Do young adults in the UK not want to work?

I'm entering the convo a little late, but I got a kick out of this when my friend showed it to me. Not everyone is my generation is like this, but it's embarassing that there are a lot of them!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sz0o9clVQu8

So back to the original question, beyond vague generalities about the purpose of benefits, which I think few would disagree with. The benefit system contains a number of perverse incentives, the clearest being a threshold at which it's just not cost effective to go into employment, but a wide range of others.

How would you structure it in such a way that it provides a safety net, rather than a choice that one might make?

Narrow the margins either end - raise the minimum wage considerably and pay for it by taxing the fat cats and millionaires. Have a maximum earning capacity of, say, £250k. And a minimum of £30k.

I'll have to leave you to crunch the numbers... I'm going to bed.

*****In Tomorrow's MFP Chit Chat Forum: World Peace - How do we achieve THAT, exactly?*****

Narrow the margins either end - raise the minimum wage considerably and pay for it by taxing the fat cats and millionaires. Have a maximum earning capacity of, say, £250k. And a minimum of £30k.

Lmao

Now, back in the real world...

You've demonstrated my point, no system works, its a question of finding a system that's less bad then the alternatives.

So back to the original question, beyond vague generalities about the purpose of benefits, which I think few would disagree with. The benefit system contains a number of perverse incentives, the clearest being a threshold at which it's just not cost effective to go into employment, but a wide range of others.

How would you structure it in such a way that it provides a safety net, rather than a choice that one might make?

Narrow the margins either end - raise the minimum wage considerably and pay for it by taxing the fat cats and millionaires. Have a maximum earning capacity of, say, £250k. And a minimum of £30k.

I'll have to leave you to crunch the numbers... I'm going to bed.

*****In Tomorrow's MFP Chit Chat Forum: World Peace - How do we achieve THAT, exactly?*****

Have you been drinking?

Just soak the rich and watch them all move to Singapore . . .

So back to the original question, beyond vague generalities about the purpose of benefits, which I think few would disagree with. The benefit system contains a number of perverse incentives, the clearest being a threshold at which it's just not cost effective to go into employment, but a wide range of others.

How would you structure it in such a way that it provides a safety net, rather than a choice that one might make?

Narrow the margins either end - raise the minimum wage considerably and pay for it by taxing the fat cats and millionaires. Have a maximum earning capacity of, say, £250k. And a minimum of £30k.

I'll have to leave you to crunch the numbers... I'm going to bed.

*****In Tomorrow's MFP Chit Chat Forum: World Peace - How do we achieve THAT, exactly?*****

you would make the poor poorer in this case just to make the rich less rich.

a certain female prime minister of yours said something along those lines once

economic shut down within a decade under your policy. 30,000 minimum wage would give you 20% unemployment in a couple years. but hey, it's ok...the ones working would have livable wages! never mind that pricing would soon adjust and the purchasing power would be back to where it is now. and you'd still have double the unemployment. a leftist utopia.


but you certainly know more than her, must be that 25 years of teaching kids that gave you such economics brilliance

First off why must you insult people with every post you make? "but you certainly know more than her, must be that 25 years of teaching kids that gave you such economics brilliance" They are presenting there opinions based on there values gained through experience in there life enviroment. The exact same thing you do.

From what I can see you have grown up to value hard work and the ideal of survival of the fittest. You strive to be the best in whatever you do based on your own view of what is 'best'. Perhaps you rely on others to be 'weak' and 'stupid' in order for you to feel good about your own accomplishments. Have some empathy for others, put yourself in there situation of life and please understand that not everyone has the same value system as you. You are neither right nor wrong. The same as others.

Everyone actions are directed by risk vs reward. Your reward values are not always the same as another person's reward values. Same as risk. Furthermore, people see problems and find solutions based on there own personal experience growing up in there circumstances and enviroment. You put the pieces of the puzzle together and draw a conclusion e.g. OPINION. Unless you have logical reasoning and understanding of how those pieces can and won't fit together with evidence and experimentation to back it up it is opinion. The hardest thing to do and best thing for people to do is simply say "I don't know" then move onto asking "why?"

So back to the original question, beyond vague generalities about the purpose of benefits, which I think few would disagree with. The benefit system contains a number of perverse incentives, the clearest being a threshold at which it's just not cost effective to go into employment, but a wide range of others.

How would you structure it in such a way that it provides a safety net, rather than a choice that one might make?

Narrow the margins either end - raise the minimum wage considerably and pay for it by taxing the fat cats and millionaires. Have a maximum earning capacity of, say, £250k. And a minimum of £30k.

I'll have to leave you to crunch the numbers... I'm going to bed.

*****In Tomorrow's MFP Chit Chat Forum: World Peace - How do we achieve THAT, exactly?*****

Have you been drinking?

Just soak the rich and watch them all move to Singapore . . .

No no no, they will just sit around and take it until the country is on the verge of collapse before all secretly leaving to a mountain town in Colorado. Didn't you read Atlas Shrugged?

I did years ago. But I still say Singapore. Better bars. Better education system. No income tax. Very low crime rate. Fewer floods and fires . . . . Hummmmmm

Narrow the margins either end - raise the minimum wage considerably and pay for it by taxing the fat cats and millionaires. Have a maximum earning capacity of, say, £250k. And a minimum of £30k.

Lmao

Now, back in the real world...

You've demonstrated my point, no system works, its a question of finding a system that's less bad then the alternatives.

I understand her reasoning for her statement. If you were able to enforce a minimum wage that would supply all a human's securities in life then you would not have problems filling jobs. You would also have less crime, due to less reward in robbery, theft, murder for money. Less stress to bring the horrible sides of ones personality to the surface. Why does someone who clean toilets have to be paid so little money they must suffer in there home life? Why is there time spent less valuable than someone who works an office job?
If you open the choices with appropriate reward then you will have a more stable system but different problems. Money is relative to the enviroment of available resource. If you balance the system properly someone who makes 250k would be considered the rich side of the economy and have the same luxuries as those who are considered rich in our current setup. There would be more money in the system to circulate for needed social systems like healthcare, retirement, roads, police, fire, schools etc. But this is all just a patch to fix current problems, I think in the long run it would just be corrupt and unbalanced again due to the use of a monetary system. Money is a tool used for control of resource and ultimately loopholes, exploits are always found and sought to increase advantage.

edit, nvm. explaining basic logic and market fundamentals on mfp is an exercise in futility

Singapore gets my vote too. I'd say the only problem is that it's Asia and I like western culture, but it will be overrun with EU expatriates soon enough.

You are correct in it is an exercise in futility because not everyone has gone to school to learn the parlance and techniques you may have learned. Perhaps try to explain it a more simple way that people can relate to understanding. metaphors for example. But I also suggest you understand that your opinions might not be the "correct' way of how things work due to your own lack of knowledge (missing puzzle pieces), keep an open mind on what people are saying. Asking questions and presenting them to others is how we learn.

Narrow the margins either end - raise the minimum wage considerably and pay for it by taxing the fat cats and millionaires. Have a maximum earning capacity of, say, £250k. And a minimum of £30k.

Lmao

Now, back in the real world...

You've demonstrated my point, no system works, its a question of finding a system that's less bad then the alternatives.

I understand her reasoning for her statement. If you were able to enforce a minimum wage that would supply all a human's securities in life then you would not have problems filling jobs. You would also have less crime, due to less reward in robbery, theft, murder for money. Less stress to bring the horrible sides of ones personality to the surface. Why does someone who clean toilets have to be paid so little money they must suffer in there home life? Why is there time spent less valuable than someone who works an office job?
If you open the choices with appropriate reward then you will have a more stable system but different problems. Money is relative to the enviroment of available resource. If you balance the system properly someone who makes 250k would be considered the rich side of the economy and have the same luxuries as those who are considered rich in our current setup. There would be more money in the system to circulate for needed social systems like healthcare, retirement, roads, police, fire, schools etc. But this is all just a patch to fix current problems, I think in the long run it would just be corrupt and unbalanced again due to the use of a monetary system. Money is a tool used for control of resource and ultimately loopholes, exploits are always found and sought to increase advantage.

you do understand that increasing minimum wage, by definition, increases unemployment, right? and this provable with simple logic, it's not some economic theory.

plus you would reduce output.

Yes, employers rely on low wages to stay competative in the market. They feel they cannot sell a teddy bear for $30 if we raise min wage to high levels. But what im thinking is so what if its $30 instead of $10, if people have the correct amount of min security then they would be able to pay the $30. I am thinking in terms of percentages for all securities, the percentage of entertainment money should always be contained which is basicly the money that is used to fuel the economy for such items.

Ok. so now let's say the teddy bear is now thirty dollars. but the bear itself is unchanged. all you have done is increased the price and increased the wage, in nominal absolute terms. you admit this. and yes, it's true.

but what have you really done? purchasing power has not changed! see? this example, a good one btw, is the very definition of inflation. all that happens is that the dollar loses purchasing power...Its debased. the min wage worker is in exactly the same position.

the dollar value only had meaning when considered under the lens of purchasing power. hence why comparisons across countries are always done with PPP, purchasing power parity

Narrow the margins either end - raise the minimum wage considerably and pay for it by taxing the fat cats and millionaires. Have a maximum earning capacity of, say, £250k. And a minimum of £30k.

Lmao

Now, back in the real world...

You've demonstrated my point, no system works, its a question of finding a system that's less bad then the alternatives.

I understand her reasoning for her statement. If you were able to enforce a minimum wage that would supply all a human's securities in life then you would not have problems filling jobs. You would also have less crime, due to less reward in robbery, theft, murder for money. Less stress to bring the horrible sides of ones personality to the surface. Why does someone who clean toilets have to be paid so little money they must suffer in there home life? Why is there time spent less valuable than someone who works an office job?
If you open the choices with appropriate reward then you will have a more stable system but different problems. Money is relative to the enviroment of available resource. If you balance the system properly someone who makes 250k would be considered the rich side of the economy and have the same luxuries as those who are considered rich in our current setup. There would be more money in the system to circulate for needed social systems like healthcare, retirement, roads, police, fire, schools etc. But this is all just a patch to fix current problems, I think in the long run it would just be corrupt and unbalanced again due to the use of a monetary system. Money is a tool used for control of resource and ultimately loopholes, exploits are always found and sought to increase advantage.

you do understand that increasing minimum wage, by definition, increases unemployment, right? and this provable with simple logic, it's not some economic theory.

plus you would reduce output.

Yes, employers rely on low wages to stay competative in the market. They feel they cannot sell a teddy bear for $30 if we raise min wage to high levels. But what im thinking is so what if its $30 instead of $10, if people have the correct amount of min security then they would be able to pay the $30. I am thinking in terms of percentages for all securities, the percentage of entertainment money should always be contained which is basicly the money that is used to fuel the economy for such items.

Ok. so now let's say the teddy bear is now thirty dollars. but the bear itself is unchanged. all you have done is increased the price and increased the wage, in nominal absolute terms. you admit this. and yes, it's true.

but what have you really done? purchasing power has not changed! see? this example, a good one btw, is the very definition of inflation. all that happens is that the dollar loses purchasing power...Its debased. the min wage worker is in exactly the same position.

the dollar value only had meaning when considered under the lens of purchasing power. hence why comparisons across countries are always done with PPP, purchasing power parity

I do not understand the PPP. But I do see what you mean by inflation just pushing the min wage to be usless it always has due to inflation. It is just putting money into the system so it can feed up to the top again keeping people below a livable wage. This is why I said "enforce a minimum wage that would supply all a human's securities in life" It would have to be enforced, and move along with the top cap of income. min wage might mean $10,000 an hour and top cap would be $1,000,000 but together would it not make the need of inflation pointless as the min wage is now? the country becomes richer based on all of us together vs individual stepping on each other.
I overall see the system as failure though, and I think we need to move to a Resource Based Economy. like the Venus Project

Edit: I read the description of PPP on Wiki. It seems to me like the same relationship process between a labor and employer. Like china (labor) and usa (employer). Ideally you would want your 1 unit of resource to be traded for 1 unit of resource on equal trade. But the nature of profit will always leave one or the other deficient in value. With an individual worker you can at least understand the value is in there need for the securities of life. Therefore able to trade his work for a fair trade of living. When we are talking about nations it is about resource control and value is placed on many factors not seen. Many times these lead to war to control the market.