Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[lallara zhuul]

If you're drunk, doing drugs, spend your time out all through the night pulling up shrubbery and practicing being menacing in a park, you do not have the energy to do a regular days work.

You will most likely be hungover or just too tired to get to work in the wee hours in the morning.

Sometimes common sense is all the 'evidence' you need.

[Kala]

What's up with pulling up shrubbery anyway    Nearby there was someone with massive pansy borders in their front garden - like, wall to wall flowers all crowded together - and one night someone pulled them all out and threw them in the road.  I mean, it's a very minor infraction as it goes, more of a nuisence, but why?  Who is going to be so angered by pansies they're going to think, damn these little flower faces, I am going to fuck their shit up?  Why even make the effort? /confused

Dunno if it's something personal against the owners or mindless destruction, but I guess it's the small things that keep people going and the effort and happiness they might have got out of their flowers makes me kinda    It just seems so...petty. 

I know it's much worse in the scheme of things, but I'm almost more ok with a stabbing or something, at least I can understand that. 

If you've got nothing better to do and want to pull up shrubbery go conservation volunteering.  That means pulling up lots of shrubbery - and people will thank you for it!

(sorry for the topic deviation  )

[Z.Sinraali]

That's not evidence.

Even if we grant that there's a total identity between "vandalisers" and "layabouts," with 100% overlap in membership, AND that the free time made available by not having to take a job induces the desire to vandalise--both of which are highly dubious propositions to begin with--the crime that needs to be punished is the vandalism, not the layaboutery. 

[Casiella]

I'm glad I'm not the only one here who prefers that policy be driven by data and not just what "everybody knows".

[Saede Riordan]

That's not evidence.

Even if we grant that there's a total identity between "vandalisers" and "layabouts," with 100% overlap in membership, AND that the free time made available by not having to take a job induces the desire to vandalise--both of which are highly dubious propositions to begin with--the crime that needs to be punished is the vandalism, not the layaboutery.

Right, because correlation does not imply causation. We don't have numbers.

Here, lets simplify it greatly and actually go ahead and create some hypothesises.

To Start we must define our terms:

W = The number of people on welfare in a given country

P1 = The percentage of people on welfare who do not desire jobs at all.

P2 = The percentage of people on welfare who would rather work, but are unable

P3 = The Percentage of people on welfare who desire work but find the work available beneath them*

L = The maximum hard number of outright layabouts on welfare that can exist without causing financial problems to the country in question.

C = The number of people who engage in criminal activity, including but not limited to vandalism, drug use, and disturbing the peace

P1c = The number of individuals who are part of both groups P1, and C

K1 = The percentage out of the total P1 group that group P1c occupies.

P2c = The number of individuals who are a part of both groups P2 and C

K2 = The percentage out of the total P2 group that group P2c occupies.

P3c = The number of individuals who are a part of both groups P3 and C

K3 = The percentage out of the total P3 group that group P3c occupies.


*Included in this category are the people with college degrees who don't want to take poor paying jobs, people to whom taking a job would not result in an increase in the standard of living from welfare, and people who previously had well paying jobs, that they have since lost.


Theory one (Lou's theory):  (if I have set this up incorrectly Lou then I apologize, feel free to correct it)

P1=W
P1c=P1
W > L
K1 = 100%

Theory Two
P1+P2+P3 = W
P1c < P1
P2c < P2
P3c < P3

If anyone wants to submit theories feel three, I'm going to start trying to Acquire Data

[lallara zhuul]

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/hub/browse-by-theme/index.html

Knock yourself out.

[Streya]

Properly speaking, those whom have no intention of acquiring a job are classified as "discouraged workers". In the United States, most states require individuals to be actively seeking work in order to receive welfare. That is, discouraged workers do not receive welfare in such states. This means that "layabouts", as they've been called in this thread, do not receive government assistance. How then can they contribute to the economic woes of a society?

Of course, I am not at all sure if the welfare system in the UK is similar.

[Kala]

Of course, I am not at all sure if the welfare system in the UK is similar.

It's a fucking tightrope

[Lyn Farel]

Properly speaking, those whom have no intention of acquiring a job are classified as "discouraged workers". In the United States, most states require individuals to be actively seeking work in order to receive welfare. That is, discouraged workers do not receive welfare in such states. This means that "layabouts", as they've been called in this thread, do not receive government assistance. How then can they contribute to the economic woes of a society?

Of course, I am not at all sure if the welfare system in the UK is similar.

How does it work ? We have a similar system in France where you have to look for a job to get the welfare. But you can deny the offers, especially if you are overskilled (meaning, working for a fast food chain when you have a master degree or whatever...). And most offers are shit and not even always on the field of your expertise...

Refusing the job offers does not cut one's access to governement welfare fortunately.

[Saede Riordan]

Yeah, well, let me describe how it is in NY:

To get Cash assistance, which is a flat 200 dollars a month, you have to put in 10 job applications per week and you must take any job you are offered. Any.

To get on foodstamps, you simply need to make less then 270 dollars a week (foodstamps are easy, honestly most of my city is on them, including the people who work)

To get on unemployment, (which pays like, 80% of your past wage) you need to have had a job and lost it through what can be described as no fault of your own. It lasts for a period equal to half the time you were employed.

To get welfare, that is, permanent like, you need to prove that you are incapable of work, this is most often only given for those with documentable medical conditions.

And thats it. It really does not seem that easy to abuse here. It still gets dragged out that there is all this abuse and such though. 

[Casiella]

Saede, the concept of a city where >50% of the population makes <$14k/yr seems a little difficult to understand.

And I only wish unemployment insurance here covered 80% of my previous wage. The last time I was eligible, it covered 20%. (That's not really a complaint because I make pretty good money, but the point is that it's capped.)

[Saede Riordan]

Saede, the concept of a city where >50% of the population makes <$14k/yr seems a little difficult to understand.

There's really very little work here, your options are the factories, which don't pay much, or the stores/restaurants, which don't pay much. Everyone who can pay for a degree gets one and gets the hell out of here. Not to mention that a lot of people have kids, and on minumum wage, you can barely feed yourself, much  less you and kids.

[Lyn Farel]

May be different in states other than NY ?

Also, speaking about families and children, you don't have family welfare of any sort ?

[Casiella]

Right, unemployment insurance is handled at a state level (though largely funded by the federal government, it's an odd system).

Welfare standards do change for families somewhat, mostly changing income requirements but there are additional benefits available to children. Depending on the state in which you live, these are sometimes hard to access but easier in other places.

[orange]

Right, unemployment insurance is handled at a state level (though largely funded by the federal government, it's an odd system).

Welfare standards do change for families somewhat, mostly changing income requirements but there are additional benefits available to children. Depending on the state in which you live, these are sometimes hard to access but easier in other places.

I suspect part of the difference between Saede and Casiella is that Casiella is in Texas.  Texas likely does not have an established State program other than one to execute the Federal program.  NY may have a State program that combines the two.