ChatterBank1 min ago
That's The Grey Vote Sorted Then.......
78 Answers
https:/
....oh dear, poor Labour, just when they thought half a century without a GE win just might change!
....oh dear, poor Labour, just when they thought half a century without a GE win just might change!
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
//…how do you know that this is true?//
Because I personally know four people of whom this is true. I know them well, I know their personal circumstances and I know why they are not working (because they choose not to). That confirms that not all of the people who are not working would like to do so. As well as that, I encounter quite a few people in the work that I currently do who are in a similar position. When their circumstances are discussed it is often clear that there is no valid reason why they should not work. Expanding that a little, I doubt I am the only person in this country that knows of such people. The fact that no official statistics are published is unsurprising. Nobody who wants the State to support them and their families 100% is going to declare that they are simply indolent. For its part, the government is hardly going to admit to doling out money to those who are simply work-shy. If you choose to believe that everybody of working age who is unemployed would love to work if only given the opportunity, that’s your privilege. Personally I’m not so gullible.
//What benefit(s) do those folk receive?//
Couldn’t possibly say, Corby. The benefits system is so complex and convoluted that they could be in receipt of any of a large number of handouts. But that isn’t the complete point. Even leaving cash benefits aside, if they are not working and do not have a private income they are not contributing towards the facilities and services that they use. They will need medical treatment, their children will need education, they may use public transport (to name but a few). The country relies on those who can to pull their weight.
//in that 50 years we have had periods of high and low economic growth which does not suggest that they have anything to do with this country's prosperity//
Which demonstrates my point perfectly. Throughout that period there have been somewhere between one in four and one in five people of working age “inactive”. During that time the UK has not particularly prospered. It’s kept its head above water is about the best that can be said.
//... and of course the chart says nothing about the reasons for inactivity... i would guess that most of them are stay-at-home parents but that is only a guess//
I would put the number of stay-at -home parents (where the other partner is working) to be around 2.5m at most - and I think that's an over-estimate. There are somewhere in the region of 10m people of working age “inactive”. I accept that this includes students. But that's another area that the government should concern itself with (and somewhat off-topic for this thread).
Because I personally know four people of whom this is true. I know them well, I know their personal circumstances and I know why they are not working (because they choose not to). That confirms that not all of the people who are not working would like to do so. As well as that, I encounter quite a few people in the work that I currently do who are in a similar position. When their circumstances are discussed it is often clear that there is no valid reason why they should not work. Expanding that a little, I doubt I am the only person in this country that knows of such people. The fact that no official statistics are published is unsurprising. Nobody who wants the State to support them and their families 100% is going to declare that they are simply indolent. For its part, the government is hardly going to admit to doling out money to those who are simply work-shy. If you choose to believe that everybody of working age who is unemployed would love to work if only given the opportunity, that’s your privilege. Personally I’m not so gullible.
//What benefit(s) do those folk receive?//
Couldn’t possibly say, Corby. The benefits system is so complex and convoluted that they could be in receipt of any of a large number of handouts. But that isn’t the complete point. Even leaving cash benefits aside, if they are not working and do not have a private income they are not contributing towards the facilities and services that they use. They will need medical treatment, their children will need education, they may use public transport (to name but a few). The country relies on those who can to pull their weight.
//in that 50 years we have had periods of high and low economic growth which does not suggest that they have anything to do with this country's prosperity//
Which demonstrates my point perfectly. Throughout that period there have been somewhere between one in four and one in five people of working age “inactive”. During that time the UK has not particularly prospered. It’s kept its head above water is about the best that can be said.
//... and of course the chart says nothing about the reasons for inactivity... i would guess that most of them are stay-at-home parents but that is only a guess//
I would put the number of stay-at -home parents (where the other partner is working) to be around 2.5m at most - and I think that's an over-estimate. There are somewhere in the region of 10m people of working age “inactive”. I accept that this includes students. But that's another area that the government should concern itself with (and somewhat off-topic for this thread).
According to the ONS document linked on this page:
https:/
Between Nov 22 and Jan 23 there were 8,858,000 economically inactive
Of those 1.124 are ‘Other’ – that is not retired, students or carers
In total only 1,781,000 of the 8,858,000 are seeking work.
I know from our own recruitment issues that a lot of people don't want full time work as part time plus benefit top up pays more or as near as makes it not worth the extra hours working when you could be with family. Also that more 50+ are choosing to retire early.
https:/
Between Nov 22 and Jan 23 there were 8,858,000 economically inactive
Of those 1.124 are ‘Other’ – that is not retired, students or carers
In total only 1,781,000 of the 8,858,000 are seeking work.
I know from our own recruitment issues that a lot of people don't want full time work as part time plus benefit top up pays more or as near as makes it not worth the extra hours working when you could be with family. Also that more 50+ are choosing to retire early.
"Because I personally know four people of whom this is true. I know them well, I know their personal circumstances and I know why they are not working (because they choose not to). "
given that you are openly quite judgemental about the position of people not working is it plausible that they might not have shared something about their circumstances with you?
given that you are openly quite judgemental about the position of people not working is it plausible that they might not have shared something about their circumstances with you?
naomi
new judge asserted that a significant number of people who are not in work have no good reason to not be in work and are just nothing but workshy... a significant enough number in fact to seriously limit this country's potential for growth
I asked him how he knows that and it transpires that it's on the basis of four people we are to take his word on and cannot possibly verify...
personally i think it far more likely that most people who are economically inactive have good reason to be and the vast majority are doing no harm by it
new judge asserted that a significant number of people who are not in work have no good reason to not be in work and are just nothing but workshy... a significant enough number in fact to seriously limit this country's potential for growth
I asked him how he knows that and it transpires that it's on the basis of four people we are to take his word on and cannot possibly verify...
personally i think it far more likely that most people who are economically inactive have good reason to be and the vast majority are doing no harm by it
//given that you are openly quite judgemental about the position of people not working is it plausible that they might not have shared something about their circumstances with you?//
It’s plausible and even possible. But very unlikely. Three of them are very close friends whom I’ve known for many years. If anything they may be understating their reticence towards work.
//.. it transpires that it's on the basis of four people we are to take his word on and cannot possibly verify...//
That isn’t the only basis, as I explained. No, you can’t verify it and I don’t care whether you believe me or not. If you are content to believe that “…most people who are economically inactive have good reason to be and the vast majority are doing no harm by it” then I’m pleased for you. You may even be correct in that “most” (i.e. more than 50%) have good reason to be inactive. However, I believe there is a significant minority who do not have a good reason to be so and are simply freeloading.
It’s plausible and even possible. But very unlikely. Three of them are very close friends whom I’ve known for many years. If anything they may be understating their reticence towards work.
//.. it transpires that it's on the basis of four people we are to take his word on and cannot possibly verify...//
That isn’t the only basis, as I explained. No, you can’t verify it and I don’t care whether you believe me or not. If you are content to believe that “…most people who are economically inactive have good reason to be and the vast majority are doing no harm by it” then I’m pleased for you. You may even be correct in that “most” (i.e. more than 50%) have good reason to be inactive. However, I believe there is a significant minority who do not have a good reason to be so and are simply freeloading.
New Judge @ 19.21:
"You may even be correct in that “most” (i.e. more than 50%) have good reason to be inactive. However, I believe there is a significant minority who do not have a good reason to be so and are simply freeloading"
Confirmation, if it were needed, that NJ is an out of touch, isolated, ivory-towered blue rinse Tory. These people shouldn't be allowed to breathe, should they NJ?
"You may even be correct in that “most” (i.e. more than 50%) have good reason to be inactive. However, I believe there is a significant minority who do not have a good reason to be so and are simply freeloading"
Confirmation, if it were needed, that NJ is an out of touch, isolated, ivory-towered blue rinse Tory. These people shouldn't be allowed to breathe, should they NJ?
if you admit that it's possible you don't know the full details of your friends' circumstances then you must also surely recognise that it is likely that you don't know enough about those other cases you allude to... it is much better i find to try and base our opinions on information rather than on our nasty feelings toward people we happen to know
many people who are economically inactive (and not carers or students or sick) are people who are part of households where one member earns enough for both to live on... others live on their own savings or assets... I think it is quite nasty and invidious of you to describe such people as "freeloaders" considering that they are doing nothing to harm you or anyone else... if that's how you talk about your close friends then you can't be much of a friend
many people who are economically inactive (and not carers or students or sick) are people who are part of households where one member earns enough for both to live on... others live on their own savings or assets... I think it is quite nasty and invidious of you to describe such people as "freeloaders" considering that they are doing nothing to harm you or anyone else... if that's how you talk about your close friends then you can't be much of a friend
untitled 10:16, rarely have I heard such Naive cobras. There are entire estates full of WSS doing nothing but breeding more mouths for the hard workers of this country to feed. Generations of trobbery have created this mass of dead weight pulling us all down. They live a life of luxury paid for by those that actually get off their Aprils to do some work. It should not be that they can have a nice life doing ugger ball. Yes there may be the odd few living on other incomes savings etc but the vast majority are scrounging WSS. Wake up and smell the latte me old china.
10:33, how do I know? because that's how I was brought up, I'm 1 of 6, my parents never had a legit job in there lives, sometimes in jail, sometimes the odd cash in hand job etc. We knew every trick in the book to get more dosh out of the state. FWIW I have repaid many times what it cost to raise me.
if your parents were raising 6 children as well as working odd jobs (and assuming they weren’t being negligent) then it does not sound like they were “freeloaders”… you appear to have received a decent education and done pretty well based on what you have said… sounds like it was well worth what little the money your family received from the state
Latest Posts
News1 min ago
Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
Crosswords3 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles6 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.