LadyEllen
Posts: 10931
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: Stourport-England
Status: offline
|
In addition to the ACORN threads and those touching on the subject by way of the health care threads, I wondered if it should not be of some benefit to discuss the nature and origins of the social welfare claimant, described as an indolent, malingering freeloader by some and held up as victim of circumstance by others.
I live in an area of my town here in England populated principally by welfare claimants, and its apparent that they come in a wide variety here.
We have the physically disabled, those on sick leave for one reason or another, the mentally ill and the elderly – which few I would hope would believe should not be entitled to claim support from the rest of us through the tax system.
And then we have a whole range of troubled souls, which few employers would so much as consider – those dependent on various substances (alcohol being the most prevalent) and those on parole or with a criminal record. This group crosses into the former quite significantly in that it contains many who are mentally ill for whom their substance abuse is a form of self medication and who often end up in prison as a result of their symptoms. These then are the unemployable.
Then there are the Bangladeshi Muslims who have made this area their home. Aside from those few engaged in the fast food, restaurant or corner shop sectors, this population along with the Pakistani Muslim population generally in the UK features the highest rate of unemployment and benefit dependency by ethnicity/ religion for both males and females. Why this should be so is something rarely discussed, though culture, language difficulty and isolation from the mainstream must play parts in the story.
And we must not forget a large swathe who are trapped on benefits. They could certainly work, but because the work they could get pays little, it would be to their disadvantage to gain employment. And given the uncertainty of such work and the intricacies, delays and complications of getting back onto benefits, the prospect of work is only made more unattractive. Are they malingering freeloaders, or are they merely making a sound economic choice so as to be sure to have a place to live and food to eat? At this level after all, incomes from work do not include any profit. Meanwhile incoming economic migrants take this work because it pays more than they would get at home (often for qualified work), which then leads to discontent about immigration.
Aside then from those in the turnover – inbetween gainful employment prospects – we have identified those who are dependent on benefits. What is notable is that each group identified is hindered in some way by barriers to finding employment, whether these are physical, cultural, behavioural or economic in nature. And we have also seen that though we might discern groups in this way, there is some crossover between them, especially as regards mental illness for which long term unemployment is so often a precursor.
In an economy which for the past thirty years has accepted a historically high unemployment rate and also cut back on services that might have reduced or removed the barriers identified, one must ask what is it that we intend these welfare dependent populations to do, to put their lives back on a more mainstream path? And we must be looking to them to act, for our economic policy and our social policy is certainly of no help to them.
To imagine that we might exclude by one means or another a sizeable proportion of the population, and to do so over two or three generations now, without this having serious deleterious effects on the wider society however, is foolishness at its most obvious. It is not to say that those on social welfare payments are criminal in nature, but it is to say that we risk elevated criminality if we dispose of a large number of people who are thereby left with no stake whatever in a law abiding and civil society.
Where must we then look for why this situation has occurred and why it is that so many observe the welfare dependents amongst us as indolent malingerers whose very existence is a threat to all that is good and holy?
Quite simply it has been successive governments, manipulating and manipulated by market forces with the underlying assumption being throughout that the market is always right and will always deliver the best of worlds, combined with the infamous related idea that “there is no such thing as society”. If we wish then to live in a civilised world, we need examine these two assumptions, that have formed the basis for what is an early 19th century experiment in a more enlightened 20th and 21st century that has failed, and examine also as to why those thrown thereby onto the scrapheap ought to bear the responsibility for the mess we are in rather than those pulling the strings?
And this without looking into the increasing wealth gap and the fall in standard of living for those working in most occupations, for which the government answer is not to examine the situation but to top up their incomes with tax credits and the like.
E
_____________________________
In a test against the leading brand, 9 out of 10 participants couldnt tell the difference. Dumbasses.
|
social welfare dependents - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread