What would you cut?
- Thread starter Zachor
- Start date
AnnO'Neemus
Is so vanilla
I think the worst aspect of workfare is that unscrupulous employers will just use (and abuse) workfare as a way of getting labour on the cheap.
So many companies already effectively have their activities subsidised by the taxpayer, and they milk the system in order to fund their profits. I'm talking about tax credits and top up benefits. If a company fails to pay its employees a living wage, the taxpayer makes up the difference. Enabling the companies to minimise their overheads relating to remuneration, while maximising their profits.
Likewise, workfare will backfire.
Why would any company bother to pay even the minimum wage when they can get free labour via the job centre? They'll just stop recruiting even low paid staff, they'll just use the free or subsidised/cheap labour. Again, minimising their overheads, maximising their profits. And the taxpayer is left to cover the living costs of those abused in this way.
And it will possibly result in a downward spiral. Competitor companies will decide that they can't afford to employ people in real jobs either, so they'll lay people off or stop recruiting, and they'll just use more free/cheap labour.
And lay offs will result in more people on the dole. More people available for workfare. So more companies exploiting free/cheap labour and stopping paying a proper living wage.
Especially at the bottom end of the labour market, for manual, unskilled jobs, there will be a supply of cheap/free labour for companies to exploit, so why would they bother creating jobs and paying people for their work? Just wouldn't make good business sense. So they won't.
DownwardDog
Well-Known Member
Not on an involuntary basis.
Agree there.
What does that mean?
AnnO'Neemus
Is so vanilla
I worked for one of the regional arts boards years ago before they were all rebranded Arts Council.
It was at the time that lottery funding was just coming through. It made my heart sink. There were all these government pronouncements about how lottery funding was definitely not, no, absolutely no way, going to replace statutory funding.
Yeah, right. It was blatant from the start that that is exactly what was going to happen. But still, loads of people jumped on the lottery band wagon, because it was an income stream, it was welcome money that they could dish out.
The thing that puzzles me though... why was Arts Council money being used to pay staff to distribute lottery funding?
Surely, those costs should have been on the balance sheet of Camelot? Surely, the costs of salaries for those who were awarding the grants should have been covered by Camelot before they ran away with massive profits? Surely, any profits made by Camelot should be genuine profits left over after meeting all running costs.
DownwardDog
Well-Known Member
It means I don't think it's right to tax people in order to pay for photography workshops for mendicants. If you're a fan of an artfully composed pictures of dogs on strings and empty Special Brew tins then great, you pay for it voluntarily but I don't want to.
Does the project help these people get homes and stability. If not bin it.
I've worked either a tutor or an admin on a few community photography projects (if you want refs I'll pm them to you) and apart from those who went on to use it as a springboard for further study either in photography or elsewhere the outcomes were minimally positive at best.
DownwardDog
Well-Known Member
If you notice this is not a pov I agree with. We sholdn't be giving money to nations or organisations where women and minorities are treated as second class citizens.
Similiarily we shouldn't be allowing the Saudis to fund hate preachers over here.
I think that's short-sighted to be honest. Even from a completely selfish point of view, a lot of people for a whole variety of reasons end up living outside society - some of them are ex-forces, some of them have mental health problems, some are victims of broken families or a failing care system. One tactic that you can use is to try to draw them back into the social fold somehow - whether photography workshops are effective is an empirical matter about which I couldn't be conclusive. What is certain though is that if it's effective at all it's probably a hell of a lot cheaper than paying for the social problems that they might otherwise cause, or paying to keep them in prison.
I agree with what you say that victims of the 'care' system and the other people you've mentioned do need to be brought back into society I don't think that photography workshops are the way to do it in the main.
Give them jobs and houses and a friendly person to talk to when they are stressed. All the rest is just faff.
Blagsta
Minimum cage, maximum cage
Yes.
So helping someone gain self esteem, self respect and outside interests is a non-outcome for you? You're one unempathic fuck up.
Well then continue to fund it.
So helping someone gain self esteem, self respect and outside interests is a non-outcome for you? You're one unempathic fuck up.
Bollocks. If a project gives consistent positive outcomes then thats fine but there are a lot of projects that don't.
BTW I got my self esteem back through voluntary work. Work made me whole again when I was at rock bottom.
Blagsta
Minimum cage, maximum cage
What is your experience in working with homeless people and understanding their needs?
Blagsta
Minimum cage, maximum cage
How do you measure "positive outcomes"?
Yes, that's you. You cannot assume that it's the same for everyone. Btw, I'd hazard a guess that your self esteem is still quite low, given your need to attack anyone you perceive as weak.
Blagsta
Minimum cage, maximum cage
My taxes go to lots of things I disagree with. Nuclear weapons, war in Iraq, MPs wages, subsidising private companies etc. I find it very telling that you woudl rather cut funds from teh most vulnerable and marginalised.
Is the person feeling better in themselves, is the person taking steps to gain educational qualifications, reducing substance abuse etc. This sort of stuff can be quantified.
I'm the first to put my hand in my pocket to help deserving causes because its the right thing to do. I find giving to deserving causes such as Hackney Migrants Centre, Combat Stress, SANDS etc helps my self esteem. I dislike idleness as I know the damage it does and know how destructive it is to the individual.
Its not cutting help to the most vunerable its making sure that the help people get is appropriate.
Blagsta
Minimum cage, maximum cage
So a project with a world famous photography gallery that helps vulnerable people gain self respect, you don't want to pay for? What do you want to pay for?
"Help" like working for £1.25 an hour, that YOU would never do yourself of course.
Blagsta
Minimum cage, maximum cage
and your experience to evaluate this is...what?
Wanna bet I've worked for less just to improve myself.
Blagsta
Minimum cage, maximum cage
didn't help did it
Blagsta
Minimum cage, maximum cage
MPs' expenses.
Banking bonuses.
Foreign military 'presence'.
I'd introduce:
90% tax over £60k.
Dramatically lower house prices.
Free plane tickets to those who don't like it and want to fuck off and live with Paul Daniels and Debbie Mcgee.
City and Guilds photographic course assessor, run (both tutoring and administration) courses for asylum seekers, people with physical disabilities, non school attenders and difficult to teach teenagers etc.
Also acted as foreman on successful gardening project involving people with learning difficulties, organised community fundraising for childrens art project when thelocal council decided to cut the project.
that should do for a start.
Some of the projects were successful in their outcomes but some were not
Nah I only attack the idle.
Such as MPs and Shareholders?
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
