Wowowowowow

W

There will always be a differential we cannot all reach the same level. The point I am making is not just about formal education though that does play a part. A substantial number of poor people will unfortunately always have a limited potential to increase their income because of their lack of education/skill/aptitude. Even If we we ensured that 100% of the country were educated you would probably only be changing the people who fall into the bottom bracket.

The argument has drifted slightly, going back to the OP I still maintain that a more practical and longer lasting solution to a child going to school sockless and hungry is to improve the life skills of the parents.

On the one hand you have people claiming that benefits aren't enough and half the country need to use a foodbank yet you have others who seem to be able to go on bloody holiday!! Both the union and the Mail have there own agenda but assuming both stories are correct, then there is something mightily wrong with the benefits system. Money alone will not fix it.

I don't understand what is so controversial about trying to give people more help than just a giro.

Edited by Y Ddraig Goch (07 Apr 2015 6.44pm)

I agree to an extent.....But the 'we can help people to improve their lives' stuff doesn't really fit the truth of what exists in society.

As good old Boris observed. Around fifteen percent of the population have an IQ of around 85.

We can talk about giving people skills and all the rest of it.....It's not really going to work very successfully within a society that is obsessed with intelligence and where the only jobs that exist that pay require experience, skills and everything else..

My old grandad fed his family as a welder.

In the past we had plenty of industrial/farm/factory jobs around where how bright you were was not as important. These jobs have now reduced within the service economy and it's harder to find reasonably paid jobs for that community.

Not only that but we have deemed it ok to bring in lots of foreign competition for what jobs do exist in that section......At what stage did we decide that being born a bit dim meant that your life was basically going to be s***?

They can't even get into the bleeding Army anymore....They are cutting even that route off.

The state should look after its own first, bright, dim or indifferent.

Edited by Stirlingsays (07 Apr 2015 8.15pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Ouch - The correct, sociological term, is lacking is cultural capital, rather than necessarily lack in education or intellectual capacity. Its being in possession of benefical skills, knowledge and access to facilities (and faculties) to be able to engage in society more successfully.

You're more likely to avoid poverty if your parents are upper working or middle class, not because you're intellectually superior, but that your parents facilitate a greater engagement in the process of educational benefit (access to galleries, books, museums, private education, tutors etc).

People in poverty tend to lack concepts and ideas associated with cultral capital.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

True, you could, but the problem is that your then funding three different systems and a complex system of administration, in the first case (as those services in London might be straight forward, outside london its a nightmare).

Overdrafts aren't a viable option for people who are on benefits. Sure, in London, a car is a luxuary, outside London it can very much be a necessity.

I'm not opposed to the idea of those on benefits having some occassional small luxuaries in life either - It shouldn't be a punishment being unemployed - (but it also shouldn't be an easy option either).

Personally, I think the Governments of the last 20 years or so abandoned people in areas of high unemployment, when they should have been systematically relocating people into areas where they could fill those vaccancies that EU migration filled and integrating them back into the workforce (even if it meant higher expense in terms of net spending)., becasuse it was a) cheaper b) served the needs of the corporations that were funding political campaigns.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]