Not too sure there is a debate We have a minimum wage so pay it
I agree, but sadly some people don't.
For instance they feel that if someone is working, no matter what they get paid, they at least have self esteem, which seems to be worth more than the extra £4 an hour to the disabled.
Personally I would find it demeaning to work for less than non disabled people are paid.
It's an emotive topic but one that has to be debated. Not so much around the public sector where it's all tax payers money whether thats wages or working tax credits making up a balance, or even for larger companies who could easily absorb the cost and probably wouldn't want the bad PR anyway - but how do you get smaller employers to take on staff with diminished abilities/productivity?
But there are plenty of people with disabilities whose productivity, in their chosen field, is as good as anyone else's. How would productivity be assessed?
And what measures could be put in place to prevent employers from employing disabled people for unskilled work simply because they save £4.50 an hour (plus on-costs) by doing so?
Imagine the backlash "Bloody disabled people, coming and taking our jobs and working for peanuts...".
The thing is, underneath it all the guy has a point even if he could have been clearer and conveyed the message in a better tone.
The reality is that some people are worth less economically to employers than others but that has absolutely nothing to do with their worth as a human being. The value of a person's labour is what others are willing to pay them for a given amount of time, ie their productivity. When Freud stated that they were not worth the min wage, he was talking about their economic worth and it could easily be applied to able bodied person as well. For example, an employee with no qualifications or experience is worth less economically than an employee with a degree and 5 years experience in the field. That is just reality but it has no bearing on their moral worth as a human being.
The fact of the matter is this. The minimum wage does act as a barrier into work for a great many people because, as I keep saying, increasing the minimum cost of labour also increases the minimum requirements. The more you raise the minimum costs, the more employers raise the minimum requirements and the more people are left unable to find work.
As the link you posted earlier didn't prove you point, but proved you wrong is there any point in me reading this one?
I do hope you're not just Googling "shirkers" and copy and pasting the results? The page you link isn't even the actual piece, it's just an aggregator that links to the journal the piece came from. Copying and pasting links isn't an debate, it's just copying and pasting. If you can't be bothered I certainly can't.
But there are plenty of people with disabilities whose productivity, in their chosen field, is as good as anyone else's. How would productivity be assessed?
And what measures could be put in place to prevent employers from employing disabled people for unskilled work simply because they save £4.50 an hour (plus on-costs) by doing so?
Imagine the backlash "Bloody disabled people, coming and taking our jobs and working for peanuts...".
It would also be discriminatory to do it just to disabled people so it would also have to be done for non disabled people too.
So anyone who was less productive than another person no matter if they were disabled or not would be paid lower than the minimum wage.
As the link you posted earlier didn't prove you point, but proved you wrong is there any point in me reading this one?
I do hope you're not just Googling "shirkers" and copy and pasting the results? The page you link isn't even the actual piece, it's just an aggregator that links to the journal the piece came from. Copying and pasting links isn't an debate, it's just copying and pasting. If you can't be bothered I certainly can't.
I see you are still trying to use good examples of debating.
Dismissing other people's posts is a good example.
I sometimes wonder. Each time, in my lifetime that Labour have left office the country has been on it's knees. Tories come in and the first thing they have to do is find money to pay off the colossal debt left to them by Labour. When in office Labour spend and spend to bolster their pet projects and voter base, by the time they are kicked out by the electorate the choices are austerity to just get the country back on track.
If you want to find the culprit look at Labour, they always inherit a great economy and instead of using the money wisely i.e. infrastructure they squander it on petty rivalries and ridiculous wars and then blame the Tories.
If Labour had an ounce of decency they would be hanging their heads in shame and certainly not be sat on the front bench when they are the culprits for the mess the Tories are trying to clean up this time.
The last Labour Government had to spend massive sums just to correct decades of Tory underinvestment, I don't think next year's Labour Government will inherit a 'great economy' somehow, at the moment its an utter shambles for most people with wages far behind prices for the 5th successive year.
No it doesn't. It proves the views of 1 individual.
If the views of 1 person represent a whole party, then all parties are screwed
There is of course one way to find out if this man's vile views are representative of the whole party, or of the party leadership, and that will be the reaction of said party and said leadership in the next few days...... we shall see,
I certainly don't tar all Tory supporters or Tory voters with the same brush, I have family who (were) life long Tory voters and they are both in their late 70s, and both have said that they will certainly not be voting for this set of........
not after they have seen first hand the way their disabled but hard working daughter has been treated by them for the 'crime' of becoming ill, and for allowing her kids to grow up get jobs and leave home, leaving her as a "spare room criminal" after being in full time employment from the day she left school, until her late 40s
at one time working at 2 night jobs to pay her way through uni as a mature student while bringing up two young children, all done in the name of self improvement and a desire to do something with her life "doing the right thing" I think the liar Cameron called it,
and despite her illness and despite the advice of her doctors she STILL went out and got a part time job even though the three hours a day are done in agony because she puts off taking her pain medication until she gets home, otherwise she would not be able to drive to work,
and yet since this lot came to power she has been under constant attack from them, As have everyone who for whatever reason finds themselves dependant on benefits,
Making sweeping generalisations is at best lazy thinking, and at worst just deliberately malicious, it's such a shame that the entire Tory party don't seem to agree,
So yeah, I don't tar ALL,Tory voters with the same brush at all,
but I despise the Tory party, I truly can't use the words in 'polite' company that I use when amongst friends to express my true feelings towards them.
I personally doubt that anything will be said about what this........ person, has said, such a shame he hasn't been sending pictures of his cameron to people over the internet, because that guy was forced to resign, yet Freud will be allowed to insult and offend millions of people, with impunity.
So Freud was right then? Because if you are saying that Labour are spinning it you must agree with what Freud said. He did say it you know there is a recording on the BBC website.
Yes, you are right, there is a recording on the BBC website, and it is incomplete.
Just go look at what the Adam Institute have said.
But that may not fit in with the belief you are defending.
You say that Labour are spinning it. It happened, Freud was bang our of order. If you use the argument you did you are defending Freuds actions. I am not imagining what you think, you insinuated it by attacking Labour.
Don't try to defend the indefensible by shifting the blame. I mean on Labour by the way in case you thought I meant something else.
Sigh, no!
You're doing it again.
I haven't expressed any opinion on what Freud said yet, so far I have only voiced an opinion that complicated subjects get spun and emotions get in the way of rational discussion of them. Labour are doing the spinning therefore I mention them, but you've confused that for shifting the blame.
I haven't expressed any opinion on what Freud said yet, so far I have only voiced an opinion that complicated subjects get spun and emotions get in the way of rational discussion of them. Labour are doing the spinning therefore I mention them, but you've confused that for shifting the blame.
No, you did the exact same thing you are saying Labour are doing.
You took one example and spun it to imply that everyone can't debate.
No, you did the exact same thing you are saying Labour are doing.
You took one example and spun it so that everyone can't debate.
While you're still Googling "shirkers and spamming links without reading them, I am trying to read the posts from people who have actually got past the crass and insensitive way that Freud spoke, so if you don't mind I'll concentrate on them for a bit OK?
The disabled person who is worth £2 an hour? Today people can see what Miliband has done and also what Freud and Cameron have done and IMHO they will not side with the Tories on this Hopefully this will get right up your nose
While you're still Googling "shirkers and spamming links without reading them, I am trying to read the posts from people who have actually got past the crass and insensitive way that Freud spoke, so if you don't mind I'll concentrate on them for a bit OK?
I read the article did you?
Or did it not agree with your view so you dismissed it?
No blame both of them. The Tories go beyond the point of decency themselves. How can robbing the poor and sick be right? Society has an obligation to look after those who are weaker.
I agree with this sentiment, and society needs to do this, but when you come into office and find that the previous occupants have destroyed or near destroyed the country how then can you do everything in the few years you are given to correct the messes created over a period of 13 years not to mention the ongoing war brought to our shores all based on a lie.
Then we must look at and listen to those same people sitting opposite smirking and smiling and shaking their heads at everything you try to do all the while trying to do the right thing.
The worst bit is that after all the flack, be it personal, professional or moral, you know they are going to be voted back in to do it all over again and again and again.
2012/13
Disability Living Allowance £13.6 billion
Attendance Allowance £5.6 billion
Employment and Support Allowance £6.5 billion
Incapacity Benefit/Employment and Support Allowance £2.8 billion
Severe Disablement Allowance £0.9 billon
Industrial Injuries £0.9 billion
Specialist Disability Employment Provision £0.32 billion
Supporting people £1.6 billion
Disabled Facilities £0.18 billion
Adult Social Care £15.4 billion
Concessionary travel £1 billion
Motability £0.17 billion
TOTAL £48.97 billion https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/186956/foi-774-2013.pdf
ESA seems to be in that list twice, and it's not strictly a benefit for people with disabilities. Many people are on it for quite short periods while recovering from illness or accidents.
A lot of what is included there is spent on older people, where some level of disability is almost inevitable. The vast majority of adult social care and concessionary travel spending is age-related and attendance allowance is only paid to older people.
I think it's a bit misleading to include age-related spending in this context, where the debate is about working-age people with disabilities.
I agree with this sentiment, and society needs to do this, but when you come into office and find that the previous occupants have destroyed or near destroyed the country how then can you do everything in the few years you are given to correct the messes created over a period of 13 years not to mention the ongoing war brought to our shores all based on a lie.
Then we must look at and listen to those same people sitting opposite smirking and smiling and shaking their heads at everything you try to do all the while trying to do the right thing.
The worst bit is that after all the flack, be it personal, professional or moral, you know they are going to be voted back in to do it all over again and again and again.
What to do?
What not to do is cheerfully annouce cuts to the needy as your MPs stamp their feet and cheer. What not to do is falsely portray welfare benefits as too easy to claim, too generous, widely abused and out of control. What not to do is lie about protecting the genunie as you reduce their support. The coalition has not cut support to the needy with a heavy heart as something they had to sadly do in economic hard times, they have done so with relish giving it the apperance of being ideologically motivated.
The last Labour Government had to spend massive sums just to correct decades of Tory underinvestment, I don't think next year's Labour Government will inherit a 'great economy' somehow, at the moment its an utter shambles for most people with wages far behind prices for the 5th successive year.
1979, Labour left the country in a mess, the money was used up correcting that, Labour had 13 years in office and all they managed was illegal war and spend spend spend, smarting up to celebrity instead of regulating and keeping an eye on the economy, you know the one Milliband forgot about in his speech, so what money did they have, nothing left to build homes, nothing left for infrastructure for anyone but a hell of a deficit.
Or did it not agree with your view so you dismissed it?
You didn't link to the article, you linked to a summary of it. Is it really worth going so far off topic just to save face because your original link to the Guardian piece didn't prove your point?
Comments
Not too sure there is a debate We have a minimum wage so pay it
I agree, but sadly some people don't.
For instance they feel that if someone is working, no matter what they get paid, they at least have self esteem, which seems to be worth more than the extra £4 an hour to the disabled.
Personally I would find it demeaning to work for less than non disabled people are paid.
But there are plenty of people with disabilities whose productivity, in their chosen field, is as good as anyone else's. How would productivity be assessed?
And what measures could be put in place to prevent employers from employing disabled people for unskilled work simply because they save £4.50 an hour (plus on-costs) by doing so?
Imagine the backlash "Bloody disabled people, coming and taking our jobs and working for peanuts...".
The reality is that some people are worth less economically to employers than others but that has absolutely nothing to do with their worth as a human being. The value of a person's labour is what others are willing to pay them for a given amount of time, ie their productivity. When Freud stated that they were not worth the min wage, he was talking about their economic worth and it could easily be applied to able bodied person as well. For example, an employee with no qualifications or experience is worth less economically than an employee with a degree and 5 years experience in the field. That is just reality but it has no bearing on their moral worth as a human being.
The fact of the matter is this. The minimum wage does act as a barrier into work for a great many people because, as I keep saying, increasing the minimum cost of labour also increases the minimum requirements. The more you raise the minimum costs, the more employers raise the minimum requirements and the more people are left unable to find work.
As the link you posted earlier didn't prove you point, but proved you wrong is there any point in me reading this one?
I do hope you're not just Googling "shirkers" and copy and pasting the results? The page you link isn't even the actual piece, it's just an aggregator that links to the journal the piece came from. Copying and pasting links isn't an debate, it's just copying and pasting. If you can't be bothered I certainly can't.
It would also be discriminatory to do it just to disabled people so it would also have to be done for non disabled people too.
So anyone who was less productive than another person no matter if they were disabled or not would be paid lower than the minimum wage.
Yes, what Freud said can be applied to disabled and non disabled people.
I see you are still trying to use good examples of debating.
Dismissing other people's posts is a good example.
The last Labour Government had to spend massive sums just to correct decades of Tory underinvestment, I don't think next year's Labour Government will inherit a 'great economy' somehow, at the moment its an utter shambles for most people with wages far behind prices for the 5th successive year.
There is of course one way to find out if this man's vile views are representative of the whole party, or of the party leadership, and that will be the reaction of said party and said leadership in the next few days...... we shall see,
I certainly don't tar all Tory supporters or Tory voters with the same brush, I have family who (were) life long Tory voters and they are both in their late 70s, and both have said that they will certainly not be voting for this set of........
not after they have seen first hand the way their disabled but hard working daughter has been treated by them for the 'crime' of becoming ill, and for allowing her kids to grow up get jobs and leave home, leaving her as a "spare room criminal" after being in full time employment from the day she left school, until her late 40s
at one time working at 2 night jobs to pay her way through uni as a mature student while bringing up two young children, all done in the name of self improvement and a desire to do something with her life "doing the right thing" I think the liar Cameron called it,
and despite her illness and despite the advice of her doctors she STILL went out and got a part time job even though the three hours a day are done in agony because she puts off taking her pain medication until she gets home, otherwise she would not be able to drive to work,
and yet since this lot came to power she has been under constant attack from them, As have everyone who for whatever reason finds themselves dependant on benefits,
Making sweeping generalisations is at best lazy thinking, and at worst just deliberately malicious, it's such a shame that the entire Tory party don't seem to agree,
So yeah, I don't tar ALL,Tory voters with the same brush at all,
but I despise the Tory party, I truly can't use the words in 'polite' company that I use when amongst friends to express my true feelings towards them.
I personally doubt that anything will be said about what this........ person, has said, such a shame he hasn't been sending pictures of his cameron to people over the internet, because that guy was forced to resign, yet Freud will be allowed to insult and offend millions of people, with impunity.
Yes, you are right, there is a recording on the BBC website, and it is incomplete.
Just go look at what the Adam Institute have said.
But that may not fit in with the belief you are defending.
But he only applied it to disabled people, didn't he?
Sam Bowman put it much better than Freud did
http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/welfare-pensions/being-economically-worth-less-does-not-mean-you-are-worthless/
I think he was asked a question about disabled people specifically (I could be wrong) but, yes, he could have expanded his answer.
His point, though, that the min wage is holding many people back from getting work has merit.
Sigh, no!
You're doing it again.
I haven't expressed any opinion on what Freud said yet, so far I have only voiced an opinion that complicated subjects get spun and emotions get in the way of rational discussion of them. Labour are doing the spinning therefore I mention them, but you've confused that for shifting the blame.
No, you did the exact same thing you are saying Labour are doing.
You took one example and spun it to imply that everyone can't debate.
Look up "avoiding the question" in your big bumper book of interweb discussion.
While you're still Googling "shirkers and spamming links without reading them, I am trying to read the posts from people who have actually got past the crass and insensitive way that Freud spoke, so if you don't mind I'll concentrate on them for a bit OK?
Well?
I read the article did you?
Or did it not agree with your view so you dismissed it?
I agree with this sentiment, and society needs to do this, but when you come into office and find that the previous occupants have destroyed or near destroyed the country how then can you do everything in the few years you are given to correct the messes created over a period of 13 years not to mention the ongoing war brought to our shores all based on a lie.
Then we must look at and listen to those same people sitting opposite smirking and smiling and shaking their heads at everything you try to do all the while trying to do the right thing.
The worst bit is that after all the flack, be it personal, professional or moral, you know they are going to be voted back in to do it all over again and again and again.
What to do?
ESA seems to be in that list twice, and it's not strictly a benefit for people with disabilities. Many people are on it for quite short periods while recovering from illness or accidents.
A lot of what is included there is spent on older people, where some level of disability is almost inevitable. The vast majority of adult social care and concessionary travel spending is age-related and attendance allowance is only paid to older people.
I think it's a bit misleading to include age-related spending in this context, where the debate is about working-age people with disabilities.
1979, Labour left the country in a mess, the money was used up correcting that, Labour had 13 years in office and all they managed was illegal war and spend spend spend, smarting up to celebrity instead of regulating and keeping an eye on the economy, you know the one Milliband forgot about in his speech, so what money did they have, nothing left to build homes, nothing left for infrastructure for anyone but a hell of a deficit.
You didn't link to the article, you linked to a summary of it. Is it really worth going so far off topic just to save face because your original link to the Guardian piece didn't prove your point?