The biggest issue with the benefits system is the fundamental lack of jobs across the UK, and I mean jobs not "jobs". Every single fucking company in the UK is running as lean as possible because either A) they can't afford to hire more or B) they're working by the retarded effectiveness principle where you can just work the same 4 people to death instead of having a team of 8.
We need to do
a lot of shit and I wish it was just as simple as "more jobs". Considering every factor is a headache, but just consider one for the time being: minimum wage. When implemented in France and America it was unnecessary but it was more of a gesture of placation to ensure there was a minimum floor for wages; however, companies both big and small were often paying double that amount because they had to be competitive with each other to attract a limited pool of workers I.E. supply/demand.
However increasing globalism and offshoring meant the the average Brit wasn't competing with another Brit for a now decreasing supply of job, he was now was competing against the
entire world, and the rest of the world won out in the end because they offered better terms. Chang's government said he would work for £0.20 in 1980 whilst Tommy would only work for £1.30 at a minimum, and that was that. If the global market determined wages still in the West rather than governments, the de-facto minimum wage in the UK would probably be at a 1/3rd it is now, maybe less. We were actually one of the later countries when it came to implementing a minimum wage because we were also one of the last nations to put a left-leaning party in power in response to the unemployment crisis that plagued the 80s and early 90s. Of course Blair implemented one, and
then opened the floodgates to immigrants, meaning we'd never get a natural market-driven wage increase again.
That was just low-skilled work. It took a couple decades but now the Indians are coming for high-skilled jobs too thanks to the internet and the mystical power of combining remote work with
lying. I've seen a larger business, for some bizarre reason,
pay to educate a foreigner
remotely predicate on them being more cost effective in the long run rather than hire someone already domestically trained for the role.
His name is Vihaan. He's alright. English is better than you would think.
Also: some companies open
"ghost" job openings to give the illusion of growth. This isn't actually illegal.
So we're in an awful middle state of being too expensive for new businesses to rise up but also too cheap that low-skilled work doesn't allow for much in terms of upward mobility, a happy life, and plenty can see that. The lower, apprentice wage (£7.83 an hour) makes you less money per month than UC + Pip, which'd see you getting over £1364 a month minimum contrast to £1252 a month working 40 hours a week. Even at full minimum wage, you have to factor in tax, rent, bills, etcetera - everything the unemployed person gets help with or pays for. I've calculated it, and I've actually be £52 better off if I did fuck-all. (Which I won't do - I need a Greggs budget - but I'm just pointing it out).
This is a problem that has gotten worse over time because our government put the onus on keeping our people employed on the biggest corporations and larger domestic businesses, who also expect our help to make it easier for them at the expense of any potential competitor, which also negatively affects the quality of working for smaller business/corporate entities. I know someone who works for a private care company, who have, since she's worked there, twice re-define and change the length of what is qualified as a "shift" just to trim
minutes off call times to cut down on how many hours their workers are actually being paid for. The someone who told me this suspects that, because she's worked there for a long time, she's paid an extra 40p, and they cut down on her hours to hand them off to a fresh employee. She concluded it's because said employee is a "nigger", but my not so dissimilar conclusion is that they can pay that employee 40p
less and try to force this person to seek work elsewhere if they deprive them of enough hours. 0-hour contracts enable this practice, but it's also one of those concessions made by the government to enable cost-cutting, which again is taken more often by smaller businesses because they're the ones who can't take as much of a hit as larger entities. When a larger company takes a hit, their product is typically what suffers. When a smaller ones takes a hit, it's their workers.
How to fix (I think):
1. Deport 10 million people. Working or not working, this should have the ratio of jobs to people more in favour of the people. (This ought to have a ton more impacts, like number of consumers, cost of rent, etcetera that should negatively or positively affect the market). This will also take the longest to actually come to fruition, but it's doable via indirect coercion and incentivised self-deportation.
2. Put a cap on benefit increased for unemployment so that UC serves as the "minimum floor" for income whilst working becomes more titillating as a result of an actually appreciable wage; someone on UC should not be living comparably to someone on minimum wage - that's what's happening right this very moment if you're wondering why fewer people are working.
3. Stop Pakis doing the tax loophole of: 1. Open business, run it for a year. 2. "Close business" after a year. 3. Open up as a "new business" under a different family member's name (which they have an abundance of in the wings thanks to immigration) 4. Repeat 1. Their businesses should in turn actually fucking close down for real now and the properties they rent should become more affordable to people who actually want to start a business, something that's not a takeaway place which serves no food, an un-visited garment store, or a barber that never cuts any hair. These also operate as a sort of parallel economy, whose value to the UK is non-existent really, as they don't provide
new jobs to natives and too much of what they make is sent back to Pakistan as remittance. (Remember that house I showed earlier in the thread? UK money goes
much further than native Pakistani money in Pakistan).
4. Offer to pay training fees for employees on the behalf of smaller businesses so they don't offshore what ought to be a domestic job to somebody abroad, which in turn might help ameliorate some issues with unemployment. (Also if said employee gets the job and remains a committed worker, they may eventually pay back the government's "investment" over time via taxes, so it works out long-term)
5. Prioritise domestic business interests over international corporations. No, I do not give a shit if
McDonalds feelings are hurt by this*. If we can cause new businesses to spread like chicken box over the country through temporary tax exemptions, cutting down of expensive administration burdens, the closure of functionally unprofitable businesses to allow new ones to take their place (point 3), and exempting imports of goods from VAT (yes, that gets applied to imports and is functionally identical to a tariff), we can hopefully re-create a competitive UK market as opposed to relying overly much on wealthy international ones to treat us as a charitable donation. The money lost from VAT?
Increase corporation tax on companies not based out of the UK - "market privilege tax" or something - thereby making up for lost revenue, forcing them to increasing their prices, and making domestic companies more attractive for customers in the process as alternatives. Their overall costs should be down anyway if there's fewer consumers therefore fewer viable fronts to have open. They might also be forced to close down places they're seeing less profit in allowing for an alternative to take its place. They're an international billion-pound company, they can take the hit. Maybe cut back on stock buybacks or something 
6. Scrap minimum wage so the market can determine the wages. Assuming companies are desperate for workers, they might be eager to pay more. Can be re-introduced at a lower number for peace of mind in the future if need be, once the market has determined competitive pay. Set it lower than what the market offers though, so that they're not forced to raise it, and if they do lower it they just look like a cunt.
I did my best. Am I getting suicided, Truss'd, or mob lynched?
*
The "free market" we all love and idolise was in fact a market that was limited to just North America, Western Europe and East-Asia I.E. pre-1980s. It was never a concept tested on a truly international stage and at most just incorporated NATO. It got shit for everyone involved when China offered a regulation-free workforce of hundreds of millions and just extract every ounce of value from wealthier nations via offshoring (Deng Xiaoping caused more long-term damage for Europe than Hitler). Western countries paid the bill for Chinese factories which increased their economy substantially. All this is evidence of is that countries that control their economies from the top can better compete with when every other country in said market that doesn't, which is crazy unfair. Maybe China ought to play by the rest of the world's rules rather than do this half-measure where they can make a select few cities adhere to the free market but then do all they can to position themselves as the most attractive for investment and job placement, even to the detriment of their own citizens - just a thought.
Also at this point in time it seems that the most value companies offer now is, instead of providing an income to get taxed, they just barely keep people off of welfare/benefits to ease some of the burden off of government spending. Otherwise their main goal now is the stock-buyback loop which allows them to infinitely increase their value without actually producing or adding any new value to the market.
