'Smart cards' plan to stop benefits being spent on drink

[Paxtonloudmouth]

Which makes it amazing that so few do. One could be forgiven for thinking that the government had removed all incentive by giving them lots of our money with the freedom to spend it on anything.

So in what way is the labour market trapping people into low pay?

So few? Most get off benefits within a year. Every stat possible shows that.

With globalization comes more people,more people suits the employer not the employee thus there is a surplus work force hence wages can be held at a lower rate.

With economic collapse caused by those making choices at the top comes more people laid off,hence people are nervous to keep even their underpaid jobs.

The rise of unpaid internships have led to people having to work for no monetary gain at all.

You can see the stagnation of wages in the statistics. Nobody is arguing that the currant wage levels can continue.

So how about paying people properly as an incentive. After all most benefit goes to those in work.

 

[scaramanga]

So few? Most get off benefits within a year. Every stat possible shows that.

With globalization comes more people,more people suits the employer not the employee thus there is a surplus work force hence wages can be held at a lower rate.

With economic collapse caused by those making choices at the top comes more people laid off,hence people are nervous to keep even their underpaid jobs.

The rise of unpaid internships have led to people having to work for no monetary gain at all.

You can see the stagnation of wages in the statistics. Nobody is arguing that the currant wage levels can continue.

That's not trapping people in a low wage, that's just the wages staying the same for people who don't improve their own lot. Why should you or I be forced to improve someone else's chances? Everyone makes their own way - I had to, I suspect you had to, so do they.

So how about paying people properly as an incentive. After all most benefit goes to those in work.

People are paid what they're worth. If the government are topping that up, then expectations are too high. Fortunately the government's lowering the cap further and from the way that's been received by the public (Pravda readers aside) I'd say most think it's a good move.

 

[Rob]

Interesting thread, only read the first couple of pages then skimmed the next couple but I haven't seen this side of the argument (albeit I would presume a controversial one).

Isn't this just another nail in the coffin of British pubs which are closing at a rate of 26 per week? Yes there are people who receive whatever amount of benefit and spend almost every penny in the pub but there are also people who have a good network in their local and who use this to find work at a point when they don't have any. From what I've seen, this is stacked heavily on the side of the self employed but I have seen (and personally been in) other instances where all sorts of job openings have been snapped up by a guy or girl who just so happened to be in the right pub at the right time. I've seen this applied to both short term and long term unemployed.

So now pubs are not allowed to have smokers on their premises in the same way that they used to and this proposal will mean pubs are also prevented from serving the jobless or those who solely rely on the benefits system to live for whatever reason is personal to them.

The Down's syndrome guy who comes in everyday for two pints of lager and a few games of pool. The pensioner who has worked all their life but now only receives a state pension. The single full time mum who comes in once a fortnight to let her hair down when her ex has the kids. The person who has been left unfit for work by an injury in the workplace before the days of claims direct etc but uses the pub as their only link to a social life. The person who was made redundant but the payoff wasn't much and now they're struggling to find work but they still want to see the people they would normally see after work every evening, even if it is only once a week til they can get back into work.

I wonder how much revenue will be lost on average by pubs which are already struggling and basing their weekly orders not on what they expect to sell the following week but on how much money they took the week before.

I can guarantee that, if this law comes in, there will be pubs which close as a direct consequence.

 

[Paxtonloudmouth]

That's not trapping people in a low wage, that's just the wages staying the same for people who don't improve their own lot. Why should you or I be forced to improve someone else's chances? Everyone makes their own way - I had to, I suspect you had to, so do they.


Yes I had to. However not everybody is me. People have different circumstances. I am more than happy to help people if I can. After all social cohesion is vital. Who knows what will happen in my life,I may one day require the help that these people do now. You may consider yourself an ubermench who will never require any help but that is an unhealthy position to take.


People are paid what they're worth. If the government are topping that up, then expectations are too high. Fortunately the government's lowering the cap further and from the way that's been received by the public (Pravda readers aside) I'd say most think it's a good move.

No people are paid what the market {those controlling the 'free' market} feel they can get away with. Hence when workers fight back their pay is often changed. People **** off Bob Crow but this is exactly why train drivers on the tube are so well paid. It is a strawman to say everyone on the left reads Pravda in the same way it is to say everyone on the right is Goosestepping advocates of concentration camps.

 

[Paxtonloudmouth]

Interesting thread, only read the first couple of pages then skimmed the next couple but I haven't seen this side of the argument (albeit I would presume a controversial one).

Isn't this just another nail in the coffin of British pubs which are closing at a rate of 26 per week? Yes there are people who receive whatever amount of benefit and spend almost every penny in the pub but there are also people who have a good network in their local and who use this to find work at a point when they don't have any. From what I've seen, this is stacked heavily on the side of the self employed but I have seen (and personally been in) other instances where all sorts of job openings have been snapped up by a guy or girl who just so happened to be in the right pub at the right time. I've seen this applied to both short term and long term unemployed.

So now pubs are not allowed to have smokers on their premises in the same way that they used to and this proposal will mean pubs are also prevented from serving the jobless or those who solely rely on the benefits system to live for whatever reason is personal to them.

The Down's syndrome guy who comes in everyday for two pints of lager and a few games of pool. The pensioner who has worked all their life but now only receives a state pension. The single full time mum who comes in once a fortnight to let her hair down when her ex has the kids. The person who has been left unfit for work by an injury in the workplace before the days of claims direct etc but uses the pub as their only link to a social life. The person who was made redundant but the payoff wasn't much and now they're struggling to find work but they still want to see the people they would normally see after work every evening, even if it is only once a week til they can get back into work.

I wonder how much revenue will be lost on average by pubs which are already struggling and basing their weekly orders not on what they expect to sell the following week but on how much money they took the week before.

I can guarantee that, if this law comes in, there will be pubs which close as a direct consequence.

Very true,however the free marketers never think of the demand side of economics.

 

[scaramanga]

No people are paid what the market {those controlling the 'free' market} feel they can get away with. Hence when workers fight back their pay is often changed. People **** off Bob Crow but this is exactly why train drivers on the tube are so well paid. It is a strawman to say everyone on the left reads Pravda in the same way it is to say everyone on the right is Goosestepping advocates of concentration camps.

Bob Crow was distorting the market and was a hideous excuse for human being. I know quite a few people whose first question upon hearing about his death was a hopeful "did it hurt?" Lol.

There's more of Thatcher's good work to do still in removing the power of unions but once it's done, the market will work properly again. People will get paid what they're worth - if they want more they need to do or offer more.

I don't know what world you think we're in with your comments about people controlling the market. I'm am employee, I get paid what I think I'm worth. If I want more I'll tell my employer - if that's more than they want to pay me they'll refuse. If really want more I'll go elsewhere and get paid it.

My combination of skills are fairly unique, but I could improve on that and make myself even more in demand if required, therefore earning even more. My agreement with my employer is a two way one - nobody controls the other.

 

[Paxtonloudmouth]

Bob Crow was distorting the market and was a hideous excuse for human being. I know quite a few people whose first question upon hearing about his death was a hopeful "did it hurt?" Lol.

There's more of Thatcher's good work to do still in removing the power of unions but once it's done, the market will work properly again. People will get paid what they're worth - if they want more they need to do or offer more.

I don't know what world you think we're in with your comments about people controlling the market. I'm am employee, I get paid what I think I'm worth. If I want more I'll tell my employer - if that's more than they want to pay me they'll refuse. If really want more I'll go elsewhere and get paid it.

My combination of skills are fairly unique, but I could improve on that and make myself even more in demand if required, therefore earning even more. My agreement with my employer is a two way one - nobody controls the other.

As a man who knew Bob,you do not have a clue what you are talking about as to him as a person.

I would ask you what fantasy world you think you live in where everyone gets paid what they deserve. What if all doctors decided tomorrow they no longer wanted to work ? Do you not think there wages would stay the same ?

People are paid as little as the market/state feels they can get away with. Workers always are given as little as is possible.

 

[Baleforce]

surely what people deserve and what they are worth is the same thing

if there were less doctors working their rate would go up (at least that's what should happen)

 

[scaramanga]

surely what people deserve and what they are worth is the same thing

if there were less doctors working their rate would go up (at least that's what should happen)

That's exactly what happens. Unless you have some kind of tinfoil hat conspiracy theory about controlling forces, etc.

 

[Baleforce]

I expect the NHS distorts things in the UK

 

[glorygloryeze]

Question: why do so many CEOs of corporate institutions get big bonuses, even when their corporations fail/lose money/have to be b ailed out?

It would seem that in some industries, senior managemengt literally cannot fail (Bob Goodwin comes to mind).

Surely if supply and demand and results are taken into account as to 'how much an employee is worth' why do failing bosses often seem to be very handsomely 'rewarded' by failure?

 

[Paxtonloudmouth]

Question: why do so many CEOs of corporate institutions get big bonuses, even when their corporations fail/lose money/have to be b ailed out?

It would seem that in some industries, senior managemengt literally cannot fail (Bob Goodwin comes to mind).

Surely if supply and demand and results are taken into account as to 'how much an employee is worth' why do failing bosses often seem to be very handsomely 'rewarded' by failure?

Because they are obviously well worth it.

 

[Paxtonloudmouth]

That's exactly what happens. Unless you have some kind of tinfoil hat conspiracy theory about controlling forces, etc.

That was my point. A company or state is only as good as the workers it has. If the workers decide to rebel and stand up for themselves their pay can alter dramatically. It changes from the employer deciding what you are worth to the employee deciding that.

However a surplus labour market makes this almost impossible. Hence why unemployment on a reasonable scale is never bad for business. Even Friedman and Lamont agreed with this and neither of them would be striding behind the red flag.

 

[scaramanga]

As a man who knew Bob,you do not have a clue what you are talking about as to him as a person.

You genuinely have my deepest sympathy for having to have shared oxygen with such an odious little thief.

There are very few people on this earth for whom I reserve the status of not deserving to be on it. Rapists, murderers, child molesters - the fat, greedy cvnt was in that club.

I would ask you what fantasy world you think you live in where everyone gets paid what they deserve. What if all doctors decided tomorrow they no longer wanted to work ? Do you not think there wages would stay the same ?

People are paid as little as the market/state feels they can get away with. Workers always are given as little as is possible.

As little as an employer can get away with and what an employee is worth are exactly the same thing. If that employee wants more money they can simply get a better job.

 

[scaramanga]

Question: why do so many CEOs of corporate institutions get big bonuses, even when their corporations fail/lose money/have to be b ailed out?

It would seem that in some industries, senior managemengt literally cannot fail (Bob Goodwin comes to mind).

Surely if supply and demand and results are taken into account as to 'how much an employee is worth' why do failing bosses often seem to be very handsomely 'rewarded' by failure?

Mostly because the shareholders don't care. If the shareholders cared enough it would be stopped.

 

[scaramanga]

That was my point. A company or state is only as good as the workers it has. If the workers decide to rebel and stand up for themselves their pay can alter dramatically. It changes from the employer deciding what you are worth to the employee deciding that.

However a surplus labour market makes this almost impossible. Hence why unemployment on a reasonable scale is never bad for business. Even Friedman and Lamont agreed with this and neither of them would be striding behind the red flag.

I agree that individual employees can argue terms and improve them.

If employees decide en masse not to work then they should be sacked and replaced. Preferably have their jobs automated.

 

[Paxtonloudmouth]

I agree that individual employees can argue terms and improve them.

If employees decide en masse not to work then they should be sacked and replaced. Preferably have their jobs automated.

It is obvious why you say this,because the worked united are obviously stronger that one single sole worker. Anyway I am off canvassing,then on to the match.

 

[scaramanga]

It is obvious why you say this,because the worked united are obviously stronger that one single sole worker. Anyway I am off canvassing,then on to the match.

You mean mob rule? As far as I'm concerned there's no place in any business for union members - I certainly wouldn't employ one and if I found an employee had joined one they'd see the door very soon after.

 

[Paxtonloudmouth]

You mean mob rule? As far as I'm concerned there's no place in any business for union members - I certainly wouldn't employ one and if I found an employee had joined one they'd see the door very soon after.

No I mean collective people united in the same aims. After all trade unions are democratic. You are against democracy as well I would guess. You are a free market fundamentalist. The market is your GHod. In fact it is very fatalistic of you. Compare almost everything Christians or Muslims say about GHod and substitute it for the market and you have scaramanga.

 

[scaramanga]

No I mean collective people united in the same aims. You are a free market fundamentalist we understand.

Collectively doing what? Just doing their jobs really well and becoming invaluable to their employer? In which case I agree.