How do you differentiate between cant work and wont work?

First topic message reminder :

For hundreds of years - perhaps since the start of society itself, there has been the problem of people too poor to manage by themselves. From the first hunter gatherers who provided food (if it was available) to those injured, or maybe just too old human society has been willing to support those unable to support themselves.

However as society advanced the question started to arise of those who wished to be supported when perhaps they did not truly need supporting - that saw being supported as easier than supporting themselves. Various systems have been devised through the years to try and make sure that those who need help got it while those who did not were not able to take the "easy" option.

So we arrive at todays modern technologically advanced society complete with its benefit systems - and fierce accusations of both the needy going unsupported and the lazy taking advantage.

So how would you design a system to make sure that those needing help got it while those not needing it were unable to take advantage?

sphinx wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Well then they can try something else - counselling for example. It's possible that having something useful to do might actually help them. Too much spare time and rumination never helped anyone. Sitting in a dark room and not going out is not going to help them is it?

I am not disagreeing - I am trying to get you to see beyond depression - take fibromyalgia or multiple sclerosis, or sickle cell or any other chronic condition

In that case, I know that medication doesn't always "fix" people, so there's no need to be sarcastic about it. We were talking about the kind of condition which is difficult to "prove" were we not?

Let's look at it this way:

Who says we have to work? Why can't people, if they wish, just sit on the dole?

Raggamuffin wrote:

sphinx wrote:

I am not disagreeing - I am trying to get you to see beyond depression - take fibromyalgia or multiple sclerosis, or sickle cell or any other chronic condition

In that case, I know that medication doesn't always "fix" people, so there's no need to be sarcastic about it. We were talking about the kind of condition which is difficult to "prove" were we not?

Pretty much.

How do we ensure people that are genuine get help and people who are fake get found out?

sphinx wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

In that case, I know that medication doesn't always "fix" people, so there's no need to be sarcastic about it. We were talking about the kind of condition which is difficult to "prove" were we not?

Pretty much.

How do we ensure people that are genuine get help and people who are fake get found out?

I suggested more spies - they're pretty good at catching people out.

sphinx wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

In that case, I know that medication doesn't always "fix" people, so there's no need to be sarcastic about it. We were talking about the kind of condition which is difficult to "prove" were we not?

Pretty much.

How do we ensure people that are genuine get help and people who are fake get found out?

I've already said - thorough and regular checks.

If anybody is suspect - more checks and investigation, if merited.

eddie wrote:Let's look at it this way:

Who says we have to work? Why can't people, if they wish, just sit on the dole?

How about because dole is paid for by people working and paying taxes. Why should people be able to get money for choosing to do nothing?

Raggamuffin wrote:

sphinx wrote:

Pretty much.

How do we ensure people that are genuine get help and people who are fake get found out?

I suggested more spies - they're pretty good at catching people out.

Are they? Do they save more money than they cost?

How would spies shown faking of variable conditions?

eddie wrote:Let's look at it this way:

Who says we have to work? Why can't people, if they wish, just sit on the dole?

Because if everyone did that, there would be no taxes to pay for anything.

sphinx wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I suggested more spies - they're pretty good at catching people out.

Are they?  Do they save more money than they cost?

How would spies shown faking of variable conditions?

I already explained that it's not just the cost which is an issue, it's the principle.

Even in a variable condition, I would imagine that the person would not be skipping down a street or spending hours in the shops.

BigAndy9 wrote:

sphinx wrote:

Pretty much.

How do we ensure people that are genuine get help and people who are fake get found out?

I've already said - thorough and regular checks.

If anybody is suspect - more checks and investigation, if merited.

Yes but you did not answer my points about what checks and checking of people whose conditions wont change.

It is easy to say "checks" but what should those checks be - describe them.

You'll never create any kind of system that people can't cheat at. To me, it makes little sense to spend more on policing the cheaters than the cheaters are actually costing the system.

sphinx wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I suggested more spies - they're pretty good at catching people out.

Are they?  Do they save more money than they cost?

How would spies shown faking of variable conditions?

"AND THEN THERE'S THE CHILDREN TO THINK ABOUT!"


Bloody hell, ok ok, some of the sick, lame and lazy are untouchable, we'll grant you that sphinx.

This scam has well and truly been mastered.

Raggamuffin wrote:

sphinx wrote:

Are they?  Do they save more money than they cost?

How would spies shown faking of variable conditions?

I already explained that it's not just the cost which is an issue, it's the principle.

Even in a variable condition, I would imagine that the person would not be skipping down a street or spending hours in the shops.

Ah but is it about principle? Being honest how many government departments do you know that are run on principle and damn the cost? Would the public actually accept an increase in benefits budget in order to make sure the right people get money and the wrong ones dont?

BigAndy9 wrote:

sphinx wrote:

Are they?  Do they save more money than they cost?

How would spies shown faking of variable conditions?

"AND THEN THERE'S THE CHILDREN TO THINK ABOUT!"


Bloody hell, ok ok, some of the sick, lame and lazy are untouchable, we'll grant you that sphinx.

This scam has well and truly been mastered.

Again Andy I am not talking about the system that is I am talking about what would produce a system that works.

Ben_Reilly wrote:You'll never create any kind of system that people can't cheat at. To me, it makes little sense to spend more on policing the cheaters than the cheaters are actually costing the system.

No no no.

It is a crime which affects everybody and all crimes should be investigated.

sphinx wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I already explained that it's not just the cost which is an issue, it's the principle.

Even in a variable condition, I would imagine that the person would not be skipping down a street or spending hours in the shops.

Ah but is it about principle?  Being honest how many government departments do you know that are run on principle and damn the cost?  Would the public actually accept an increase in benefits budget in order to make sure the right people get money and the wrong ones dont?

Well it's about the principle for me - that's what I meant. I can't be doing with people who think they can use the system in that way.

BigAndy9 wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:You'll never create any kind of system that people can't cheat at. To me, it makes little sense to spend more on policing the cheaters than the cheaters are actually costing the system.

No no no.

It is a crime which affects everybody and all crimes should be investigated.

Did I say not to investigate it?

Raggamuffin wrote:

sphinx wrote:

Ah but is it about principle?  Being honest how many government departments do you know that are run on principle and damn the cost?  Would the public actually accept an increase in benefits budget in order to make sure the right people get money and the wrong ones dont?

Well it's about the principle for me - that's what I meant. I can't be doing with people who think they can use the system in that way.

Agreed Ragga.

Raggamuffin wrote:

sphinx wrote:

Ah but is it about principle?  Being honest how many government departments do you know that are run on principle and damn the cost?  Would the public actually accept an increase in benefits budget in order to make sure the right people get money and the wrong ones dont?

Well it's about the principle for me - that's what I meant. I can't be doing with people who think they can use the system in that way.

So how do we stop them?

Not catch them but stop them in the first place.

sphinx wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Well it's about the principle for me - that's what I meant. I can't be doing with people who think they can use the system in that way.

So how do we stop them?

Not catch them but stop them in the first place.

Have you come up with any suggestions yet?

How do you stop them claiming? You can't, but you can investigate their claim properly.

sphinx wrote:

eddie wrote:Let's look at it this way:

Who says we have to work? Why can't people, if they wish, just sit on the dole?

How about because dole is paid for by people working and paying taxes.  Why should people be able to get money for choosing to do nothing?

Erm, well, why shouldn't they?

All I'm saying is, why are we so down on people that may have other agendas to life and actually not want a lot in life?
Say they want to sit and write a book? What's wrong with that?


Why are we soooo obsessed with people who don't work? Because we choose to and we're jealous of those that don't???? Jealous of the fact that they are free enough to say "No thanks I just want to sit and watch the world for a while and then see what I want to do".

Why do we always assume the worst of these people?

Raggamuffin wrote:

eddie wrote:Let's look at it this way:

Who says we have to work? Why can't people, if they wish, just sit on the dole?

Because if everyone did that, there would be no taxes to pay for anything.

And? Then we'd have it think of another way wouldn't we?

And another thing. Everyone is made differently. So not everyone would do that.
Some people work because they love to work.
Most people, would love to get paid their wages to sit at home and hate working.

eddie wrote:

sphinx wrote:

How about because dole is paid for by people working and paying taxes.  Why should people be able to get money for choosing to do nothing?

Erm, well, why shouldn't they?

All I'm saying is, why are we so down on people that may have other agendas to life and actually not want a lot in life?
Say they want to sit and write a book? What's wrong with that?


Why are we soooo obsessed with people who don't work? Because we choose to and we're jealous of those that don't???? Jealous of the fact that they are free enough to say "No thanks I just want to sit and watch the world for a while and then see what I want to do".

Why do we always assume the worst of these people?

There is nothing wrong with people choosing not to work - the question is how are they going to live?

What if everyone decides to sit and write a book - and wants to claim dole to do so - where is that dole money going to come from?

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Because if everyone did that, there would be no taxes to pay for anything.

And? Then we'd have it think of another way wouldn't we?

And another thing. Everyone is made differently. So not everyone would do that.
Some people work because they love to work.
Most people, would love to get paid their wages to sit at home and hate working.

If that's what most people would like, it's a good job they can't all do that. In order for them to get benefits for sitting on their arse, they rely on other people going to work and getting paid don't they?

If they have their own money, they can sit there all the like and write a book or something.

i believe the americans run a six months dole then you must work six months or you get no more, perhaps that would sort some of the scroungers out..
worst case scenario they have to do six months of a year..

I do get what Eddie's saying though. We're all expected to follow a certain pattern in life, and not everyone is suited to this work thing, especially with the sort of jobs around - those dreadful call centres and pointless office work, or whatever.

I was reading a forum where people were complaining about work and saying that they were going to save as much as they could and then do nothing for a while. They would have to live very frugally of course. The worst thing is housing costs, and sadly, we don't have the kind of weather where one could just live in a tent all year round.

Raggamuffin wrote:I do get what Eddie's saying though. We're all expected to follow a certain pattern in life, and not everyone is suited to this work thing, especially with the sort of jobs around - those dreadful call centres and pointless office work, or whatever.

I was reading a forum where people were complaining about work and saying that they were going to save as much as they could and then do nothing for a while. They would have to live very frugally of course. The worst thing is housing costs, and sadly, we don't have the kind of weather where one could just live in a tent all year round.

Sorry Rags!

But it has been suggested by Stooo, your partner on the Dogs forum, that you've never had to work, and he supports you?

Catman wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I do get what Eddie's saying though. We're all expected to follow a certain pattern in life, and not everyone is suited to this work thing, especially with the sort of jobs around - those dreadful call centres and pointless office work, or whatever.

I was reading a forum where people were complaining about work and saying that they were going to save as much as they could and then do nothing for a while. They would have to live very frugally of course. The worst thing is housing costs, and sadly, we don't have the kind of weather where one could just live in a tent all year round.

Sorry Rags!

But it has been suggested by Stooo, your partner on the Dogs forum, that you've never had to work, and he supports you?

No it hasn't. Stop going off topic and getting personal. I don't get personal with you, even though you do bleat about your private life all over the forum.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Catman wrote:


Sorry Rags!

But it has been suggested by Stooo, your partner on the Dogs forum, that you've never had to work, and he supports you?

No it hasn't. Stop going off topic and getting personal. I don't get personal with you, even though you do bleat about your private life all over the forum.

He inherited the pub?

Sorry Rags!

Your partner has been doxed on certain other forums.

He's a multi million pound, VAT tax evader.

Ok...He spend time at her majesty's pleasure for that attempt, what went on before?

You should stop trying to be so moral over others lives, when you are involved with someone like that.

Catman wrote:Sorry Rags!

Your partner has been doxed on certain other forums.

He's a multi million pound, VAT tax evader.

Ok...He spend time at her majesty's pleasure for that attempt, what went on before?

You should stop trying to be so moral over others lives, when you are involved with someone like that.

You're very judgemental aren't you? I thought you were supposed to be a tolerant "leftie".   

Catman wrote:

feelthelove wrote:

I can't believe that Phil, I'm sorry but there is always something you can do to help another even if it's just in local community   x

If someone is unemployed and on JSA, they have to show that they are actively seeking work, if they go to volunteering position, and apply for them (since you have to apply, they aren't given out willy nilly)...Then they aren't available for work, so they have their money stopped.

No they dont.
Even when I was ill I continued to volunteer, if its ok with the doctor its ok with job centre. You are allowed to do a certain number of hours and all you need is a letter from the organisation confirming the position is voluntary.
There are many many volunteering opportunities, the third sector is the only one growing in this country

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Because if everyone did that, there would be no taxes to pay for anything.

And? Then we'd have it think of another way wouldn't we?

And another thing. Everyone is made differently. So not everyone would do that.
Some people work because they love to work.
Most people, would love to get paid their wages to sit at home and hate working.

That's funny eddie.

It was meant to be funny wasn't it?

Catman wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I do get what Eddie's saying though. We're all expected to follow a certain pattern in life, and not everyone is suited to this work thing, especially with the sort of jobs around - those dreadful call centres and pointless office work, or whatever.

I was reading a forum where people were complaining about work and saying that they were going to save as much as they could and then do nothing for a while. They would have to live very frugally of course. The worst thing is housing costs, and sadly, we don't have the kind of weather where one could just live in a tent all year round.

Sorry Rags!

But it has been suggested by Stooo, your partner on the Dogs forum, that you've never had to work, and he supports you?

So what? My partner earns enough to support me and I don't work. I look after my two year old and believe me, I love it.
It's a 'job' and it's the best job in the world.

If Ragga's partner earns enough so that she doesnt have to, so what??? Lucky Ragga!

BigAndy9 wrote:

eddie wrote:

And? Then we'd have it think of another way wouldn't we?

And another thing. Everyone is made differently. So not everyone would do that.
Some people work because they love to work.
Most people, would love to get paid their wages to sit at home and hate working.

That's funny eddie.

It was meant to be funny wasn't it?

Which part Andy?

Raggamuffin wrote:I do get what Eddie's saying though. We're all expected to follow a certain pattern in life, and not everyone is suited to this work thing, especially with the sort of jobs around - those dreadful call centres and pointless office work, or whatever.

I was reading a forum where people were complaining about work and saying that they were going to save as much as they could and then do nothing for a while. They would have to live very frugally of course. The worst thing is housing costs, and sadly, we don't have the kind of weather where one could just live in a tent all year round.

That is what I am saying Ragga.

We are made to conform before we are born.
Everyone bleats on about the fact they hate their job, they hate the rat race etc......so don't work then! Who says you have to?
Who says you have to?

I'm only putting it out there that if you dint want to work you shouldn't have to. Why do something your whole life, that you hate, and then die very dissatisfied?
Why get stigmatised by people who do work?

It's just a different way to look at life.
Before people say it's stupid, perhaps they should think about why they are so programmed to think it's stupid?

eddie wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:

That's funny eddie.

It was meant to be funny wasn't it?

Which part Andy?

I meant your stance on this. I probably quoted the wrong post.

Erm, well, why shouldn't they?

All I'm saying is, why are we so down on people that may have other agendas to life and actually not want a lot in life?
Say they want to sit and write a book? What's wrong with that?


Why are we soooo obsessed with people who don't work? Because we choose to and we're jealous of those that don't???? Jealous of the fact that they are free enough to say "No thanks I just want to sit and watch the world for a while and then see what I want to do".

Why do we always assume the worst of these people?

I'm not sure that it is your stance - you're probably just "throwing it out there, asking the question", but I think the answer is blindingly obvious - sphinx has given it.

BigAndy9 wrote:

eddie wrote:

Which part Andy?

I meant your stance on this.  I probably quoted the wrong post.

Erm, well, why shouldn't they?

All I'm saying is, why are we so down on people that may have other agendas to life and actually not want a lot in life?
Say they want to sit and write a book? What's wrong with that?


Why are we soooo obsessed with people who don't work? Because we choose to and we're jealous of those that don't???? Jealous of the fact that they are free enough to say "No thanks I just want to sit and watch the world for a while and then see what I want to do".

Why do we always assume the worst of these people?

I'm not sure that it is your stance - you're probably just "throwing it out there, asking the question", but I think the answer is blindingly obvious - sphinx has given it.

I am throwing it out there and I don't find sphinx's answer to be quite thinking outside the box: she has answered robotically, like we are programmed to.

Perhaps I'd like a world where money didn't exist and we could either do a job we loved or not work at all, just grow our own veggies and meat lollipops?

Don't know how it'd work, I'd have to leave that to someone brainier and with more time on their hands than me......someone unemployed perhaps???   

eddie wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:

I meant your stance on this.  I probably quoted the wrong post.

Erm, well, why shouldn't they?

All I'm saying is, why are we so down on people that may have other agendas to life and actually not want a lot in life?
Say they want to sit and write a book? What's wrong with that?


Why are we soooo obsessed with people who don't work? Because we choose to and we're jealous of those that don't???? Jealous of the fact that they are free enough to say "No thanks I just want to sit and watch the world for a while and then see what I want to do".

Why do we always assume the worst of these people?

I'm not sure that it is your stance - you're probably just "throwing it out there, asking the question", but I think the answer is blindingly obvious - sphinx has given it.

I am throwing it out there and I don't find sphinx's answer to be quite thinking outside the box: she has answered robotically, like we are programmed to.

Perhaps I'd like a world where money didn't exist and we could either do a job we loved or not work at all, just grow our own veggies and meat lollipops?

Don't know how it'd work, I'd have to leave that to someone brainier and with more time on their hands than me......someone unemployed perhaps???   

Too many people now though isn't there?

If we could have a farm or large garden each then it would be ok.

sphinx spoke practically, not robotically.

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I do get what Eddie's saying though. We're all expected to follow a certain pattern in life, and not everyone is suited to this work thing, especially with the sort of jobs around - those dreadful call centres and pointless office work, or whatever.

I was reading a forum where people were complaining about work and saying that they were going to save as much as they could and then do nothing for a while. They would have to live very frugally of course. The worst thing is housing costs, and sadly, we don't have the kind of weather where one could just live in a tent all year round.

That is what I am saying Ragga.

We are made to conform before we are  born.
Everyone bleats on about the fact they hate their job, they hate the rat race etc......so don't work then! Who says you have to?
Who says you have to?

I'm only putting it out there that if you dint want to work you shouldn't have to. Why do something your whole life, that you hate, and then die very dissatisfied?
Why get stigmatised by people who do work?

It's just a different way to look at life.
Before people say it's stupid, perhaps they should think about why they are so programmed to think it's stupid?

I agree with a lot of that eddie. There is no rule that you must grow up and get a job which you hate, or any job at all. The problem is that if you don't, you're likely to be living off other people who have a job they hate, and that doesn't seem very fair.

The best thing of course is to do something that you love and happen to get paid for, but that's just a dream for many people unfortunately. The only other option is to do as little work as possible and spend as little as possible. As I said, the main problem is housing costs.

Raggamuffin wrote:

eddie wrote:

That is what I am saying Ragga.

We are made to conform before we are  born.
Everyone bleats on about the fact they hate their job, they hate the rat race etc......so don't work then! Who says you have to?
Who says you have to?

I'm only putting it out there that if you dint want to work you shouldn't have to. Why do something your whole life, that you hate, and then die very dissatisfied?
Why get stigmatised by people who do work?

It's just a different way to look at life.
Before people say it's stupid, perhaps they should think about why they are so programmed to think it's stupid?

I agree with a lot of that eddie. There is no rule that you must grow up and get a job which you hate, or any job at all. The problem is that if you don't, you're likely to be living off other people who have a job they hate, and that doesn't seem very fair.

The best thing of course is to do something that you love and happen to get paid for, but that's just a dream for many people unfortunately. The only other option is to do as little work as possible and spend as little as possible. As I said, the main problem is housing costs.

Yes and that's why people have a problem with people who choose not to work; they are in a job they hate!
You'll find that those of us who have jobs we love, care very little about those who do not work, because we are fundamentally happy.
Those of us who hates our jobs will moan because they're a little envious that they can't live with the stigma of not working.

We are so conditioned to WANT to work, to WANT to buy a house, to WANT more.

What would happen if we wasn't conditioned?

I can tell you now, I would rather be unemployed and poor, and bring up my children, than do a job I hate so I had more money.

In fact, I wouldn't do a job I hate. I tried that and I was so miserable, I felt like I was wasting my life. So I made myself unemployed and trained myself to do something I loved, then found work.

I don't believe in laying on your death bed with regrets. And I'd regret going to work so that I could live with more money.

Here's an interesting article about people who have become tired of their highly-paid jobs and have "downshifted". Some regretted it and some didn't.

I thought this bit was particularly interesting.

'Leisure sickness' is another term increasingly being used to describe the unexpected health impact suffered by those who give up the high life for lazy days. According to a study by psychologist Ad Vingerhoets of Tilburg University in the Netherlands, too much leisure can also make us ultra-responsive to physiological signals of illness.

'If you are in a boring environment, it is easier to recognise signals [of sickness] from your body,' Vingerhoets said after studying 2,000 people who became ill when they had little to do. 'A stimulating environment will repress sickness signals.' In other words, you feel better.

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2004/jan/04/workandcareers.observerfocus

feelthelove wrote:

Catman wrote:

What people already do those jobs, and what would happen to those people?

Honestly Phil, there are plenty of things you can do as a volunteer and make a difference without putting someone else out of a job.  It could lead to full time paid employment and if nothing else show to any future employer that you want to work, demonstrate your skills, loyalty, morality and commitment    x

   To be fair, I don't see here where FTL's reference to "loyalty" or "morality" fit into this discussion ~ they have never had anything to do with any volunteer "work" that I have done, and do do ~ ethics and attitude, however, are another matter again...

Sphinx and Ragamuffin have touched on the ideas before, in this thread    ~ with their references to schemes where "work for your benefits/doles schemes" are already used in many areas; (Also, it should be noted that around 15-16 hours a week in many voluntary schemes is sufficient to cover normal unemployment benefits..).

   AT THE SAME time, Catman does still have a couple of good points there in middle of his arguments ~ which I can support AS FACT from personal experience during periods of industrial downturns, and the folio-on economic changes :

* NO MATTER how much BigAndy or Sphinx may be wishing that the jobs were there to back their arguments, the simple fact is that the jobs simply aren't there ~ despite all of the lies that our governments keep on pushing to the contrary;   

* EVEN with "work for the dole" schemes, these still need to be thought through properly by the specific government departments/councils and local communities/charities or contractors that are involved, so that both sides are getting solid and worthwhile returns from their relevant investments of time and money..

* SOMETIMES, the authority that has been yoked with carrying the latest scheme doesn't even know what to do with their "conscripted volunteer labourers" (!) ~ when all that some councils can come up with is picking up papers or a bit of road-sweeping, with no skills-adding for the workers then obviously it's time to get a new co-ordinator/manager/facilitator ~ someone who can find the projects that need doing, liaise with local communities and businesses, nominate what training is necessary and/or handy, manage those workers, and bring those projects in within time and under budget !  

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I agree with a lot of that eddie. There is no rule that you must grow up and get a job which you hate, or any job at all. The problem is that if you don't, you're likely to be living off other people who have a job they hate, and that doesn't seem very fair.

The best thing of course is to do something that you love and happen to get paid for, but that's just a dream for many people unfortunately. The only other option is to do as little work as possible and spend as little as possible. As I said, the main problem is housing costs.

Yes and that's why people have a problem with people who choose not to work; they are in a job they hate!
You'll find that those of us who have jobs we love, care very little about those who do not work, because we are fundamentally happy.
Those of us who hates our jobs will moan because they're a little envious that they can't live with the stigma of not working.

We are so conditioned to WANT to work, to WANT to buy a house, to WANT more.

What would happen if we wasn't conditioned?

I can tell you now, I would rather be unemployed and poor, and bring up my children, than do a job I hate so I had more money.

In fact, I wouldn't do a job I hate. I tried that and I was so miserable, I felt like I was wasting my life. So I made myself unemployed and trained myself to do something I loved, then found work.

I don't believe in laying on your death bed with regrets. And I'd regret going to work so that I could live with more money.

Yes, I agree with all that.

It's very difficult for people to distinguish between what they want and what they're supposed to want IMO.

What happens though if a young person leaves school and decides that work is not for them? They would become a bit isolated and be very dependent on their parents - assuming that the parents don't nag them about getting a job. I think most people would get tired of that kind of life and want to stand on their own two feet.

Perhaps the problem is the type of job around these days. A lot of them are absolutely ghastly IMO. It's time that work was more pleasant and less regimented.

Beekeeper wrote:

feelthelove wrote:

Honestly Phil, there are plenty of things you can do as a volunteer and make a difference without putting someone else out of a job.  It could lead to full time paid employment and if nothing else show to any future employer that you want to work, demonstrate your skills, loyalty, morality and commitment    x

   To be fair, I don't see here where FTL's reference to "loyalty" or "morality" fit into this discussion ~ they have never had anything to do with any volunteer "work" that I have done, and do do ~ ethics and attitude, however, are another matter again...

Sphinx and Ragamuffin have touched on the ideas before, in this thread    ~ with their references to schemes where "work for your benefits/doles schemes" are already used in many areas; (Also, it should be noted that around 15-16 hours a week in many voluntary schemes is sufficient to cover normal unemployment benefits..).

   AT THE SAME time, Catman does still have a couple of good points there in middle of his arguments ~ which I can support AS FACT from personal experience during periods of industrial downturns, and the folio-on economic changes :

* NO MATTER how much BigAndy or Sphinx may be wishing that the jobs were there to back their arguments, the simple fact is that the jobs simply aren't there ~ despite all of the lies that our governments keep on pushing to the contrary;

* EVEN with "work for the dole" schemes, these still need to be thought through properly by the specific government departments/councils and local communities/charities or contractors that are involved, so that both sides are getting solid and worthwhile returns from their relevant investments of time and money..

* SOMETIMES, the authority that has been yoked with carrying the latest scheme doesn't even know what to do with their "conscripted volunteer labourers" (!) ~ when all that some councils can come up with is picking up papers or a bit of road-sweeping, with no skills-adding for the workers then obviously it's time to get a new co-ordinator/manager/facilitator ~ someone who can find the projects that need doing, liaise with local communities and businesses, nominate what training is necessary and/or handy, manage those workers, and bring those projects in within time and under budget !  

Re the last bit, I absolutely agree with that. It's a bit like employers who agree to take on a school kid for work experience, and then have no idea what to do with them. The school kid ends up thinking that work must be really boring and it puts them off.

I wouldn't mind money being spent on proper organisation of unemployed people and volunteer work - I think that would be better than people sitting at home losing their confidence and wondering what to do with their days.

eddie wrote:

Catman wrote:


Sorry Rags!

But it has been suggested by Stooo, your partner on the Dogs forum, that you've never had to work, and he supports you?

So what? My partner earns enough to support me and I don't work. I look after my two year old and believe me, I love it.
It's a 'job' and it's the best job in the world.

If Ragga's partner earns enough so that she doesnt have to, so what??? Lucky Ragga!

Thanks for this post eddie. He's talking rubbish of course, but your point is very valid.

eddie wrote:

Catman wrote:


Sorry Rags!

But it has been suggested by Stooo, your partner on the Dogs forum, that you've never had to work, and he supports you?

So what? My partner earns enough to support me and I don't work. I look after my two year old and believe me, I love it.
It's a 'job' and it's the best job in the world.

If Ragga's partner earns enough so that she doesnt have to, so what??? Lucky Ragga!

Well, looking after your own kids isn't a job eddie, but I know what you mean and I agree - if one parent can afford to stay at home like our parents did before the 90's that's good.

I think maybe Mr Catman was referring to something else - he was going on about illicit money at one stage - there's nothing good about illicit money such as a self employed person fiddling his taxes etc...

BigAndy9 wrote:

eddie wrote:

So what? My partner earns enough to support me and I don't work. I look after my two year old and believe me, I love it.
It's a 'job' and it's the best job in the world.

If Ragga's partner earns enough so that she doesnt have to, so what??? Lucky Ragga!

Well, looking after your own kids isn't a job eddie, but I know what you mean and I agree - if one parent can afford to stay at home like our parents did before the 90's that's good.

I think maybe Mr Catman was referring to something else - he was going on about illicit money at one stage - there's nothing good about illicit money such as a self employed person fiddling his taxes etc...

Please don't encourage Catman. He's only interested in having a dig at me re someone from another forum.

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I do get what Eddie's saying though. We're all expected to follow a certain pattern in life, and not everyone is suited to this work thing, especially with the sort of jobs around - those dreadful call centres and pointless office work, or whatever.

I was reading a forum where people were complaining about work and saying that they were going to save as much as they could and then do nothing for a while. They would have to live very frugally of course. The worst thing is housing costs, and sadly, we don't have the kind of weather where one could just live in a tent all year round.

That is what I am saying Ragga.

We are made to conform before we are  born.
Everyone bleats on about the fact they hate their job, they hate the rat race etc......so don't work then! Who says you have to?
Who says you have to?

I'm only putting it out there that if you dint want to work you shouldn't have to. Why do something your whole life, that you hate, and then die very dissatisfied?
Why get stigmatised by people who do work?

It's just a different way to look at life.
Before people say it's stupid, perhaps they should think about why they are so programmed to think it's stupid?

People are so programmed because people need food shelter warmth and health care. In society these things have to be paid for either by money from a job or direct labour in providing them for oneself.

People (as a rule) want the things that money gives them - they want a nice warm home, food in their stomach, and to be healed when ill. It is not possible to have these things without some one working. The person without a paid job who grows their own food and builds their own shelter etc is still working - but they are not the issue. The people who raise children or care for elderly while supported by others are working and they are not the issue.
The issue are the people who want a house to live in, clothes to wear and food to eat all without any effort on their part even where they are capable of effort.

sphinx wrote:

eddie wrote:

That is what I am saying Ragga.

We are made to conform before we are  born.
Everyone bleats on about the fact they hate their job, they hate the rat race etc......so don't work then! Who says you have to?
Who says you have to?

I'm only putting it out there that if you dint want to work you shouldn't have to. Why do something your whole life, that you hate, and then die very dissatisfied?
Why get stigmatised by people who do work?

It's just a different way to look at life.
Before people say it's stupid, perhaps they should think about why they are so programmed to think it's stupid?

People are so programmed because people need food shelter warmth and health care.  In society these things have to be paid for either by money from a job or direct labour in providing them for oneself.

People (as a rule) want the things that money gives them - they want a nice warm home, food in their stomach, and to be healed when ill.  It is not possible to have these things without some one working.  The person without a paid job who grows their own food and builds their own shelter etc is still working - but they are not the issue.  The people who raise children or care for elderly while supported by others are working and they are not the issue.
The issue are the people who want a house to live in, clothes to wear and food to eat all without any effort on their part even where they are capable of effort.

All that is true as well. I mentioned a forum I was reading about people who hated their jobs. Some of them really wanted to get out of the rat race but of course they talked about the house they were buying, their car, and all those other things that they were paying for, and they felt really trapped. Even if they could give all that up, they had dependants who didn't want them to.

Even if someone did decide to build their own shelter, they'd probably fall foul of the planning laws anyway.