Inequality in Britain

[DJKillaQueen]

There's no obligation to pay for housing at all.

By that do you mean there's no obligation to provide affordable housing? If so then where do you think that would lead?

It's possible that you believe that achievement and financial benefit is only achieved by theft.

I can assure you I have never said such a thing. What I have said that achivement is easier for some people because of the things they are gifted by birth without having to work for it. And some of those people aren't bright or talented or even hard working.

There's perfectly bright people that profer a service in pennies that makes them wealthy. They're not bad, just clever.

That's true. there are also very bright children who never get a sniff of a decent school. Nor do they get a house bought for them or a deposit paid for by parents...nor do they get a car on their 18th birthday....or any of the things that make getting on in life a bit easier.

It's not government paying for housing, it's your neighbours.

We all pay for it through tax. Just some of us have our houses bought for us by tax too.

[Huguenot]

Well, I appreciate your point, but as the child of teachers, I can assure you that the only kids getting an Audi TT on their 18th bithday were kids of council houses who'd sold their house.

[Huguenot]

This is nonsense, there is an underclass. It's not in London, it's in terrible neighborhoods in Yorkshire and Newcastle. With no hope, and with much disaster.

[expat]

>Yeah the 95/5% split dates back to the formation of the landed gentry

So there is no source for the 95/5 split?

[katie1997]

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> There is no 'other' that's preventing achievement

> in an undisclosed underclass. There may well be a

> foundation of politically motivated 'blamers' that

> prevent advancement by creating unidentified

> enemies of the people.

Absolutely correct - I know plenty of people born into nothing who have pulled themselves up by nothing other than hard work (online pontificating doesn't constitute hard work in my book) and good luck to them. They own lots of land, a large house and a nice car - all thoroughly deserved.

Oh yes, come on people, stop blaming everything around you and take some personal responsibility for your own actions.

> It doesn't surprise me that underachievers would

> hide behind this mantle. If you give them an idea

> that someone else is to blame, they'll seize it

> and sit on thier hands.

>

> Come on guys!

Exactly - its always everyone else to blame, never them. Yawn. Stop bleating and get on with it.

If enough people in Britain got off their backsides and worked for a living instead of being dependent on state hand-outs, houses and so on, it would be a better place. Oh, and I am referring to those that are well and able to work.

Inverse snobbery, 'them' and 'us', blah, blah, blah. Yawn. We take education for granted in this country along with a lot of other things like access to clean water, food.

JHC* - the drawing room has become a bit of a drag these days, it would be nice to hear views of more than one person. Yawn. Double Yawn.

(*lol)

[DJKillaQueen]

We need around 9 million jobs to fully employ the unemployed.......

In Sheffield you only have a 1 in 8 chance of finding a job if you are unemployed. That is a fact that no level of demonising the unemployed is going to change.

[Ladymuck]

Nine million? Are you sure? Seems a bit high.

[DJKillaQueen]

Latest figures from the Office for National Statistics state that;

The inactivity rate for those aged 16-64 (i.e. taking no part in active employment) as of July 2010 is 9.26 million

This can be partly explained as:

Those in receipt of unemployment benefit 2.47 million

Those in receipt of sickness and disability benefits 2.7 million*

Students 2.9 million

The rest may be all or partly accounted for by those working in the black economy (impossible to know how many), those either forced into or voluntarily in early retirement and around 280,000 full time carers.

The number of vacancies is shown as 467,000.

Add to that 7.93 million workers are part time (some of which require benefits to supplement their income).

So clearly you are never going to get work shy or unskilled people into work whilst employers have the pick of such a large pool of jobseekers.

Governments have tried and failed on this for three decades. They all talk tough but the reality is that there just aren't anything like the jobs needed to achieve what the government and public wants and we can expect employment to rise by 600,000 ? over 1 million as public sector cuts kick in, over coming years as well.

*this figure comes from the DWP

[Ladymuck]

Are students (in full-time education and not seeking work) also included in the unemployment figures?

Is there also a presumption that those in receipt of disability benefits are automatically unemployed? Many recipients of disability related benefits work - for example where in receipt of DLA or IIDB.

If so, to include them in unemployment statistics would only serve to distort those statistics (IMO).

[DJKillaQueen]

The 9 million figure refers to those not actively in employment for whatever reason (between 16-64) so from an analysts point of view that is the number of jobs needed for full employment (so that there is little or no welfare drain on the economy).

Of course the sick and disabled will never be able to work. Even if you take away students (who need jobs eventually) and the genuinely incapacitated, you are still left with a vacancy vs unemployed gap that means you will never get the majority of the unemployed back into work - unless something radical is done to create jobs, and esp in those areas where unemployment is highest. At worst, we need around 3 million jobs (for the unemployed and for those on incap that are no longer genuinely too ill to work).....we've needed those levels of job creation for almost three decades....and esp in those areas with high unemployment, like the North.

My point about the work shy is this. If you are an employer, and you have (just taking the JSA figure of 2.27 million) at least a ratio of 5:1 applying for any job you advertise (in reality employers receive far more applications)....you are not going to take the applicant that has never worked, or been LTU, or over a certain age and so on, when you have the pick of younger recently unemployed people to chose from. That is the reality. And that's why sucessive governments have consistently failed to tackle LTU.

So to me there's no point in demonising benefit recipients if you then can't do something to show that forcing them to look for work makes a difference. I think there would be far more sense in having a policy where those that have never worked or are LTU, after a certain time, are made to work for their benefits (equivalent to the value of their benefits - and in line with average wage levels for the type of service they do). For many recipients that would equate to 3-5 hours a day maybe.....doing something that the local area needs, in a voluntary capacity.

That would also benefit the country to use the skills that many of the LTU have (because many of them do have skills). Of course the danger always is that it takes away real jobs but it can be done in a way that safeguards from that.

That seems to me a far better approach to getting them used to having to be somewhere every day, and to turning them into productive members of society. It wouldn't be much to ask...still leaving plenty of time for those who are genuinely looking for work to do so, whilst also not impeding on those who have children. The government would have to spend a sizeable amount of money to put that into place, but I think it's money worth spending if it changes the work ethic of those (however many they might be) who genuinely can't be bothered.

And similarly, for those that won't play ball....switch them from a cash payment to vouchers. I think the restriction of freedom on how they spend their benefits (through vouchers) would be a more effective way of getting the truly lazy to play ball. Suspension of benefits never works because the claimant appeals and gets the money they are due in the end anyway. Legally it very difficult to take base benefit away from a claimant, because the base level of what a person needs to live on is set in law, so all the threats to take away benefits (which sound great in the media) mean very little in reality.

[????]

er, a reasonable number are stay at home mums, even in this day and age.

Anyway, equality. You can't be a bit equal - what we (well you two) are banging on about is a more equible share of resources surely but not equality.

[Ladymuck]

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> er, a reasonable number are stay at home mums,

> even in this day and age.

er...yes...and ladies that lunch no doubt and, indeed, anyone who doesn't wish to work (for whatever reason) - that was the point I was trying to make 3 posts back. I don't believe that figures surrounding unemployment should include stay at home mums, full-time students, working benefit claimants etc. It makes for distortion and is misleading.

As for the rest of your comment - what are you on about!?

[Huguenot]

I don't really understand arguments that run 'You can't demonise benefit recipients because....'. It starts from the fallacious premise that benefits recipients are demonised.

I'm sure the gutter press fire the occasional broadside, but responding to them is not a reasonable basis for government strategy.

I think the best place to start is that nobody has a fundamental 'right' to anything at all. Benefits don't come from government, they come from other people as a tax upon their hard work. The motivation for this isn't black and white - for some it's an act of charity, for others it's a contribution to social stability.

Either way, taxpayers have a right to be assured that their charity is being spent wisely, and that the recipients are deserving.

This isn't the same thing as 'demonising benefit recipients' and benefit recipients should be more polite when addressing the concerns of the people who put food on their table.

[????]

Ladym...Ladies that lunch, beleive me looking after kids under 5 is far, far harder then any work I've ever done...Ladies that lunch...honestly.

[Ladymuck]

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Ladym...Ladies that lunch, beleive me looking

> after kids under 5 is far, far harder then any

> work I've ever done...Ladies that

> lunch...honestly.

Gawd! When I said LTL, I meant in addition to stay at home mums (and dads BTW) not instead of...the point being that, there are quite a few categories of people who shouldn't be included in figures surrounding unemployment...but I have a sneaking suspicion that you knew what I meant all along...so behave!

And yes, having looked after my nephews/nieces on the odd weekend...I agree, hard work indeed (as gorgeous as they are, I can't wait to hand them back half the time LOL!!) - I don't know how parents cope!

[????]

;-)

[Ladymuck]

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I think the best place to start is that nobody has a fundamental

> 'right' to anything at all. Benefits don't come from government,

> they come from other people as a tax upon their hard work...

> Either way, taxpayers have a right to be assured

> that their charity is being spent wisely, and that

> the recipients are deserving.

>

> This isn't the same thing as 'demonising benefit

> recipients'...

I agree Huguenot. We are fortunate to live in a country which encompasses a welfare state designed to act as a safety net for the nation's poorest/most vulnerable (out of interest, how does Singapore compare?). The ethos behind the benefit system is that of equal opportunity and a fairer distribution of wealth so that those who are unable to provide for themselves at least receive the basics required for a semi-decent life. It should not be subject to exploitation purely because (e.g.) someone who is able to work lacks the motivation to do so. This is not only unfair to those that do, but it also generates resentment.

With regard to "demonising benefit recipients", I think the point DJKQ is making is that there isn't a lot of point whingeing about benefit claimants when jobs aren't there for them to take up in the first place.

For the record, I do not believe Katie1997 was "demonising the unemployed". To me her post was clear in that she was referring to "...those that are well and able to work". If the jobs don't exist, then (IMO) they aren't able to work.

[Huguenot]

To be fair, Singapore's a completely different kettle of fish to the UK. Someone once made the calculation that if London was a nation state then every resident would be loaded and no-one would have to pay income tax.

There's a very strong cultural focus on families in Singapore, and it's often that houses will be occupied by several generations within a family, which provides a far more effective saftey net than a benefits system.

Granny doesn't need fuel cost subsidies, because in Singapore there's zero chance that Granny's home alone.

There is no benefits system equivalent to the UK. The welfare system here is based on the Central Provident Fund, which is effectively a compulsory savings plan to which you and your employer pay contributions. There are very tight restrictions on what this can be spent on, but it can be used for example as a down payment on social housing at preferential loan rates.

This means that Singapore neatly sidesteps the disincentive to work created by the UK system - it's actually your money, and if you spend it, it's gone.

90% of residential buildings here are effectively equivalent to council housing, so that's gone some way to manage the disastrous impact of the housing price boom that trashing the UK welfare system.

Either way, the Singapore government's approach to welfare is clear: "The Government will subsidize investments like education and infrastructure, it will not subsidize consumption expenditure. To do so is to undermine the traditional values of thrift, personal responsibility and the will to achieve, and to weaken our economy,"

The interesting adjunct to this is that the role of the family in supporting those in need of welfare actually extends to your friends too ;-)

People wouldn't be so rude about welfare provision if it was coming directly from their mates!

[Huguenot]

I should add as an illustration that in Singapore retired parents are allowed to sue their children if they don't pay them a proportion of their salary every month.

How do you like them apples?

[DJKillaQueen]

That's an interesting system. I particularly like the being able to sue children bit.

Yes LM I did mean that if there are no jobs out there, no amount of policy towards the unemployed is going to change that we need to pay benefits. For me benefit reform and investment in jobs go hand in hand. One without the other is pointless.

[Ladymuck]

Very interesting re. Singapore.

I don't know much about the welfare system in Singapore. However, I am aware of a much greater gap between rich and poor over there than here. What surprises me is that this apparent gap has never appeared obvious to me when I have visited (whereas in the UK, it's in your face). What is it about the Singaporean system that ensures that, e.g., the streets are free of beggars? And what, e.g., happens to the homeless who have no family they can turn to for a roof? They must exist - and yet (as far as I can tell) they are not in evidence; whereas here...

Or does this absence of beggars/homeless persons have more to do with a highly effective police force efficient in swiftly clearing the streets of anyone considered remotely undesirable?

As an aside, the programme Unequal Opportunities With John Humphrys will be examining the attainment gap in education between wealthy/poorer pupils later today (Monday) on BBC2 21.00.

[Huguenot]

Well there is a system for the destitute or the sick, but I think the locals would question the idea of 'no family'. They'd argue that there must be a mum and dad, and that the parents must have friends or acquaintances.

You're posing arguments that simply don't make sense to an Asian society. For these guys charity starts and ends at home, and has nothing to do with the state.

When you get a guy who doesn't have someone looking after him, it's front page news!

I can't remember who it was, but someone earlier in the thread was talking about their sister who was a single mum in Liverpool with three kids struggling to make ends meet. That simply doesn't happen here. She'd be forced to move back home, or with her sister, and the family members would be obliged to look after her. Having said that, you don't get a lot of single mums here unless dad has suffered a catastrophe. The family unit is considered unbreakable as an economic construction.

The education system here is comprehensive, and consistently tops world league tables. The locals feel that after that, the job of the state is done.

[DJKillaQueen]

That was me I think...talking about my cousin. She is an only child - and she works, but only just earns enough (with child tax credits) to make ends meet (but at least she does work).

What happens to orphans in Singapore or those with no family (because they must exist)? What happens too if the family that does exist are too poor to support a relative or don't have the room in their home to support another person?

In the UK we are very bad at family responsibility esp. when it comes to taking care of elderly parents. Is it selfishness? Or is it just too easy for people to shirk responsibility? I dont know. My mother was looked after by my brother until she died. We'd never have left her to the care of the state. But so many people do.

[Ladymuck]

It says a great deal about our own culture. The Singaporean situation is interesting though - I wish I had the time to research it.

I should say that what I really like about Singapore (other than the natives and the delicious cuisine) is the fact that one is able to walk the streets at any time of day/night in complete safety. As far as I can gather, the crime rate is relatively low and there are, on the face of it, little or no signs of begging. Furthermore, people are generally pleasant, civil and well-educated, and the place is clean. Given that the gap between rich/poor is greater than our own (and there is evidence to support links with poverty and e.g. crime, underachievement in schools, anti-social behaviour etc.) I think that is no mean feat.

[david_carnell]

Actually LadyM, Singapore has a very high prison population. It's close to 400 per 100,000 people.

In comparison the UK is just below 150 per 100,000. Interestingly, prison populations are almost directly related to income inequality within a society.

Lowest prison populations can be found in countries with very equal income distribution such as Japan, Finland, Norway, Sweden and Denmark. High income inequality in nations such as the USA, Singapore, Portugal, UK and Israel puts them at the top end of the chart for prison population (per head of population).

When it comes to homicide rates the graph is almost exactly the same i.e. direct proportionality between income inequality and murder. However, along with Finland, Singapore is at odds with this. Whilst it may be an over simplification, high gun ownership in Finland may account for their higher than expected homicide rate whilst Singapore's strict firearms control may account for their lower than expected murder count.