"Economic inactivity" in the north

Started by Eamonnca1, August 05, 2021, 05:53:38 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Do you know at least one person from the north who doesn't work and doesn't have a good reason for it?

Yes, I know of at least one lazy hallion who doesn't work because it's a lifestyle choice
27 (65.9%)
Yes, but they all have a good reason for not working
0 (0%)
No, everyone I know of working age and physically capable of working is employed
14 (34.1%)

Total Members Voted: 41

Armagh18

Quote from: BennyCake on August 06, 2021, 01:32:16 PM
Quote from: Kidder81 on August 06, 2021, 01:08:32 PM
Some countries have a benefit system where the benefits for not working have a set time period. Be interesting to see how many would find work when the benefits stop. In my opinion someone who has worked and paid into the system should receive more than someone who has never worked

What about carers who look after a severely disabled or mentally ill child/parent/spouse? What about someone who has had to give up working due to illness/injury? Are they less deserving of healthcare costs, school dinners, free dental etc? Are they less deserving of a pension when they reach retirement age?
But who is saying those people arent deserving of a helping hand? Anyone here has only said people who could work but chose to lie on their arse don't deserve benefits.

armaghniac

Quote from: APM
Few things for you to consider:
The economically inactive includes housewives or stay-at-home mums.  It includes lots of people that get no benefits because a partner is working.  Maybe they are unwell or maybe they are 100% fine and choose not to work.  They might be in education.

Some economic inactivity represents good times. In the ROI especially quite a lot of people are in education. I know several people that have taken early retirement, having worked hard for 40 years. People act as carers or have illness themselves. So we have to be quite clear on who exactly we are talking about.


Quote from: APM on August 06, 2021, 03:10:21 PM
There are very few people whiter than white.  Plenty of people have a great work ethic, but it doesn't mean that they are pulling their weight in every way.

PS - I'm not judging anyone here - I just think he without sin cast the first stone

This "without guilt" is too easy. To take a GAA analogy, should we not be allowed comment on someone sent off or some absolute dirt on the field because we may have got tick in the book from time to time ourselves? There is also a matter of degree, if someone does 130Kmh on the motorway are they then unable to criticise someone driving at 80kmh in a housing estate?
If at first you don't succeed, then goto Plan B

BennyCake

Quote from: Armagh18 on August 06, 2021, 04:08:10 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on August 06, 2021, 01:32:16 PM
Quote from: Kidder81 on August 06, 2021, 01:08:32 PM
Some countries have a benefit system where the benefits for not working have a set time period. Be interesting to see how many would find work when the benefits stop. In my opinion someone who has worked and paid into the system should receive more than someone who has never worked

What about carers who look after a severely disabled or mentally ill child/parent/spouse? What about someone who has had to give up working due to illness/injury? Are they less deserving of healthcare costs, school dinners, free dental etc? Are they less deserving of a pension when they reach retirement age?
But who is saying those people arent deserving of a helping hand? Anyone here has only said people who could work but chose to lie on their arse don't deserve benefits.

It was just the general tone I didn't like. nobody knows what somebody's situation is. They might seem fit and able, but many issues aren't so clear cut.

Also, if you like your job, and all that it entails, then that's great, you're lucky. And if you're financially  better off because of it, and can provide for your family, buy nice things, even better. If people chose not to or aren't able to work, their lives are likely to be less enhanced with material goods, expendable income , eating poorer quality food, good car etc. So, why castigate them? 

TabClear

#78
Quote from: BennyCake on August 06, 2021, 05:45:49 PM
Quote from: Armagh18 on August 06, 2021, 04:08:10 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on August 06, 2021, 01:32:16 PM
Quote from: Kidder81 on August 06, 2021, 01:08:32 PM
Some countries have a benefit system where the benefits for not working have a set time period. Be interesting to see how many would find work when the benefits stop. In my opinion someone who has worked and paid into the system should receive more than someone who has never worked

What about carers who look after a severely disabled or mentally ill child/parent/spouse? What about someone who has had to give up working due to illness/injury? Are they less deserving of healthcare costs, school dinners, free dental etc? Are they less deserving of a pension when they reach retirement age?
But who is saying those people arent deserving of a helping hand? Anyone here has only said people who could work but chose to lie on their arse don't deserve benefits.

It was just the general tone I didn't like. nobody knows what somebody's situation is. They might seem fit and able, but many issues aren't so clear cut.

Also, if you like your job, and all that it entails, then that's great, you're lucky. And if you're financially  better off because of it, and can provide for your family, buy nice things, even better. If people chose not to or aren't able to work, their lives are likely to be less enhanced with material goods, expendable income , eating poorer quality food, good car etc. So, why castigate them?

Just to reiterate, I do not think anyone on here has said that there should not be a benefit system in place for people who genuinely need it. And I fully appreciate that many people who are deemed "scroungers" or "loafers" have problems that the general public dont see. And for the record, I would have no issue with the benefit system being such that these genuine claimants do enjoy a standard of life comparable to a "normal" standard of living. Most of them would love to be able to go out and earn a living but cant because of their situation (be it care responsibilities, disabilities etc). They absolutely should be supported.

However I have absolutely no issue with castigating someone who chooses to  do nothing and expect things to be handed to them. They are the using resources that mean the genuine cases above cant get the support they should as there is a finite pot of money available for all claimants.

Eamonnca1

Quote from: BennyCake on August 06, 2021, 05:45:49 PM
Quote from: Armagh18 on August 06, 2021, 04:08:10 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on August 06, 2021, 01:32:16 PM
Quote from: Kidder81 on August 06, 2021, 01:08:32 PM
Some countries have a benefit system where the benefits for not working have a set time period. Be interesting to see how many would find work when the benefits stop. In my opinion someone who has worked and paid into the system should receive more than someone who has never worked

What about carers who look after a severely disabled or mentally ill child/parent/spouse? What about someone who has had to give up working due to illness/injury? Are they less deserving of healthcare costs, school dinners, free dental etc? Are they less deserving of a pension when they reach retirement age?
But who is saying those people arent deserving of a helping hand? Anyone here has only said people who could work but chose to lie on their arse don't deserve benefits.

It was just the general tone I didn't like. nobody knows what somebody's situation is. They might seem fit and able, but many issues aren't so clear cut.

Also, if you like your job, and all that it entails, then that's great, you're lucky. And if you're financially  better off because of it, and can provide for your family, buy nice things, even better. If people chose not to or aren't able to work, their lives are likely to be less enhanced with material goods, expendable income , eating poorer quality food, good car etc. So, why castigate them?

Nobody has said that all people on benefits are lazy. That's been clear from the start, and I was careful in my wording of the poll and the OP to make it clear.

As for castigating them, I'm more interested in why people are making this choice not to work. I think we should all be able to agree that it's not a good thing without pointing fingers or personalizing it.

The kind of questions I want to ask are about how it could be discouraged. What are the incentives that people are responding to? Does it make economic sense for them not to work, and if so why? Instead of it being a case of benefits being too generous, is it a case of the minimum wage being too low?  Is there a cultural problem where low wage or blue collar work isn't respected enough? Are there mobility problems like car dependency and poor urban planning that make it hard for people to physically travel to a job from where they live?

I think that's a more productive type of conversation. I take your point that making statements like "they are just bad people" is unhelpful. That's like giving out about antisocial behavior or travellers making a mess. We all know it's a problem, but the solutions are a bit more complex than saying "they need to stop it."

Eamonnca1

Another thing.

I live in a country with a very weak social safety net. Not far from me are massive homeless encampments. The land in front of the airport, on the approach to the runway where you can't build anything, has become one big shantytown full of camper vans and makeshift shelters. There's a park with a beautiful river trail running through it (I used to commute on it) that has become another shantytown, with shelters becoming bigger, more elaborate, and more numerous. There's another small park closer to the middle of town that has nice monuments and surrounded by beautiful buildings and luxury apartments, but the park is completely overrun by homeless people lying on the ground and sitting around at all hours of the day and night, making it unusable by families. The light rail system is a homeless shelter on wheels because of scant fare enforcement. The longest bus route in the county is called the "Hotel 22" because homeless people use it at night to go across town and back, getting a couple of hours of sleep each way.

I see every day what it's like when the social safety net is not good enough, so NI's problems are a lot smaller, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be worked on too. People living on benefits is a smaller problem than mass homelessness, but it's still a problem that's worth addressing. There's a happy medium somewhere between leaving people to their own devices on the street and paying them to sit at home watching Sky TV all day.

Rois

Quote from: Eamonnca1 on August 06, 2021, 07:08:26 PM
The kind of questions I want to ask are about how it could be discouraged. What are the incentives that people are responding to? Does it make economic sense for them not to work, and if so why?
The cost of childcare is at least one element that discourages people from working. I'm sure many on here pay full time childcare for one or more children so know how much it costs (I'm about to enter that world).  Completely disproportionate to salaries here. I can totally understand why people decide that the cost of childcare is just too high for them to financially benefit from working in paid employment, at least til school starts.

Kidder81

Quote from: Rois on August 06, 2021, 07:35:17 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on August 06, 2021, 07:08:26 PM
The kind of questions I want to ask are about how it could be discouraged. What are the incentives that people are responding to? Does it make economic sense for them not to work, and if so why?
The cost of childcare is at least one element that discourages people from working. I'm sure many on here pay full time childcare for one or more children so know how much it costs (I'm about to enter that world).  Completely disproportionate to salaries here. I can totally understand why people decide that the cost of childcare is just too high for them to financially benefit from working in paid employment, at least til school starts.

Universal Credit pays up to 85% of childcare

Rois

Shows how much I know about universal credit.
I know quite a few people who are economically inactive for that reason but probably not claiming benefits.

Tony Baloney

Quote from: Rois on August 06, 2021, 08:10:56 PM
Shows how much I know about universal credit.
I know quite a few people who are economically inactive for that reason but probably not claiming benefits.
It's a fair point. We had a girl working part time, who had a husband with a good job and as she was having her 3rd child her childcare was on par with if not more than her nett. She said she'd rather stay at home for a few years and rear her own children rather than pay someone to do it. Fair enough.

Mike Tyson

Quote from: Kidder81 on August 06, 2021, 07:44:19 PM
Quote from: Rois on August 06, 2021, 07:35:17 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on August 06, 2021, 07:08:26 PM
The kind of questions I want to ask are about how it could be discouraged. What are the incentives that people are responding to? Does it make economic sense for them not to work, and if so why?
The cost of childcare is at least one element that discourages people from working. I'm sure many on here pay full time childcare for one or more children so know how much it costs (I'm about to enter that world).  Completely disproportionate to salaries here. I can totally understand why people decide that the cost of childcare is just too high for them to financially benefit from working in paid employment, at least til school starts.

Universal Credit pays up to 85% of childcare

If you qualify for it. If you have a full time job that doesn't pay a massive amount then in a lot of cases, as Rois said, it makes perfect sense not to work as the cost of childcare can be higher than salary minus travel expenses etc.

charlieTully

Data released today shows the north of Ireland is the only place on earth able bodied men and women who could work refuse.

Silver hill

Quote from: charlieTully on August 06, 2021, 09:35:31 PM
Data released today shows the north of Ireland is the only place on earth able bodied men and women who could work refuse.

Commas can be useful sometimes.

Silver hill

Quote from: Eamonnca1 on August 06, 2021, 07:24:58 PM
Another thing.

I live in a country with a very weak social safety net. Not far from me are massive homeless encampments. The land in front of the airport, on the approach to the runway where you can't build anything, has become one big shantytown full of camper vans and makeshift shelters. There's a park with a beautiful river trail running through it (I used to commute on it) that has become another shantytown, with shelters becoming bigger, more elaborate, and more numerous. There's another small park closer to the middle of town that has nice monuments and surrounded by beautiful buildings and luxury apartments, but the park is completely overrun by homeless people lying on the ground and sitting around at all hours of the day and night, making it unusable by families. The light rail system is a homeless shelter on wheels because of scant fare enforcement. The longest bus route in the county is called the "Hotel 22" because homeless people use it at night to go across town and back, getting a couple of hours of sleep each way.

I see every day what it's like when the social safety net is not good enough, so NI's problems are a lot smaller, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be worked on too. People living on benefits is a smaller problem than mass homelessness, but it's still a problem that's worth addressing. There's a happy medium somewhere between leaving people to their own devices on the street and paying them to sit at home watching Sky TV all day.

Good post
Where do you currently live?

Eamonnca1

Quote from: Silver hill on August 06, 2021, 11:25:47 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on August 06, 2021, 07:24:58 PM
Another thing.

I live in a country with a very weak social safety net. Not far from me are massive homeless encampments. The land in front of the airport, on the approach to the runway where you can't build anything, has become one big shantytown full of camper vans and makeshift shelters. There's a park with a beautiful river trail running through it (I used to commute on it) that has become another shantytown, with shelters becoming bigger, more elaborate, and more numerous. There's another small park closer to the middle of town that has nice monuments and surrounded by beautiful buildings and luxury apartments, but the park is completely overrun by homeless people lying on the ground and sitting around at all hours of the day and night, making it unusable by families. The light rail system is a homeless shelter on wheels because of scant fare enforcement. The longest bus route in the county is called the "Hotel 22" because homeless people use it at night to go across town and back, getting a couple of hours of sleep each way.

I see every day what it's like when the social safety net is not good enough, so NI's problems are a lot smaller, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be worked on too. People living on benefits is a smaller problem than mass homelessness, but it's still a problem that's worth addressing. There's a happy medium somewhere between leaving people to their own devices on the street and paying them to sit at home watching Sky TV all day.

Good post
Where do you currently live?

San Jose, California.