Back to Work

[andrewducker]

I've been involved in a couple of discussions recently about the government plans to make people work for their jobseekers allowance.

The problem with this is that it cuts into the time people could be spending looking for jobs, and won't even pay minimum wage.

And it occurred to me that this can all be short-circuited - there are already rules saying that people cannot refuse jobs they are offered, so why not make the government the employer of last resort.  If you don't have a job, and can't find one,  then the government could employ you.  After all, if there are things that need doing then the government could be sorting them, using whatever part of the labour force was "spare".  This would then mean the government would have to act in all the ways a normal employer would (holidays, minimum wage, etc.), things would get done, skills could be learned, etc.

It also solves another problem I've seen - people who are forced into awful jobs because there's nothing else available.  If the government jobs are always available then people on minimum wage jobs would _always_ have the option of saying "Fuck you and your bingo hall, I'm off to pick up litter." - giving people a constant fallback position.

Theoretically this would also mean less paperwork - signing on, etc., takes a lot of time to process, whereas temp agencies seem to manage to pay people with much with less staff.

I full acknowledge that this is just an off-the-cuff thought, and is bound to have problems.  Anyone care to shoot me down?

Comments

[lebeautemps.livejournal.com]

I agree that although the sentiment is good, they don't seem to have thought this through at all. Minimum wage needs to be raised, however painful that might be.

[chuma.livejournal.com]

Not right now it doesn't. With borrowing at an all time high and in the midst of a recession, increasing costs to businesses who cant even get loans from banks is not a sound plan unless you want to see more out of work.

[a-pawson.livejournal.com]

At this point in time, raising the minimum wage would be a disaster for employment. What is left of our manufacturing industry is competing against the cost of transporting goods from countries with very cheap labour. As soon as it becomes cheaper to ship goods from far far east than to produce them here, those jobs will disappear. It is really only transport costs that keeps any sort of industry here as even following the recent wage inflation in the far east, factory labour costs are in the region of $1 per hour.

Raising import taxes to discourage companies shifting manufacturing to the far east would be a start, but the current government, and indeed the previous Tory regime, are both in favour of minimal trade barriers and allowing as much free trade as possible.

[andrewducker]

As am I.

Punishing foreign workers for having low standards of living seems barking to me. They're no less deserving of getting my money than a worker in Liverpool is.

Rising oil costs and stringent emissions policies should have more of an effect on imports, of course.

[chuma.livejournal.com]

There is this minor problem of not having the money to do so? Minor in the sense of you could raise taxes to fund it, but I doubt potentially funding 1 million peoples wages is the job of government. There's a good reason it is less than minimum wage - it's all the budget can allow for.

[andrewducker]

Well, it would instantly reduce fraud (harder to claim that you worked for the government scheme than it is to defraud them and work elsewhere), and it would encourage people to look for better jobs if they were going to have to have a job anyway.

[chuma.livejournal.com]

Theres a few problems with the whole job system atm. Some people want specific jobs that they have trained for that just aren't available in their area and some are in the position where going to work loses them tax credits and such making it LESS worthwhile than staying at home doing nothing. I don't actually believe that benefit fraud is on quite the scale the Daily Mail would have us believe, and whilst it is criminal in both senses of the word, I'm not sure tarring all those out of work with the same brush is the best idea, which is what is happening with all these government schemes and 'prove yourself' ideas.

[andrewducker]

Oh, it's not - it's quite low. About 2% according to the last figures I saw.

But it's not about what people want. Wanting a job that isn't available in your area means you have to take something else until such a job turns up.

And if the tax credit system is broken then clearly that's what needs to be fixed.

[chillies.livejournal.com]

working tax credits are broken: complex forms that refer to previous years working patterns, and bolloxed IT infrastructure that makes a huge number of overpayments to name 2 reasons.

[randomchris.livejournal.com]

Yep, been claiming working tax credits for a couple of years and just got told to pay back £177.70, which is about 50% of what I've received from it. They're still paying us £12 a month though, which is nuts.

[makyo.livejournal.com]

I don't actually believe that benefit fraud is on quite the scale the Daily Mail would have us believe
It's not, but I guess it's easier (and sells more papers) to write long, ranting editorials about workshy scum who are freeloading off honest, hardworking taxpayers, than to go into detail about what 'private finance initiative' means (for example).

[miss-s-b.livejournal.com]

Also, there's the point that benefit fraud costs us about 1/16th what tax fraud by rich people does - I forget who had the figures for this, but it was probably Anton Vowl at Enemies of Reason, or Chicken Yoghurt...

[andrewducker]

f you find those figures again let me know!

[miss-s-b.livejournal.com]

Blargh. I've had a scan about and I can't find the piece. Chicky Yog, in particular, is SO prolific...

[drplokta]

Make-work (or even constructive-work) projects are much more expensive than benefits. Workers, unlike claimants, need HR departments, finance departments, health & safety officers, supervisors, managers, etc. You're not likely to pick up enough people with those skills from the dole queue, so you have to pay for them -- which also means pulling those skills out of the private sector where they could be generating actual wealth.

[andrewducker]

But they're already planning on making them work. Which presumably means they think that it will bring in more money than it costs.

Of course, it may be the case that it doesn't. In which case I expect it to be scrapped in a few years.

Of also course, it may well be that it costs money, but that the larger effects are still worthwhile, if it helps people back into work in the longer term.

Citizen's income

[chillies.livejournal.com]

A fallback position could be provided by a citizen's income -- an unconditional, non-withdrawable income that's enough to get by. It would eliminate much bureaucracy surrounding means testing benefits, and free up people to tell crap employers to stuff their jobs. Would also recompense informal volunteering (and more formal voluntary work). I don't see the Daily Mail liking it!

http://www.citizensincome.org/

Re: Citizen's income

[andrewducker]

Last I checked citizen's income didn't look anywhere near affordable. If you divide the Department of Work and Pension's annual budget (about £130Bn) and divide it by the number of people in the country (about 60 million), you get about £2000 each.

Now, of course, that's grossly simplistic - you'd need a large overhaul of the whole tax system for a citizen's income. But bohemiancoast (whose expertise I bow to in these matters) said (a few years ago) that £7k was about all you could expect it to be.

Which isn't terribly workable. Shame - as I love the idea.

Re: Citizen's income

[chillies.livejournal.com]

I don't think it's looking to replace the average income, and £7K is a good start. It'll mean people won't have to spend time going through hoops and could be productive in the way that they choose, like growing their own food, helping yr granny, or helping out a neighbour... That's stuff that doesn't turn up in GDP calculations and enriches all of us.

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation calculates that there's a return of between £2 to £8 on every pound spent on volunteering which could bump up the £7K to a respectable amount.

Re: Citizen's income

[andrewducker]

yes, but that £2-£8 isn't actually gained by the person doing the volunteering - so they'd still be "poor".

Re: Citizen's income

[chillies.livejournal.com]

Sure, but my £2-£8 multiplier helps my neighbour whose £2-£8 multiplier helps me.

It's not the amount of tokens someone has, it's whether their needs are being met. And I think that allowing people, neighbours and communities the opportunity to help each other will ensure that our needs are being met. More help, in fact, than if the government gives each of us 7,000 coins.

Re: Citizen's income

[andrewducker]

That's fine for basic needs, but it isn't going to buy me a new XBox!

Re: Citizen's income

[a-pawson.livejournal.com]

It's a great idea in principle. Unfortunately it would require a large increase in taxation, which no government would ever dare to suggest in this country.

Re: Citizen's income

[andrewducker]

UK GDP: £1.25trillion - http://www.measuringworth.org/ukgdp/
Tax as a proportion: 37% - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_the_United_Kingdom
-> Total tax = £462Bn

Population = 61 million
Tax/Population = £7500

To get it to minimum wage levels (£5.73/hr or £10,500 a year) we'd need to be paying 51% in taxes, on average.

Of course, that assumes that _all_ money would go to a citizen's income, leaving nothing for schools, hospitals, etc.

Re: Citizen's income

[chillies.livejournal.com]

51% taxes is not much higher than Norway, and then the teachers and doctors can work for free ;)

Re: Citizen's income

[0olong.livejournal.com]

I don't think anyone is arguing for it to be quite as high as minimum wage, is it? It could quite feasibly be less than or equal to current unemployment benefit, and still leave the majority of (currently) unemployed people effectively a good deal better off!

Also, it doesn't look like you've subtracted the money people would get straight back from the amount of taxation they'd be paying, which surely makes sense? Or made any allowance for the savings in the administration costs associated with a flat rate vs. the JSA as it is now...

Re: Citizen's income

[andrewducker]

Oh, absolutely - you can make it less and still have it be livable. You aren't going to remove the admin costs unless you also bundle council tax and housing benefit in there, of course.

Hmm - JSA = £50 a week = £225/month. Housing benefit, say £300 a month. Council tax = another £40/month (assuming you're sharing). Total of £565/month. Say £7k a year.

To get to that level you'd need £406Bn - or 30% tax. I suspect you'd thus need to put up tax rates to 50% overall to cover everything else.

Hmmm. Not a bad deal, to be honest - everyone gets a 7k income, with a 50% tax on everything earned over that. I'd be about the same there - £22k after tax versus £22.5k. I'd need to knock up a decent spreadsheet to work it out well though - and take into account the current tax system.

[pjc50.livejournal.com]

"people who are forced into awful jobs because there's nothing else available"

What makes you think the government makework jobs won't be worse? Especially as you really do have nowhere else to go and your co-workers don't care about the job but can't be fired.

[andrewducker]

Good point.

[woodpijn.livejournal.com]

I think it's a good idea in principle, but what would you do about people who accepted the last-resort jobs but never turned up, or behaved in other ways that would normally get you fired? You couldn't really fire them and leave them to starve (or turn to crime), but you couldn't really carry on paying them either.

[red-phil.livejournal.com]

Send them to the work houses!
or perhaps not.

[fiat-knox.livejournal.com]

I believe they are thinking of labour camps. They'll certainly need some for the workforce they'll be hiring to build the pyramids to Chairman Brown.

Or Chairman Cameron, if he gets in.

[johncoxon.livejournal.com]

The Army needs more men. Unemployed people that cannot find work should work for the Army.

Discuss! :)

[andrewducker]

Aaah, the Starship Troopers solution!

[aitkendrum.livejournal.com]

Oddly across from my work *that would be DWP* the Army have just opened a shiny new recruiting office across the road just as unemployment rises and in one of the more deprived areas of Glasgow...

[themongkey.livejournal.com]

I can't think of anything better calculated to crush the human spirit than cracking down on the unemployed as thousands more join their number every day.

[andrewducker]

Actually, various studies have shown that sitting at home jobless makes you significantly more depressed than having any job at all (well, unless your boss is a complete bastard).

Putting people into employment looks to be a good idea overall.

[broin.livejournal.com]

That's not what themongkey said, though.

We might get another couple of million unemployed. There won't be government (or other) jobs for most of them, and this downturn is absolutely the wrong time to faff around with unemployment. Any money that could be spent restructuring the system should go instead to just coping with the extra unemployment we're gonna have - genuine support and a minimum 'wage'.

Also, being unemployed is not equivalent to 'sitting around jobless'.

[andrewducker]

Unfortunately, a fair number of long-term jobless are sitting at home feeling depressed. I linked to a BBC article about this a week or so back.

And he mentioned "cracking down" - which wasn't what I was talking about, so I assumed that he meant it in the context of my post, which was talking about helping people back into jobs.

[broin.livejournal.com]

Helping people back into jobs is also not the same as working for a government job where you can't be fired, where no-one else has sellable skills, and where you'd be likely looked down on for being some sort of untouchable.

I mean, ick.

I know it can lead to depression - more of a joly than a loved one's death - but joblessness isn't *necessarily* a downward spiral. When I was unemployed for 18 months, I was funnelled towards training, for example, which ultimately proved more useful than, say, picking litter.

[andrewducker]

You seemed to have assumed that the jobs I'd want to give people would be awful ones. And that's fair enough, as although I did say that "skills would be learned", but I wasn't explicit enough that I wouldn't want these to be jobs that had people doing mindless things, as that would be the height of stupidity.

[broin.livejournal.com]

So what jobs are worthwhile enough that wouldn't be done for profit by someone else?

One of the big expenses in recycling is sorting and deconstruction, which takes time, effort and expertise. As resources may thin out in the next few years, this would seem to be worth getting into. But it would be grubby, unpleasant work.

[themongkey.livejournal.com]

I'm don't disagree with that, I just think that maybe the time to try and get people off the dole and into jobs was probably when there were, y'know, more jobs.

[andrewducker]

Oh, I totally agree.