Thanks for the clarification but why do you keep talking about scenarios which to be real would require seriously inept people in the DSP?No, and 'this problem' is pure speculation at this point.
I specified marketable skills. His community activities are of no consequence from an employment perspective. He may be good at baking with his kids or grandkids and be brilliant at doing great voices when he reads stories to them but that’s not much use on a CV.
If he is a forklift driver and he does not have basic computer skills he is severely limiting his job prospects
A surgeon is a manual job. So is a butcher. I value the skills of a former more.
Thanks for the clarification but why do you keep talking about scenarios which to be real would require seriously inept people in the DSP?
A butcher is a provider of food, like a farmer. A surgeon can also be categorized. For instance a knee surgeon or a brain surgeon.Nevertheless, the market value of the surgeon is greater than the butcher or the farmer as the job is intrinsically more complex than butchering or farming.
But the economic and social value of the farmer and the butcher is infinitely far greater than the surgeon.
That is to say, the probability of the human race going to conflict or extinction without surgeons is, at best minimal.
On the other hand, without the millions of butchers and farmers providing food we could be in a right state. And if we have a shortage of food, I wouldnt fancy a hungry surgeon chopping at my bits.
So I would value the butcher (or food provider) more than the surgeon.
Ditto the carpenter and the street sweeper.
If the population of cows fell to 1% of what it is now, a fillet steak would be more expensive than going to see a doctor and a butcher with a solid supply of beef could earn more than a surgeon.
Basically, it's supply and demand.
since people first began trading and later with the development of currencies, the market has by and large set the price of things we pay for. Anyway, I'm straying way off topic. Back to Johnny!
Considering the title of this thread and the position you take, the above post is deeply ironic.Yes, but market value is different to economic value and/or social value.
So going back to Johnny, my point about him, or if not specifically him, is that if you push people further into poverty, then you are more likely (not conclusively) to increase the chances of pushing a person into crime.
If we define crime as stealing a loaf of bread, then a hungry person would carry the profile of potential criminal.
Considering the title of this thread and the position you take, the above post is deeply ironic.
I don't have the time or energy to spend 4 or 5 pages of a thread explaining the same thing over and over again to you so just think about it.In what sense?
I don't have the time or energy to spend 4 or 5 pages of a thread explaining the same thing over and over again to you so just think about it.
There you go again.I have...and there is nothing to think about. More empty babble.
Be it black and white stats pulled from newspaper headlines spouting alarmist nonsense or preconceived notions that those on welfare are parasites or low skilled workers are mutton heads with little intrinsic value to the economy, its all been bluster.
Considering the title of the topic, in 27 pages not one poster, in favour of the proposition, has provided any form of concrete proposal on how to implement the proposal.
That is ironic.
There you go again.
Not one decent idea, not one original thought.
I signed on once a month & after initially having to call to the local Post Office with ID to collect my payment I was then able to have my payment transferred to my Bank Account.
You're just trying to start the whole discussion again from scratch! I for one don't have the energy for that.Then start again and test each individual claim. In line with our false claimers of which we have many, would it be sensible to start from scratch?
Would it be wise , at this juncture , to look at the reality of the situation ?
Given the Apple billions situation
...I believe politically inconceivable that this Government will reduce/limit social welfare payments/benefits
So, the answer to the OP is that we are already doing it, as evidenced in your post.
If, as it seems, Welfare as a lifestyle choice is becoming a more difficult proposition then it will be good for society in the longer term.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?