I See Social Discontent

[Dancing Fire]

I see social discontent as well.

It's so easy to blame people for wanting things they can't afford, but one of the problems is, we promise youth that if they just work hard enough, get enough education, and really really want it, they can have the world. It turns out that's not true. You can have all the hard work and willingness in the world and end up with nothing but a pile of student loans and rejection letters from employers. I get really sick of people trying to paint everyone unemployed, discontented and yearning for more as lazy. The economy is broken. Hell, the whole system may be broken and on the verge of collapse. We aren't making anything. Even now, with all our manufacturing outsourced, the market is pretty saturated. The market for basic needs is mature and saturated. The market for most wants is too. So when I see people rioting (or, in my native Chicago, flash-mobbing) I see people who are without hope, who have nothing to lose or to risk, reacting to the incentives in front of them.

I also think that's one of the biggest mistakes Americans make: when someone does something socially unacceptable, we blame their character and don't concern ourselves too much with the question of how they ended up there. I believe we are all products of our environment and our incentive structure.

You write beautifully. That was a very thoughtful piece. I think I agree with you on all points.

Deb

Deb
so if i were to rob you and MissStepcut i can just blame it on our society?...

 

[Pandora II]

i'am all for supporting our elderly and educating our kids. i'm not in support of the able to work and don't wanna work welfare recipients.

we need another Ronald Reagen...

Dancing Fire-

How can you be arguing that people should be supported by the the state as long as they want to work while another poster with your point of view argues that people have no inherent right to work?

You two have to make up your minds.

If people who want to work for a living should be able to, then they need JOBS.

PLEASE READ KSINGER'S POSTINGS!!!

Deb/AGBF

If over 500,000 Eastern Europeans were able to find jobs in the UK despite not even speaking the language then it cannot be said that there were no jobs available. Plenty of people don't want a job as our benefits are so generous that they won't be much better off financially. They have no sense of pride or realise that a job that is initially a bit boring or not that well paid may well develop into something better as they acquire skills and experience. Nope, it's all about immediate gratification.

Yes there are people who are unemployed - my husband finally found a new job last week having been made redundant in October last year - but they are not all at the bottom of the social scale.

 

[TristanC]

Time for China to lead the way...

I sit back, cower, and watch the unfolding of the drama that is life. Home is unfortunately too small, and too reliant on the greater world to shake the globe. So it shall be from a position of relative detachment that I can watch the world play out the next act.

Times like this, I'm glad for heavy handed rules.

 

[maplefemme]

Time for China to lead the way...

I sit back, cower, and watch the unfolding of the drama that is life. Home is unfortunately too small, and too reliant on the greater world to shake the globe. So it shall be from a position of relative detachment that I can watch the world play out the next act.

Times like this, I'm glad for heavy handed rules.

Touché, Tristan... But then, a Government that'll kill you for practicing Falun Gong, I consider the epitome of paranoia...but hey, it keeps everyone in line, right?

 

[AGBF]

I see social discontent as well.

It's so easy to blame people for wanting things they can't afford, but one of the problems is, we promise youth that if they just work hard enough, get enough education, and really really want it, they can have the world. It turns out that's not true. You can have all the hard work and willingness in the world and end up with nothing but a pile of student loans and rejection letters from employers. I get really sick of people trying to paint everyone unemployed, discontented and yearning for more as lazy. The economy is broken. Hell, the whole system may be broken and on the verge of collapse. We aren't making anything. Even now, with all our manufacturing outsourced, the market is pretty saturated. The market for basic needs is mature and saturated. The market for most wants is too. So when I see people rioting (or, in my native Chicago, flash-mobbing) I see people who are without hope, who have nothing to lose or to risk, reacting to the incentives in front of them.

I also think that's one of the biggest mistakes Americans make: when someone does something socially unacceptable, we blame their character and don't concern ourselves too much with the question of how they ended up there. I believe we are all products of our environment and our incentive structure.

You write beautifully. That was a very thoughtful piece. I think I agree with you on all points.

Deb
so if i were to rob you and MissStepcut i can just blame it on our society?...

Not in your case. MissStepcut wrote:

"when someone does something socially unacceptable, we blame their character and don't concern ourselves too much with the question of how they ended up there. I believe we are all products of our environment and our incentive structure."

If you noticed the part about, "incentive structure", that's where you come in.

The incentive structure for many people is, of course, staying out of J-A-I-L.

In your case it's what would keep you from picking up my (fictitious) Rolex or whatever watch might be of interest to you. (Would you bother stealing a mere Rolex?)

Your friend,
Deb

 

[AGBF]

i'am all for supporting our elderly and educating our kids. i'm not in support of the able to work and don't wanna work welfare recipients.

we need another Ronald Reagen...

Dancing Fire-

How can you be arguing that people should be supported by the the state as long as they want to work while another poster with your point of view argues that people have no inherent right to work?

You two have to make up your minds.

If people who want to work for a living should be able to, then they need JOBS.

PLEASE READ KSINGER'S POSTINGS!!!

If over 500,000 Eastern Europeans were able to find jobs in the UK despite not even speaking the language then it cannot be said that there were no jobs available. Plenty of people don't want a job as our benefits are so generous that they won't be much better off financially. They have no sense of pride or realise that a job that is initially a bit boring or not that well paid may well develop into something better as they acquire skills and experience. Nope, it's all about immediate gratification.

Yes there are people who are unemployed - my husband finally found a new job last week having been made redundant in October last year - but they are not all at the bottom of the social scale.

Yes, but I was not referring to what you had written or the the situation in Great Britain today. I was referring to what mscushion had written about theory:

"Why? Why is it government's responsibility to give people jobs? Why do people have a *right* to a job? I have never understood that. I don't have a right to my job. I earned it. And if I lose it because my company downsizes, I ought to find another one. And if there isn't one, I ought to come up with some idea that people are still willing to pay for."

There is a problem in clashes in theory between two proponents of the "let them eat cake" group.

Dancing Fire says that as long as people are willing to work, not lounge around and collect welfare, they should be employed. His vendetta is against people who don't work. In that case one can argue that the government has a role in creating an environment where jobs for the populace are a possibility. (No one is commenting on whether there are jobs in Great Britain at the moment!)

mscushion, on the other hand, is saying that the government has no role in assuring that the climate is a good one for people to have jobs.

Deb/AGBF

 

[ksinger]

Thing2
you, Deb and Karen had brainwashed me. i love socialism ..

DF, I'm not a socialist. I doubt, the way you fling it about, that you even know a true definition of the word. I live in arguably the most conservative state in the union, and I am (I have slowly discovered, partly by posting here where there are many viewpoints that don't often occur in my state) about as center of the road as it gets, on issues both economic and social. I'm not a true liberal, although you will no doubt continue to label me as such. Some of my prescriptions for some of society's ills might strike you as even more tough-minded and draconian than YOU would propose, but I don't discuss them here. They won't ever happen so why bother? One thing though, that I am never willing to do, is to adhere so strongly to an ideology that I walk callously over genuine human suffering, and this country is declining fast into what I believe will be (is) severe suffering.

we immigrated to the U.S. in 1966 and soon as we step off the plane my grandfather made this statement..."this is the U.S.A. the greatest country on earth,if you got two hands and are willing to work you will never suffer or starve to death". i will NEVER forget that statement made by my grandfather which IMO still hold truth today,but nowadays with all these "entitlement" programs people just expect a 60" plasma TV to fly into their living room for free.

DF, if you insist on believing that everyone who ever used or will use public services, are leeches unwilling to work, then you aren't paying attention and have far better powers of denial than I do. A growing portion of those on public assistance are people who had decent jobs that are now gone, and they can't find one now, and many of them have run to the end of their savings. To stereotype everyone in need of assistance as " expecting a 60" plasma TV to fly into their living room for free." is simple-minded in the extreme. But hey, whatever makes you feel superior.

 

[ksinger]

I see social discontent as well.

It's so easy to blame people for wanting things they can't afford, but one of the problems is, we promise youth that if they just work hard enough, get enough education, and really really want it, they can have the world. It turns out that's not true. You can have all the hard work and willingness in the world and end up with nothing but a pile of student loans and rejection letters from employers. I get really sick of people trying to paint everyone unemployed, discontented and yearning for more as lazy. The economy is broken. Hell, the whole system may be broken and on the verge of collapse. We aren't making anything. Even now, with all our manufacturing outsourced, the market is pretty saturated. The market for basic needs is mature and saturated. The market for most wants is too. So when I see people rioting (or, in my native Chicago, flash-mobbing) I see people who are without hope, who have nothing to lose or to risk, reacting to the incentives in front of them.

I also think that's one of the biggest mistakes Americans make: when someone does something socially unacceptable, we blame their character and don't concern ourselves too much with the question of how they ended up there. I believe we are all products of our environment and our incentive structure.

That's just right beyond my line. I'm a big believer that the opportunity and environment needs to be improved, but at the end of the day, unless you'd have humans be automatons that can only react a certain way to external stimuli, free will and personal responsibility have got to come in. There ARE other ways of reacting to the same pressures, and at some point you have to say, OK, you made a CHOICE to riot. I'm sorry your life is hard, but it doesn't give you the right to burn your energy harming society and innocent people. There IS a certain amount of "character blaming" that is OK, even necessary to do, or none of us is EVER responsible for our own actions, and the whole underpinning of our legal system goes into the ditch.

 

[mrscushion]

i'am all for supporting our elderly and educating our kids. i'm not in support of the able to work and don't wanna work welfare recipients.
we need another Ronald Reagen...

Dancing Fire-
How can you be arguing that people should be supported by the the state as long as they want to work while another poster with your point of view argues that people have no inherent right to work?
You two have to make up your minds.
If people who want to work for a living should be able to, then they need JOBS.
PLEASE READ KSINGER'S POSTINGS!!!

If over 500,000 Eastern Europeans were able to find jobs in the UK despite not even speaking the language then it cannot be said that there were no jobs available. Plenty of people don't want a job as our benefits are so generous that they won't be much better off financially. They have no sense of pride or realise that a job that is initially a bit boring or not that well paid may well develop into something better as they acquire skills and experience. Nope, it's all about immediate gratification.
Yes there are people who are unemployed - my husband finally found a new job last week having been made redundant in October last year - but they are not all at the bottom of the social scale.

Yes, but I was not referring to what you had written or the the situation in Great Britain today. I was referring to what mscushion had written about theory:
"Why? Why is it government's responsibility to give people jobs? Why do people have a *right* to a job? I have never understood that. I don't have a right to my job. I earned it. And if I lose it because my company downsizes, I ought to find another one. And if there isn't one, I ought to come up with some idea that people are still willing to pay for."
There is a problem in clashes in theory between two proponents of the "let them eat cake" group.
Dancing Fire says that as long as people are willing to work, not lounge around and collect welfare, they should be employed. His vendetta is against people who don't work. In that case one can argue that the government has a role in creating an environment where jobs for the populace are a possibility. (No one is commenting on whether there are jobs in Great Britain at the moment!)
mscushion, on the other hand, is saying that the government has no role in assuring that the climate is a good one for people to have jobs.
Deb/AGBF

Hmm. First, I am not sure why my opinion is labeled as "let them eat cake." That sentence was said by someone heartless and unaware. I'm pretty sure that you don't mean to personally offend anyone, and I don't take it personally, but it's a pretty offensive label.

Secondly, I also don't see why DF and I need to have the same opinions. That's a very black-and-white point of view. In fact, I'd venture to guess that DF is far more conservative than I am. Surely there can be a range of views, just like ksinger and Misstepcut do not fully agree on the role of personal responsibility.

Thirdly, I never said that the government has no role. They do, as I said in another post on this thread. They need to make sure the country's up to date with the latest technological and physical infrastructure, they need to ensure a rule of law, they need to provide some human services, and they need to raise taxes to pay for all of that. All of these things contribute to "a good climate for jobs." What I don't think they need to do is provide jobs for people....because as you said, I don't think work is an inherent human right. It's a completely theoretical point, as you point out, but so much of the debate is based on the premise that citizens do in fact have a right to hold a job based on.... something, their nationality, the fact that they're human beings, I dunno? I find it a really, really important theoretical premise.

(Edited to add a couple minor points.)

 

[maplefemme]

I see social discontent as well.

It's so easy to blame people for wanting things they can't afford, but one of the problems is, we promise youth that if they just work hard enough, get enough education, and really really want it, they can have the world. It turns out that's not true. You can have all the hard work and willingness in the world and end up with nothing but a pile of student loans and rejection letters from employers. I get really sick of people trying to paint everyone unemployed, discontented and yearning for more as lazy. The economy is broken. Hell, the whole system may be broken and on the verge of collapse. We aren't making anything. Even now, with all our manufacturing outsourced, the market is pretty saturated. The market for basic needs is mature and saturated. The market for most wants is too. So when I see people rioting (or, in my native Chicago, flash-mobbing) I see people who are without hope, who have nothing to lose or to risk, reacting to the incentives in front of them.

I also think that's one of the biggest mistakes Americans make: when someone does something socially unacceptable, we blame their character and don't concern ourselves too much with the question of how they ended up there. I believe we are all products of our environment and our incentive structure.

That's just right beyond my line. I'm a big believer that the opportunity and environment needs to be improved, but at the end of the day, unless you'd have humans be automatons that can only react a certain way to external stimuli, free will and personal responsibility have got to come in. There ARE other ways of reacting to the same pressures, and at some point you have to say, OK, you made a CHOICE to riot. I'm sorry your life is hard, but it doesn't give you the right to burn your energy harming society and innocent people. There IS a certain amount of "character blaming" that is OK, even necessary to do, or none of us is EVER responsible for our own actions, and the whole underpinning of our legal system goes into the ditch.

I concur, I believe in personal accountability for one's actions. How you choose to react to your environment is still a choice, however difficult and challenging the environment may be.
It's not that I'm not sympathetic to your plight, I am.
I was told my first day in class that I would never be out of a job in nursing, I'd be set for life.
One month before graduation there was a health care hiring freeze. Two years later, I still work ridiculous casual hours between different facilities. I do not know what hours I will be given from one month to the next, if any. So I pick up every shift I can, this means working double, triple, quadruple shifts with no sleep.
I'm not blaming the person who assured me my career would be otherwise, life happens, economies rise and fall, you have to adapt because the world owes you nothing.
Working hard in school, investing in your future with high loans, giving it everything you have and coming out the other end with nothing but brick walls, it's upsetting and scary, I understand this. But what I do not understand is your mentality that this somehow justifies destroying and looting what others have worked no less harder for than you.

 

[mrscushion]

It's not that I'm not sympathetic to your plight, I am.
I was told my first day in class that I would never be out of a job in nursing, I'd be set for life.
One month before graduation there was a health care hiring freeze. Two years later, I still work ridiculous casual hours between different facilities. I do not know what hours I will be given from one month to the next, if any. So I pick up every shift I can, this means working double, triple, quadruple shifts with no sleep.
I'm not blaming the person who assured me my career would be otherwise, life happens, economies rise and fall, you have to adapt because the world owes you nothing.
Working hard in school, investing in your future with high loans, giving it everything you have and coming out the other end with nothing but brick walls, it's upsetting and scary, I understand this. But what I do not understand is your mentality that this somehow justifies destroying and looting what others have worked no less harder for than you.

This.

 

[Madam Bijoux]

Speaking of welfare cheats, royal families are the biggest welfare cheats who ever lived. I don't know how people put up with those parasites for all this time.

 

[Maria D]

Nothing justifies the looting and all the other absolutely senseless crimes. I would venture that no one is arguing that there is justification, but that with the social, political and economic conditions in play these days we can pretty much expect this kind of social unrest. It is heartbreaking to read about the riots and equally heartbreaking to come here and read the posts of UK citizens that feel ashamed. I am so sorry for that. It's easy to say you should not feel shame but how can I tell you what to feel?

Somehow I doubt that the rioters are kids who were promised the world if they worked hard enough and got a good education and who did just that only to find out there were no decent jobs for them. Many (but certainly not all) of the US high school kids that I teach think hard work and education are for chumps. You do that and maybe you'll get a boring 9-5 job, two weeks vacation, a scrubby little house with huge mortgage and a Hyundai to drive. Instead, they see hip-hop artists and reality TV stars with no education and no apparent job responsibilities living the high-life. I think kids sucked into that ideal are the ones more likely to be the thugs we are seeing.

I don't have much to add; I see something to agree with and disagree with in just about every post here. I am just sorry about the whole thing.

 

[AGBF]

Hmm. First, I am not sure why my opinion is labeled as "let them eat cake." That sentence was said by someone heartless and unaware. I'm pretty sure that you don't mean to personally offend anyone, and I don't take it personally, but it's a pretty offensive label.

You are right. It was offensive. I got carried away inappropriately and I apologize. May I point out that calling me, "heartless and unaware" is an insult?

Deb/AGBF

 

[Maria D]

Oh Deb, I think she was referring to Marie Antoinette, not you!

 

[partgypsy]

This is probably a little off topic, but it got me thinking, what if technology developed to such an extent that robots or other technology replaced most people's jobs, so that 90% of jobs were lost/taken up.
In that situation would it be ok to have a society in which 10% of population made money and used robots for the rest of their services, participate in all the benefits of that particular society, while 90% of people were unemployed/very limited in their opportunities?
In that situation does the government have any responsibility to their citizens, such as providing other opportunities for employment or services? Or do you let free market forces sort it out? I guess there is no right or wrong question, more about people's views of the role of government.

 

[AGBF]

Oh Deb, I think she was referring to Marie Antoinette, not you!

Oh. Well, if so, then, never mind.

Deb

 

[Pandora II]

Speaking of welfare cheats, royal families are the biggest welfare cheats who ever lived. I don't know how people put up with those parasites for all this time.

Our royal family contribute considerably more to the economy (in direct terms) than they take out. The Crown Estates have paid over £1.2 billion directly to the Treasury over the last 10 years - last year it was around £200 million. In return we give £7.9 million. Net gain for the tax-payer. The Queen also pays tax on her personal income just like everyone else.

The added indirect boost to the economy is pretty huge too. The reckoning is that Kate Middleton is worth about £2 billion a year in terms of economic benefit and promotion for UK designers and products. To say nothing of tourism.

 

[mrscushion]

Oh Deb, I think she was referring to Marie Antoinette, not you!

Oh. Well, if so, then, never mind.
Deb

Yes, of course I was calling Marie Antoinette heartless and not you, Deb!

 

[Dancing Fire]

[quote="Pandora|

If over 500,000 Eastern Europeans were able to find jobs in the UK despite not even speaking the language then it cannot be said that there were no jobs available. Plenty of people don't want a job as our benefits are so generous that they won't be much better off financially. They have no sense of pride or realise that a job that is initially a bit boring or not that well paid may well develop into something better as they acquire skills and experience. Nope, it's all about immediate gratification.

Yes there are people who are unemployed - my husband finally found a new job last week having been made redundant in October last year - but they are not all at the bottom of the social scale.[/quote]
exactly,again i agree with you Pandora. i know plenty of Chinese people whom don't speak any english chose to wash dishes then to go on welfare and these dishwashers eventually save enough money to buy a house.i don't know how they do it..

 

[Madam Bijoux]

Pandora:

Our royal family contribute considerably more to the economy (in direct terms) than they take out. The Crown Estates have paid over £1.2 billion directly to the Treasury over the last 10 years - last year it was around £200 million. In return we give £7.9 million. Net gain for the tax-payer. The Queen also pays tax on her personal income just like everyone else.

The added indirect boost to the economy is pretty huge too. The reckoning is that Kate Middleton is worth about £2 billion a year in terms of economic benefit and promotion for UK designers and products. To say nothing of tourism.

That's good - I hope royal families in other countries do the same.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Time for China to lead the way...

I sit back, cower, and watch the unfolding of the drama that is life. Home is unfortunately too small, and too reliant on the greater world to shake the globe. So it shall be from a position of relative detachment that I can watch the world play out the next act.

Times like this, I'm glad for heavy handed rules.

yeah,lets bring back chairman Mao..

 

[Dancing Fire]

[quote="mscushion
Secondly, I also don't see why DF and I need to have the same opinions. That's a very black-and-white point of view. In fact, I'd venture to guess that DF is far more conservative than I am. Surely there can be a range of views, just like ksinger and Misstepcut do not fully agree on the role of personal responsibility.

[/quote]
nahh,you got me confuse with Holly S...

 

[Indylady]

The devastation in Somalia is on my mind first and foremost. Going to bed, I think of those babies not having any food, and their mom making the long treck to seek help... That's what really needs attention..

Yes, I agree.

 

[MissStepcut]

@ maplefemme and ksinger:

It isn't that I don't believe in personal responsibility. Of course I do. I just disagree with the amount of emphasis American society puts on it. We treat symptoms and not root causes.

 

[mrscushion]

This is probably a little off topic, but it got me thinking, what if technology developed to such an extent that robots or other technology replaced most people's jobs, so that 90% of jobs were lost/taken up.
In that situation would it be ok to have a society in which 10% of population made money and used robots for the rest of their services, participate in all the benefits of that particular society, while 90% of people were unemployed/very limited in their opportunities?
In that situation does the government have any responsibility to their citizens, such as providing other opportunities for employment or services? Or do you let free market forces sort it out? I guess there is no right or wrong question, more about people's views of the role of government.

I'll bite! I think it's a really interesting question. I believe this society could never happen in practice. Innovation doesn't just stop and I think you'd always have more than 10% of the population working, in some shape or form, on new robots that could solve new problems, cheaper robots that anyone could use and afford, robots to build those new robots, etc.

However, in the purely theoretical situation, I still think the government does not have that kind of moral responsibility to its citizens.

 

[Deia]

Part Gypsy, your post made me think of this: http://www.thevenusproject.com/

I really like the concept but we are very far away from being able to live in that way.

However since the world is practically crumbling donw in front of our eyes, it's worth a read into. I find it a very interesting alternative to what society we live in currently.

 

[TristanC]

Time for China to lead the way...

I sit back, cower, and watch the unfolding of the drama that is life. Home is unfortunately too small, and too reliant on the greater world to shake the globe. So it shall be from a position of relative detachment that I can watch the world play out the next act.

Times like this, I'm glad for heavy handed rules.

yeah,lets bring back chairman Mao..

DF, how on earth does my post equate to bringing back chairman Mao?

 

[Rhea]

Pandora,

About your bolded statement below (bold by me). I know you know I work in a homeless organization as a front-line worker. The central gov't cut funding to the types of programs we do by 10%, **edited to remove identifying information** passed on cuts of 47%. My contract has just been lost by my previous employer and passed to a new one, won based purely on cost. **edited to remove identifying information** flat out said that they were chose their services based 90% on cost, 10% on quality.

I may not be unemployed, but these cuts have hit the 3rd sector hard. Contracts have been lost, people made redundant, and those staying employed are facing salary cuts of 20-33% - for me, I'm looking at a 25% cut with a case load of 1.5 times the size. I'm lucky, I can still afford to live. But I can't save for a pension, I can't afford to breed (I turned 30 this year, I think I'd like children), and I can't afford to save to purchase a flat. I don't make a lot, not by London standards and housing is expensive.

I'm stressed out and myself and my colleagues have all ended up with several sick days. The cuts and competitive interviews for our own jobs mean we are less client focused and provide less of a service to our clients. We have higher caseloads. It's not unemployment, but the cuts are still very real and do have an on the ground effect...to both workers and our clients.

The rioting in London has NOTHING to do with social problems or government cuts. It is pure greed and mindless thuggery, these people have only one interest: looting.

There are plenty of jobs - heck half a million Eastern Europeans walked into them. We just have a lazy, feckless underclass with a sense of entitlement due to generational lifetimes of free housing, free education, free healthcare and generous state handouts that enable them to sit on their backsides and whinge about how life is so unfair and how there are no opportunities rather than actually look into the endless help there is.

I am not sure what you mean by these two paragraphs, Pandora. In the first one you say the riots are not due to social unrest due to cuts in social programs (which have been deep in Great Britain). (Others-reporting in the news media-say that they believe the rioting is among disaffected, hopeless, poor young people.) But then in the next paragraph you say that these young people are "sitting on their backsides", whining about life being unfair, and not "looking into" the "endless help" that exists.

When you say that they are not "looking into the endless help that exists", what, exactly, do you mean? What has gone wrong with the normal course of events so that they do not have jobs? Why must they, now, look for extra help?

I am curious because I suspect that something is wrong among the working class, at least among the young. I suspect there is unemployment. I do not think that riots come out of nowhere. I do not believe that looting and "thuggery" are done "just for kicks" suddenly. I think they have roots in social problems. Why don't we see these phenomena when we have full employment? Why do we see them when we have 20% unemployment? Is it a coincidence that "thuggery increases" as unemployment does? I think not. I see a correlation!!!

Deb/AGBF

Cuts in social programmes have had very little effect on the ground here. We have 7% unemployment here not 20%

The normal course of events that means that they don't have jobs is because they are too idle to bother turning up to school and trying to learn something and are too proud to do the kind of jobs that are then available to those with no skills or qualifications. Britain no longer requires hewers of wood or drawers of water. Manufacturing here now requires small numbers of skilled workers. We are not a socialist country that intends to spend taxpayers money propping up unsustainable businesses.

The number of programmes and schemes designed to help those with no qualifications retrain and apply for jobs, keep youngsters amused and occupied during school holidays, help for parents, I could give you lists of hundreds of bodies that try to get people out of poverty.

There's nothing wrong with the working class - it's the underclass that don't want to work that is the issue. I used to be a wooly bleeding-heart liberal - then I spent time at the coal face and it cured me pretty fast. There are people who definitely need the safety net of the welfare state but 99% of this lot don't.

People come over here from Poland and are more than happy to work on farms picking asparagus or strawberries or whatever, they are happy to work in factories packing goods. Our own youngsters would rather sit at home on benefits than get a job. We have minimum wage laws here so it's not as if these jobs are paid at below market rates.

I had a constituent come to see me to complain that the council wouldn't give him a flat-screen TV, when I enquired as to why he thought this would be a good use of local tax-payers money his response was that rich people have them so he wanted one too. I asked if he had a job and when he said no I suggested that he might like to apply to the local branch of MacDonald's that I knew was hiring. He looked at me like I'd hit him and said 'no way, you think someone like me is desperate enough to work in a place like that, my friends would laugh at me' - okay, so you have no qualifications, never done a day's work and are expecting me to pay 40% in tax to keep you because you are 'too good' to work in MacDonalds.

A large number of those involved in the rioting are employed and reasonably well-off - they simply want a free TV. Parents are driving their kids down to shops and helping them load the car up with loot. They are burning down charity shops. A guy who had been mugged was helped to his feet by a couple of youths... so they could reach his backpack, go through it and steal what interested them.

These people aren't disaffected - they are scumbag criminals and I'm only sorry that we don't have enough prison cells to chuck them in for a very long time. They have burnt down people's homes and businesses and deserve everything they've got coming to them. I dread to think what is going to happen tonight. The rioters were 2 streets away from me last night, my young cousin has just been sent home from work by the police (she's a social worker) and says that the HQ of a charity for young homeless people has been looted and set on fire. My BIL & SIL and their 4 week old baby live less than 100 yards from one of the main areas of violence last night and could smell the smoke from the burning buildings. I have nothing but disgust for these people.

 

[Deia]

I live and work in London and I have to +1 Pandora on this.

Addy, I agree that the cuts HAVE affected many people, unfortunately, however would you go out and break windows, steal stuff and/or potentially hurt people because you have had to (sadly) take a pay cut? These are awful times for many but the people rioting are not like you, they are as Pandora put it, criminal scumbags. They believe they can take everything and give nothing in return.

A bit off topic but, I recently moved and the building I used to live in was wonderful (and I live in a very nice area of London) until a year and a bit ago where they had to move in loads of council people in one of the wings due to not being able to rent out the apartments because of the crisis. I started to witness kids dealing drugs outside the Tesco's in my building, couches left on the balcony, people moping about day in and day out, ruined walls, ruined carpets etc....etc.... I paid ALOT of money to live there and frankly it pissed me off to see people living in my same building FOR FREE. I was and am paying for them to do NOTHING all day every day for the rest of their life. I saw young women (I'd say 17-18 at most) living there with two kids, no job and certainly no interest in getting one. Hey just have another baby and squeeze out some more money from the government.

There are those on benefits who genuinely need them and who do not take advantage of them, don't get me wrong, and I think it's very important to help those in need but after a while of seeing the system being totally abused I am frankly sick of it. It's unfortunate that this new generation of "yobs" are ruining it for those who struggle to make ends meet and require help when they contribute to society like the rest of us.