Exposed: the myth of a 'culture of worklessness'

page: 2
17
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 02:22 AM
link   
reply to post by helltick
 


Who is a joke? And if so, do you really want the punchline?

I would advise against it.




posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 03:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Exposed: the myth of a 'culture of worklessness'


www.guardian.co.uk

Together with Andy Furlong at Glasgow University and researchers Johann Roden and Robert Crow, we undertook fieldwork in very deprived neighbourhoods of Glasgow and Middlesbrough. We used every method available to try to locate families with three generations that had never worked, such as spending days surveying clients of job centres, interviewing dozens of organisations that worked in these neighbourhoods, advertising via posters, newsletters and newspaper stories through leafleting and door-knocking and spending months in these neighbourhoods talking to hundreds of residents.


Despite
(visit the link for the full news article)



And for the next couple of days there will counter-propaganda as to workless figures in order to muddy the waters and reinforce the 'scrounger' narrative.

It's germane to point out that the much lauded increase in 'jobs' over the last couple of weeks also includes people placed on the workfare programme, and 'zero hour' jobs.

It's farcical and mendacious for the government to continue this narrative when, even if every available job vacancy was filled tomorrow, it would only reduce the jobless figures by a 1/4 an many of those jobs would result in underemployment as there's very few full time peramanent jobs around. Similarly the narrative about 'the disabled are able to do something' - that's all well and done but it's pointless demanding this of people when even able bodied people without years of sickness and disabilities can't find work.

This government have painted themselves into a corner. By launching the 'we're skint and it's New Labour's fault' austerity narrative, they've also talked down the economy and it's impacted business and banking. It's also impacting the 'small economy' - people on low incomes and benefits tend to spend their money rather than save it and it's this more than anything else that keeps many towns afloat (particularly the towns shafted by 30 years of Thatcherite politics). Further cuts in benefits, including benefits for people actually in some kind of paid work, is going to crush that as well. This government has nothing but ideology.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 06:25 AM
link   
The targetting of "those on welfare" is a strategy which is well known in warfare called "Divide and conquer". The aim of those with the wealth (who invariably avoid paying taxes and leave it to us who have no choice on PAYE) is make people look at a.n.other target. It seems to be working as indicated by recent opinion polls.

Once the facts are exposed you have a choice : target the real problems ie the ever increasing concentration of ever more money in ever fewer hands or get angry at a non existant problem.......

The choice aligns with politics and economic theory as well, which is real bummer for some tabloid readers



posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 01:35 PM
link   
Well all they had to do was come to the US! In Philly we have four and five workless generations living under the same roof - with smartphones!



posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by chasingbrahman
 


Aye, thats as maybe, but the article was focusing on words spoken by the current UK governments members, and how valid they are. As it turns out, they arent.



posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueBrit
 


Well my hope for your country is that this case is never valid for you. Seeing it in action here, and the rate at which needy families seem to multiply their members via leporine breeding tactics, it's woefully depressing in that it's apparently irreversible since as each generation is more inept than the last.



posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by chasingbrahman
 


In our country, the poorest are the hardest working, and always have been. Its a fact that many in power dispute, but a fact it remains. Ask the coal miners who worked till they literally died, but were paid a pittance, before having thier livelihoods taken away completely. They will tell you, assuming thier lungs are up to it.



posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueBrit
 


We call that group the "working poor" here. They're given credit for having the work ethic, strength and pure gumption to build our country's infrastructure. And yes, our country flushes them away when they've tired, but only after publicly honoring their sacrifices. Perhaps this is more of a human condition than a political one. I've often opined there aren't many roles left, save master and servant.



posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by chasingbrahman
 


In my country, the poor do all the tough physical work, while getting crapped on from above. Those who want work but cannot get it are called shiftless and lazy by the government, despite the FACT that it is the fault of successive governments that there is no work anymore. Those who have work are in constant fear of loosing it, because companies and government alike would rather make a thousand infrastructurally important frontline workers redundant, than let a rich entitled swine take a decade off and live of his or her savings.

No appreciation is ever given to those who sweep the roads, clear the garbage, stack the shelves, shine the shoes, work the checkouts, or anything else that matters a damn actually. We suffer all the idignities of poverty, and all the trials of a working day, risk damaging our bodies to perform our tasks and take home our pathetic pay packets, to try and feed our families, or heat our homes. We get screwed by everyone,and we do all this so that we can earn the right to grow to infirmity, and be abused in a care home, or die, frozen, starved and alone, often covered in our own urine and feaces, withered and harrowed by the years. Thats certainly all my generation have to look forward to at the moment. Im twenty seven, and according to the way things are going, I have no future.



posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueBrit
 


if you want a future, the first thing you need to learn is that rights are not earned. No one gives you a right. Rights are given by the fact that you are alive. They are imbued via creation.

You don't have a right to a nursing home, either.
The only rights you have are those you secure for yourself, and then manage to retain.

If you are in the UK, you're people have done as bad a job at securing and maintaining those rights as anyone else in the US.



posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 04:07 AM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


That is rubbish - the only right you have by virtue of being "created" is the right to die.

Every other right we suppose we have is guaranteed by the society that grants them to us.



posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 05:02 AM
link   
Of course people want to work, we are sold the myth of the lazy scrounger in order to hide the fact that capitalism requires unemployment.

It is a reserve pool of labour but it also serves to help reduce wages, or at least reduce wage increases, and motivates those that are working to not make any demands on their employers.

It decreases the power of the working class. If there was full employment employers would have to continually increase wages, and improve working conditions, because workers could easily find other employment.


Mass unemployment has been a feature of capitalism since it emerged as the dominant social system in 17th century England and spread throughout the world. It is also an essential part of the system -- the misery of the unemployed and underemployed fuels the profits, which keep the capitalist economy going.


Capitalism and unemployment



posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 06:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Of course people want to work, we are sold the myth of the lazy scrounger in order to hide the fact that capitalism requires unemployment.

It is a reserve pool of labour but it also serves to help reduce wages, or at least reduce wage increases, and motivates those that are working to not make any demands on their employers.

It decreases the power of the working class. If there was full employment employers would have to continually increase wages, and improve working conditions, because workers could easily find other employment.


Mass unemployment has been a feature of capitalism since it emerged as the dominant social system in 17th century England and spread throughout the world. It is also an essential part of the system -- the misery of the unemployed and underemployed fuels the profits, which keep the capitalist economy going.


Capitalism and unemployment


I would be remiss if i didn't call out your source for the quote you provided above.

Capitalism is an economic system, not a social system. Social systems would involve classes, etc, etc. While economics plays a role there, it is not one in the same. The social system is controlled more by media, today, and I would hazard a guess that you would need a new definition to describe what we have in place. Having said that, social systems among humans varies very little.

Capitalism, in its purest form, is just people observing market values for things. If the market value of labor is low, obviously that does benefit the corporation. When playing the game of price point and supply vs demand, there is little beneft to a large corporation in dealing in volume (although volume works great for individual companies within a corporation), as there is not a conservation of resources (meaning it will be more expensive to acquire raw materials for production if one is only selling to volume and not price point).

The cost of labor is about half of your business operations, typically in most industries. So there is no doubt that incremental revenue (which flows right into the bottom line) cannot be had by controlling labor costs. Do corporations collude to do this? You betcha. And We The People empower them in this action by buying their stuff.

BUT....is it a requirement of capitalism? Absolutely not.



posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 06:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


That is rubbish - the only right you have by virtue of being "created" is the right to die.

Every other right we suppose we have is guaranteed by the society that grants them to us.


No, you have your rights as prescribed by natural law. For example, if you live, you have a right to that life. By virtue of having a right to live, then you also have a right to defend that life, and to work towards sustaining that life.

In our natural state...that is where your rights lay Now, you may have your rights taken away by someone. That is why i say, "You only have those rights which you secure for yourself".

You may have a philosophical disagreement with me. And that is fine. But I secure such rights for myself. And if i expect that they are mine to keep, I also must presume they are for everyone else as well. But by all means....feel free to cede and ignore those rights which are yours, even if you don't want them.



posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 07:27 AM
link   
I think there is rather too much habitual, and unhelpful, never mind unrealistic tendancy to seperate an economic system from a sociological one. There IS no distinction, or no distinction worth making.

If you live under a capitalist agenda, that has unavoidable effects on the social circumstances in the area in which that system is observed. The same could be said for a communist system, save that those effects will differ, in some cases slightly, and in others widely.

Trying to seperate these things from one another is foolish and wasteful at best, and a deliberate obsfucation at worst. Certain economic circumstances and methodologies, result in societal issues that are a sole result of that economic circumstance. Societal changes automatically bring about economic ones. Economic changes bring about societal ones. It is not I who confuse these things as the same, but folks who confuse them as being different in any IMPORTANT regard. They are two halves of the same Chimera.



posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
I would be remiss if i didn't call out your source for the quote you provided above.


Well forget the source it wasn't where I got my info from, it was just something else that supports my own thinking.


Capitalism is an economic system, not a social system.


I know capitalism is an economic system, but it also effects us socially and politically. Our social structure has been completely changed by capitalism.


Capitalism, in its purest form, is just people observing market values for things...


There is no pure form of capitalism, it is simply the private ownership of the means of production. There are no rules other than those imposed on it by the state.

The term Capitalism was coined by a French SOCIALIST, Louis Blanc. He interpenetrated as, "the appropriation of capital by some to the exclusion of others." It was later refined to the 'private ownership of the means of production'.

It is not "free-market" as people claim. There is no freedom for non-property owners. Yes we are all free to become capitalists in theory, but in practice only a minority can be capitalists. The capitalist market can only sustain so many businesses. The majority will always be people who rely on capitalists to supply "jobs".
Manufacturing has always been traditionally the largest employer, but those jobs are disappearing to automation and outsourcing. Capitalists reduction in labour costs is a reduction in the working class's economy.


The cost of labor is about half of your business operations, typically in most industries. So there is no doubt that incremental revenue (which flows right into the bottom line) cannot be had by controlling labor costs. Do corporations collude to do this? You betcha. And We The People empower them in this action by buying their stuff.

BUT....is it a requirement of capitalism? Absolutely not.


Nothing is a requirement of capitalism other than making profit for the private owner/s. It is not set up to supply "jobs", it is not set up to meet the needs of communities.

On average capitalists make 40% from labour and 60% from investing money made from labour. So Labour has taken second place to investing. Once a company gets big enough the owners make more money from their investments.

Why are capitalists still making mass profits in a down economy? Because it isn't a down economy for the capitalists, only those that rely on capitalists for "jobs". They're making enough money investing now, so they do in fact save money hiring less workers. But of course it's going to make the economy worse for themselves eventually, but they don't care if they can make enough now to cover themselves later.

And of course they increase their profits by outsourcing labour to cheaper labour markets, and not reflect that savings in their prices.

The biggest problem with capitalism is the requirement to make profit, above the needs of people. Poverty is not a lack of money it is a lack of the means to produce, and the resources needed. That means, and the resources, are kept artificially scarce in order to make profits for a minority class.


Manufacturing job losses in advanced economies have been concentrated in labor-intensive and highly tradable (read globalizable) industries such as apparel and electronics assembly. Thanks to the increased productivity and a 'high' credit-enabled standard-of-living, the US has simply priced itself out of the global manufacturing business...


Why The Manufacturing Jobs Are Not Coming Back

edit on 12/22/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
I would be remiss if i didn't call out your source for the quote you provided above.


Well forget the source it wasn't where I got my info from, it was just something else that supports my own thinking.


Capitalism is an economic system, not a social system.


I know capitalism is an economic system, but it also effects us socially and politically. Our social structure has been completely changed by capitalism.


Capitalism, in its purest form, is just people observing market values for things...


There is no pure form of capitalism, it is simply the private ownership of the means of production. There are no rules other than those imposed on it by the state.

The term Capitalism was coined by a French SOCIALIST, Louis Blanc. He interpenetrated as, "the appropriation of capital by some to the exclusion of others." It was later refined to the 'private ownership of the means of production'.

It is not "free-market" as people claim. There is no freedom for non-property owners. Yes we are all free to become capitalists in theory, but in practice only a minority can be capitalists. The capitalist market can only sustain so many businesses. The majority will always be people who rely on capitalists to supply "jobs".
Manufacturing has always been traditionally the largest employer, but those jobs are disappearing to automation and outsourcing. Capitalists reduction in labour costs is a reduction in the working class's economy.


The cost of labor is about half of your business operations, typically in most industries. So there is no doubt that incremental revenue (which flows right into the bottom line) cannot be had by controlling labor costs. Do corporations collude to do this? You betcha. And We The People empower them in this action by buying their stuff.

BUT....is it a requirement of capitalism? Absolutely not.


Nothing is a requirement of capitalism other than making profit for the private owner/s. It is not set up to supply "jobs", it is not set up to meet the needs of communities.

On average capitalists make 40% from labour and 60% from investing money made from labour. So Labour has taken second place to investing. Once a company gets big enough the owners make more money from their investments.

Why are capitalists still making mass profits in a down economy? Because it isn't a down economy for the capitalists, only those that rely on capitalists for "jobs". They're making enough money investing now, so they do in fact save money hiring less workers. But of course it's going to make the economy worse for themselves eventually, but they don't care if they can make enough now to cover themselves later.

And of course they increase their profits by outsourcing labour to cheaper labour markets, and not reflect that savings in their prices.

The biggest problem with capitalism is the requirement to make profit, above the needs of people. Poverty is not a lack of money it is a lack of the means to produce, and the resources needed. That means, and the resources, are kept artificially scarce in order to make profits for a minority class.


Manufacturing job losses in advanced economies have been concentrated in labor-intensive and highly tradable (read globalizable) industries such as apparel and electronics assembly. Thanks to the increased productivity and a 'high' credit-enabled standard-of-living, the US has simply priced itself out of the global manufacturing business...


Why The Manufacturing Jobs Are Not Coming Back

edit on 12/22/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



I am not saying that there is an issue with the source. I am unconcerned with that kind of stuff, unless you are talking about some hokey blog or weekly world news. What I am saying is, your source is making some fundamentally wrong assertions. With this fundamental errors in mindset, it makes suspect everything else that comes after.

Your source said, explicitely and flatly, "Mass unemployment has been a feature of capitalism since it emerged as the dominant social system...". You used this sentence to lead your quote. This sentence is wrong. It is an incorrect statement. Even though you want to tie in how the economic system affects the social system, it does nothing more to make it a true statement Of course the various systems in place affect one another. But that doesn't mean that our legal system is Capitalism, either (even though I hear that one quite a bit as well).

I fully understand the threat of automation on work. But until an answer is provided that protects the rights of individuals, I am not buying.



posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


RE: the false scarcity....yes. It happens.

Let me ask you this: what economic system has ever not had scarcity? Typically, this is a conversation about capitalism vs socialism. I am not interested in that conversation, especially if we are trying to talk about not having scarcity.



posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
Let me ask you this: what economic system has ever not had scarcity? Typically, this is a conversation about capitalism vs socialism. I am not interested in that conversation, especially if we are trying to talk about not having scarcity.


None as far as I know? What other economic systems have there been? Since the 1700's capitalism has been the predominant economic system the world over.

Capitalism creates artificial scarcity, it is a part of capitalism. Without that scarcity capitalists would have difficulty making profit. Overproduction reduces profits.

Socialism is not based on profits so overproduction is not a problem, we can produce as much as we need. When we can produce what we need money becomes irrelevant. When money is no longer a relevant tool of control, and people can produce for their needs with no restrictions, no one can control and manipulate the economy to their advantage. No one would be able to become so much more wealthy than the rest that they gain the economic power to control the state. Thus the state would change, or better yet disappear altogether.

That's what private ownership does, it creates the hierarchical authoritarian state we have. In the USSR we saw the extreme of this, the capitalists were directly the state. This is what would happen if we had capitalism with no state. The capitalists would become the state as they did in the USSR. In the US and other western nations the capitalists have to lobby government and use their wealth to get what they want, in the USSR the capitalists were the state (state-capitalism). That is the goal of western capitalist, the so called NWO, is their complete control of the state. Most countries are becoming more and more state-capitalist.

(It's not all capitalists obviously but those at the top.)


Definition of STATE CAPITALISM
: an economic system in which private capitalism is modified by a varying degree of government ownership and control


www.merriam-webster.com...

State capitalism is often confused with communism, a misunderstanding perpetuated by the state.



posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 07:41 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


The problem is, while there is plenty of criticism of what we have in place now, I see no offers of what could replace it. The best I hear is "socialism", yet that ignores the human nature. False scarcity, in a communistic regime, becomes a leverage for control.

The issue isn't the economic system. It is the governmental systems. It is the desire to control.





new topics
top topics
 
17
<< 1   >>

log in

join