The Welfare State: Great Britain

[JustRalph]

When perusing this article.........keep in mind that according to Google, Great Britain has a Population of 60 million...........fyi


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1218873/Benefits-wrecked-British-work-ethic-new-study-claims.html

Benefits 'wrecked the British work ethic,' new study claims
By STEVE DOUGHTY
Last updated at 10:32 AM on 08th October 2009

"The stigma that once went with claiming benefits rather than working for a living has been lost, a study has claimed.
The work ethic that inspired successive generations has ebbed away in the face of the welfare state.
Over the past decades each generation has seen more and more people milking the benefit system, which has sapped their will to work, the research from the Centre for Economic Performance said.
The findings come at a time when both major parties have committed themselves to cutting numbers who live on incapacity benefit.
There are 2.6million adults who claim the handout meant for the sick and incapable, with around 20 per cent thought to be fully able - but unwilling - to work.
The report said: 'It has long been recognised that generous unemployment benefits create moral hazard - workers are partly protected against the consequences of being unemployed, so they are less likely to search for jobs with the same intensity.'
Most economists point to oil price shocks and the collapse of the post-war system of fixed exchange rates in the 1970s for the decline in employment.
Subsequent blows such as housing market collapses or banking failures are also blamed.

But report author Jean-Baptiste Michau rejected these explanations of why unemployment has risen substantially across Europe since the 1970s.
The report in the journal CentrePiece said: 'A decline in the work ethic, induced by the expansion of the welfare state, is key to understanding European unemployment.'"

It Gets really interesting after this paragraph Read on at the link

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1218873/Benefits-wrecked-British-work-ethic-new-study-claims.html

[boxcar]

Good article, JR. This is one of the reasons why socialism is an evil system of government. It actually encourages lying, cheating, stealing, jealousy and slothfulness in societies , and these are just for starters.

Boxcar

[DJofSD]

Yet another example that good intentions can not overcome human nature.

Ignorance and stupidity are two different things. When you make a mistake out of ignorance, that is excusable. But when you keep on making the same mistake over and over again, that's stupidity.

The liberals keep repeating the same mistake over and over again. They think that some how, magically, human nature will be conquered and utopia can be achieved. Wrong. And stupid.

Stupid liberals, don't you know, it's not possible to change Mother Nature?

[NJ Stinks]

Let's see if I've got this right. 2.6M Brits out of 60M total Brits - that's about 4.3% of the population - claim benefits because they are "sick and incapable". Of that 4.3%, 20% are getting benefits they don't deserve. That means that less than 1% of the entire population - .0086% to be exact - are getting 'sick and incapable' benefits that they don't deserve.

From this revelation we get the headline:

Benefits 'wrecked the British work ethic,' new study claims

How do you spell "Bullshit"? D-A-I-L-Y-M-A-I-L


P.S. The Daily Mail is just right of the NY Post. :rolleyes:

[boxcar]

Let's see if I've got this right. 2.6M Brits out of 60M total Brits - that's about 4.3% of the population - claim benefits because they are "sick and incapable". Of that 4.3%, 20% are getting benefits they don't deserve. That means that less than 1% of the entire population - .0086% to be exact - are getting 'sick and incapable' benefits that they don't deserve.

From this revelation we get the headline:

Benefits 'wrecked the British work ethic,' new study claims

How do you spell "Bullshit"? D-A-I-L-Y-M-A-I-L


P.S. The Daily Mail is just right of the NY Post. :rolleyes:

Of course, you don't have it right? The 20% figure is the correct number to use because it is this amount of people who represent the percentage of the frauds who are collecting benefits! Why would you use the entire population when the vast majority of people aren't collecting benefits? The idea is to isolate and identify the collectors from the non-collectors to see what percentage of the former are receiving benefits fraudulently. 20% is a huge percentage. No wonder at all, you balk at using that figure. :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[ddog]

You use that number because to use the other is dumb.

If your arg is that number OF cheaters has killed the work ethic , then you have a serious problem.

How do you know what benefits the "others" are getting, was that reflected in the study or is that just your knowledge of the subject?


Exactly how long has this cheater nbr been the nbr and when did the work ethic die there exactly?

Did the nbr come because the work ethic died or did the nbr come and then the work ethic died?

Did they happen at the same time? If so, which was it the chick or the egg?


As long as it agrees with your and others magical thoughts , then nothing is too outlandish to believe.

[DJofSD]

You use that number because to use the other is dumb.

If your arg is that number OF cheaters has killed the work ethic , then you have a serious problem.

How do you know what benefits the "others" are getting, was that reflected in the study or is that just your knowledge of the subject?


Exactly how long has this cheater nbr been the nbr and when did the work ethic die there exactly?

Did the nbr come because the work ethic died or did the nbr come and then the work ethic died?

Did they happen at the same time? If so, which was it the chick or the egg?


As long as it agrees with your and others magical thoughts , then nothing is too outlandish to believe.
Good point: what is cause and what is effect.

Reminds me of the ongoing debate about the reduction in the crime rate in NYC 10-15 years ago. From the broken windows theory, to the cleaning up of the subways, to the increase emphasis on fighting crime by the police and other agencies, every one thinks they know what fixed the high crime rate but no one knows which is cause and which is effect.

[ddog]

Good point: what is cause and what is effect.

Reminds me of the ongoing debate about the reduction in the crime rate in NYC 10-15 years ago. From the broken windows theory, to the cleaning up of the subways, to the increase emphasis on fighting crime by the police and other agencies, every one thinks they know what fixed the high crime rate but no one knows which is cause and which is effect.


I have tended toward the age of the population is the biggest factor, although a targeted show of force couldn't have hurt.

[LottaKash]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1218873/Benefits-wrecked-British-work-ethic-new-study-claims.html

.
Subsequent blows such as housing market collapses or banking failures are also blamed.


'A decline in the work ethic, induced by the expansion of the welfare state, is key to understanding European unemployment.'"


Do we see a parallel here, in this once great nation ?....Our current leadership is as busy as a beehive, working to this end....They have already caused much and irreparable damage and harm to this country....What is next ?

All the pieces, are slowly but surely, snapping into place...The final picture of the puzzle is grotesque looking, as I envision it...

best,

[PaceAdvantage]

P.S. The Daily Mail is just right of the NY Post. :rolleyes:You write this as if it's a bad thing!

If it were left of the NY Times, would that make it more or less acceptable / accurate?

[NJ Stinks]

You write this as if it's a bad thing!

If it were left of the NY Times, would that make it more or less acceptable / accurate?

I used the NY Post to paint a picture - to make a point. If you read the NY Post, you understand my point.

The NY Times would not have illustrated my point.

In short, I get your point but you've missed my point. :p

[PaceAdvantage]

I get your point. As always, the messenger is to be destroyed before the message is even read. Not too difficult.

[Warren Henry]

The liberals keep repeating the same mistake over and over again. They think that some how, magically, human nature will be conquered and utopia can be achieved. Wrong. And stupid.



You give them too much credit. Suppose they are repeating their actions deliberately -- because it gives them more votes, thus more power. Call me cynical, but I think that they know exactly what they are doing.

[JustRalph]

You give them too much credit. Suppose they are repeating their actions deliberately -- because it gives them more votes, thus more power. Call me cynical, but I think that they know exactly what they are doing.
:ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: Sure they do......and the dumb ass subscribers to a victim mentality continue to fall for it over and over

[highnote]

Good article, JR. This is one of the reasons why socialism is an evil system of government. It actually encourages lying, cheating, stealing, jealousy and slothfulness in societies , and these are just for starters.

Boxcar


lsbets and I just had this discussion in another thread. It's not the system -- it's the people in the system.

Socialism is neutral. Capitalism is neutral. Capitalism and socialism are not evil, but some people who exist within those systems are evil.

In this century, Capitalism has been the system that housed some of the biggest liars, cheaters, theives, etc. in the history of the world. But capitalism is not at fault. People who committed the crimes are at fault.

[DJofSD]

The form of government and the people governed under it form a relationship. In a sense, that relationship is like a couple: it can either be healthy or not.

Socialism, et al, is like an unhealthy relationship. One is dependent upon the other and neither are making choices that are good for the long term benefit of the relationship. One enables the other to the detriment of the relationship. And just like with human relationships, depending upon the nature of the faults, things can be tolerated for a long time, learning to stay together, or, all hell can break lose with devastating resuls.

[Tom]

Socialism is generally the choice of those who choose not to contribute and let others take care of them. If evolution is real, then those folks should be shot by those who work - that is natural selection. It strengthens the species.

[highnote]

Socialism is generally the choice of those who choose not to contribute and let others take care of them. If evolution is real, then those folks should be shot by those who work - that is natural selection. It strengthens the species.


Kind of like the big banks that got bailed out -- socialism for the wealthy, leisure class.

[Tom]

Exactly. It always wrongs and always bad.
And you have a work in progress to view today, as billions more of our tax dollars go to bonuses, including mail room people. How's that payback and profit Obama told us about then he lied through his teeth to get this baby passed? Oh, wait, slavery is not dead - OBama has sold himself to the tycoons. Now he shucks and jives for them.

[JustRalph]

Unsustainable............is the word that comes to mind

October 15th, 2009 5:04 pm
Buy one take ten

When a society has been told for years it can have something for nothing the damage is not just physical, but psychological; an entire mentality is crippled. A former British official who is now a director at the London School of Economics says that Britain is in deep trouble. Years of entitlement have convinced people that government is an endless source of wealth. With the economic crisis in full swing, the government has to cut back for national survival. The problem is that no one wants the music to stop. Even the intellectual class, according to Sir Howard Davies, has come to believe that any crisis can be met by simply borrowing and printing more money.

From the link:
Sir Howard Davies, now Director of the London School of Economics, said Britain faces a dangerous rise in the levels of public debt – even taking into account tax increases planned for coming years.

“The next six months are going to be extremely delicate in the UK”, he told a gathering of HSBC clients in London. “It is very clear that something dramatic has to happen to control spending: but is the economy robust enough to survive fiscal tightening?” …

What is disturbing is that the British people seem unwilling to face minimal belt-tightening. Even professors in higher education are balloting to strike, demanding a continuation of boom-time pay raises. “You have the best minds in the country planning to go on strike for 8pc. People are miles away from understanding what is needed.”

Polling data shows that 48pc of the public are against any spending cuts and only 20pc see the need for retrenchment. Britons appear to assume that the “fantastic growth in public spending” over the last decade has become an entitlement.

more at the link
http://pajamasmedia.com/richardfernandez/2009/10/15/buy-one-take-ten/