I’ve occasionally commented on foolish public policy in the United Kingdom, including analysis on how the welfare state destroys lives and turns people into despicable moochers.
But if you really want to understand the horrifying absurdity of the welfare state, check out these passages from a report in the Daily Mail.
Carl Cooper thought he was doing a public service by offering seven benefits claimants the chance to work for him. But the company boss was flabbergasted when none of them turned up on the first day. Astonishingly, not a single one even had the courtesy to tell the marketing firm boss they would not be coming in. Mr Cooper and other staff members called the new employees to ask them where they were. Initially, some refused to answer their phones when they recognised the number calling them. When the staff finally got through, five said they would be better off staying on state benefits rather than doing the commission-based work. Four of the seven also claimed torrential rain had put them off.
Wow. Five out of seven admitted that mooching off the taxpayers was a better way to live. What does that tell us about the over-generosity of handouts?
Let’s continue.
Mr Cooper, who runs Car Smart, a marketing firm for independent car dealers in Canterbury, Kent, criticised the benefits system and said it rewarded people for doing nothing. He added: ‘I was left stunned when none of the new recruits turned up for work. They are a bunch of workshy layabouts. ‘These are people who are so morally twisted that they would rather stay on the dole than work. ‘People keep saying there are not enough jobs in the UK but the real problem is that there are not enough determined or ambitious people. ‘The benefit system is too generous and encourages the unemployed to stay unemployed and just breeds more laziness.’
But it’s even worse than Mr. Cooper realizes. He’ll still be paying these people, but in the form of taxes that then get redistributed to subsidize idleness.
You might think the moochers would lose their benefits because they chose laziness over work, but you would be wrong.
Mr Cooper said all his employees received a basic retainer of £100 a week initially and are enrolled on to the company’s commission structure, which could see earnings rise to up to £400 a week. The jobseekers who failed to turn up will not lose their benefits because the basic pay is under the minimum wage.
I found the above story via Kyle Smith, who also cites a story from the Times about a crazy proposal to have bureaucrats scrub floors and serve as human alarm clocks for the welfare class.
Town hall officials have been told to get down on their hands and knees and “clean the floors” of the homes they visit under David Cameron’s Troubled Families programme. They have also been urged to turn up at family homes at 7am if necessary to get parents out of bed and children ready for school on time. The orders were issued by the programme head, Louise Casey… “I want to see people rolling up their sleeves and getting down and cleaning the floors if that is what needs to be done. If a family needs to be shown how to heat up a pizza, show them how to do it. If it takes going round three times a week at 7am to get Mum up, then do it.”
I would have included a link to the underlying story, but the Times has the most incompetently designed website I’ve ever encountered (presumably because they want to charge, but they don’t even give you a chance to click on the story and then pay).
Anyhow, I have three quick reactions to this bit of foolishness.
1. I’d like to see the head bureaucrat, Ms. Casey, spend a month scrubbing floors and waking people up at 7:00 a.m. She strikes me as the typical leftist clown, sitting in an office enjoying a cushy and overpaid job while dreaming up absurd ideas on how to waste taxpayer money. Maybe if she gets her hands dirty by “rolling up [her] sleeves,” she’ll learn the difference between blackboard theorizing and the real world.
2. My gut reaction is that the government should cut the handouts to these dysfunctional households. For every day the welfare bums aren’t up on time to get their kids to school, they lose 10 percent of their loot. If their floors are dirty, that’s another 10 percent. If you want to change their behavior, start cutting into the budget for cigarettes and booze.
3. More realistically, we’re dealing with a problem of people who have little if any self-respect, and they pass horrible habits to their children. Kicking them off the dole might wake up some of them, but I suspect more than a few of them are past the point of no return. Society would probably be better off if their kids were put in foster homes, but I’m sure government would screw that up as well.
Stories like this leave me increasingly convinced that the only good approach is radical decentralization. Get these programs out of capital cities like Washington and London. The U.S. welfare reform was a decent start, but get responsibility to the local level. And in cities, put neighborhoods in charge. Have those small communities in charge of raising the money and spending the money.
That approach is far more likely to generate good ideas and good solutions, though I confess I’m pessimistic about anything working.
But we should figure out ways to stop inter-generational poverty and welfare. I gather it’s considered bad form to suggest mandatory birth control for welfare recipients, so has anyone proposed a different approach that might work?
At least Louise Casey expects government workers to earn their pay.
[…] Instead, this is a moral question about whether people have some sort of obligation to pay extra tax, merely to get some sort of pat on the head from politicians. The same politicians, by the way, that squander the money on varying vote-buying schemes that undermine prosperity and create dependency. […]
[…] wonder English employers sometime have a hard time filling slots. Why climb the economic ladder when government is providing a comfy […]
[…] wonder English employers sometime have a hard time filling slots. Why climb the economic ladder when government is providing a comfy […]
[…] And it also sometimes brings out the worst in people, as you can see in this horrifying story about a welfare couple in Florida and this sad story about a girl in Connecticut (though England has equally reprehensible examples, as you can see here, here, and here). […]
[…] Instead, this is a moral question about whether people have some sort of obligation to pay extra tax, merely to get some sort of pat on the head from politicians. The same politicians, by the way, that squander the money on varying vote-buying schemes that undermine prosperity and create dependency. […]
A couple of thoughts (from a Brit) that others may not be aware of with regards to the UK Welfare State and the attitudes to work it produces.
First of all, let me say that I deplore the attitude that many (in my country of birth) take with regards being work shy, preferring instead to rely upon benefits. It doesn’t apply to all recipients of welfare, however, so one needs to be careful not to paint all with the same brush.
On the question of work v benefit, however, the views that the writer cannot express as he is writing without direct knowledge of the system are:
1. If you are receiving (say) $150/week from the state, and a job becomes available at (say) $200/week, it is often not just a case of “I would prefer to not work and get my $100. It is often a case of “why should I work for the extra $100. He/she in effect is working for $100.
John S (above) actually touched upon this.
2. One of the prevalent attitudes in the UK is “I have paid my money into the Government over the years, so I am (therefore) entitled to receive some of it back”.
The UK has had State provided unemployment insurance since 1911. It is ingrained in our thinking. That doesn’t make it right, but it puts an historical perspective upon it.
The real tragedy is that like other forms of “safety net” legislation, it has over the years become misused and exploited by many.
It’s not that unemployment benefits are generous, it’s just the the minimum wage serf positions available pay even worse. When I was last unemployed after being forcibly retired at age 54, I collected $312 a week. Today I work two jobs, 60 hours a week, and take home a princely $348 a week.
All children of long-term welfare recipients should automatically be conscripted. At least in the military some of them might learn some life skills.
[…] Utterly Horrifying Stories about the English Welfare State […]
Jesus said it was the responsibility of, first, the family members and second, the church, to take care of the elderly and orphans. Strangely, He didn’t mention the government being involved, and he didn’t mention taking care of those who are able to work.
Get the government out of the charity business.
“Stories like this leave me increasingly convinced that the only good approach is radical decentralization.”
Decentralization is the answer to almost every government spending problem we have. It never ceases to amaze me how many people are diametrically opposed to the idea.
The best way to help the poor is to make them uncomfortable in their poverty_Franklin
Well it would not reduce the deficit to take the kids away and put them ‘in care’. In England, the ‘care societies’ have (actually) made a realistic appraisal of the effect of putting a child into ‘care’ and determined that such a child is. by reason of being in care, incapable of raising their own child.
So the child of child who was put into care, must be put into care….
Pour yourself a stiff drink and google up some colums by Christopher Booker in the Telegraph. Frightening, disgusting and guaranteed to raise your blood pressure.
I would hope this ma made job offerws to these people recovers his loss! Here, in theUS, I would think most of those given an opportunity would show!
Absolutely nothing new there. It’s what happens when the government is giving away “…a boat load of federal money…” every day.
While shocking on one level, perhaps even more shocking is that few readers are surprised.
We expect this kind of behavior – from both welfare recipients and from bureaucrats.
A commentary on how far our society has fallen.