about community service, but they should definatly be top of the list for goddamn jury duty.


----------



## Clownfish (Nov 2, 2017)

Bass said:


> I don't know about community service, but they should definatly be top of the list for goddamn jury duty.


You want people who are on the dole due to being incompetent to determine the fate of other people?


----------



## Bass (Nov 3, 2017)

Clownfish said:


> You want people who are on the dole due to being incompetent to determine the fate of other people?


Jury of their peers, man.


----------



## Chaos Theorist (Nov 3, 2017)

LazarusOwenhart said:


> When I were a lad, being "on the dole" as it was called back then, was a shameful thing. It was stigmatized. People fought tooth and claw to get off benefits. Nowadays it's seen as being clever to game the system and get free money from the state.


Yes but you know you had actual jobs to go to not working zero hour contracts for fuck all money. The deindustrialisation of the UK was a grave mistake that has created an entire underclass of Lumpenproletariat feral chavs.


----------



## Black Waltz (Nov 3, 2017)

I don't see why not.


----------



## Jacquetta (Nov 3, 2017)

I'd be all right with it but only on a case by case basis. Don't think there's a way to enforce that otherwise that wouldn't end up costing heaps more money and inconveniencing a lot of people. 

I wouldn't want to be the person who has to babysit ADF to keep him on task, let's put it that way.


----------



## AnOminous (Nov 3, 2017)

Jacquetta said:


> I'd be all right with it but only on a case by case basis. Don't think there's a way to enforce that otherwise that wouldn't end up costing heaps more money and inconveniencing a lot of people.
> 
> I wouldn't want to be the person who has to babysit ADF to keep him on task, let's put it that way.



Efficiency is not improved by making speds "work" when just keeping them "working" consumes the entire efforts of another person.

Maybe people like ADF should just be put in camps where their basic needs are taken care of but they otherwise don't get to bother normal people.  If they can sort glass or something, they can hold a job in the real world like that actually disabled Down's guy in that commercial everyone makes fun of, even though he's a far better person than ADF.


----------



## BadaBadaBoom (Nov 3, 2017)

Welfare should be abolished and replaced with a Patreon model where we can give away our money to those that can draw us the best animal porn.


----------



## ADN_VIII (Nov 3, 2017)

I think there are too many factors involved in how people qualify for welfare to make a blanket decision, but I think it isn't a bad idea. Someone who's emotionally disabled or has a learning disability can usually find a job as a janitor or something in most big retail chains, plus it gives them a sense of self value. 

Someones who's physically disabled or working full time shouldn't be made to do community service, with an obvious exception if they volunteer or something. For a full time worker, finding the hours to pull community service can be difficult in today's always on call world and the physically handicapped will find the work difficult to start with. 

Someone like OPL or ADF should be sequestered but not segregated. Since no one actually wants them around, keeping them out of the way and contained is a reasonable goal. Set up a little commune or something that they can keep to themselves in. It'll be maintained, but the option for the residents to pitch in should always be on the table.


----------



## Clownfish (Nov 4, 2017)

I believe  universal income should replace welfare and disability.  Instead of having endless agencies and forms of welfare it should be just one department. If ya disabled and qualify then there ya go.

The one practical reason to have welfare is it keeps the broken fed and clothed. Cause once they go hungry is when they begin to cause political unrest.


----------



## Medicated (Nov 13, 2017)

Cosmos said:


> I see this debate pop up now and then and I'd like to see what my fellow Kiwis think.
> 
> Personally, I don't see how this has a downside. Of course, some people would be exempted (like the disabled and people who are taking job training courses), but I think if you have a healthy body and you're receiving government benefits you should be required to do a few hours of community service per month. People should also be allowed to choose what they want to do (be it working in an animal shelter, a food kitchen, a library, organizing events, etc).
> 
> I've seen people complain about how "insulting" this is to welfare recipients, but is it really? There's nothing bad about giving back to the community that's been supporting you. Plus, volunteer work is good for the soul; I've worked in animal shelters, food kitchens, and other places and I have nothing but positive things to say about my experiences. I'm sure that a lot of other Kiwis feel the same way. Getting out and helping other people never has any downsides.



:powerlevel:
I was part of a proposed council program for that years and years ago.  You get given a job for a charity organization or in some cases it's a front company that wants unpaid labor (and it's legal!).  There was a big sign telling everyone this was the councils new unemployed program, people would drive past, shout abuse about being losers, throw cans at them.  No one really socialized that much, because most people didn't have any money, so you couldn't invite people over or throw a party.  The people were ashamed to be unemployed.  Only the stupidest borderline criminals or mentally deranged were actually proud of living like a pauper, to "show it to the man".


----------

