If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Moving back with parents when jobless
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
The government and PM Cameroon wants young adults who lose their job to go back to the safety of mum and dad, when money runs out to pay rent by proposing to stop housing benefit in such cases. Spare the State from paying out and emphasising the family's role
http://www.coalitionwatch.info/2012/04/send-young-unemployed-back-to-mum-and.html
Is this fair?
http://www.coalitionwatch.info/2012/04/send-young-unemployed-back-to-mum-and.html
Is this fair?
0
Comments
me too, the parental home is too crowded. Think of emotional impact of us having found somewhere to rent and then taking crates of belongings back to family house. What a big step backwards
I really don't want to still be living at home when I'm in my thirties. My parents have said there's always a room here for me - but that's not the point.
another one
its all about money- taxpayers money
It's for those under 25 (and unmarried and without kids, though that's not said in the article)
There seems to be a mindset that's developed that a job is a 'nice to have' idea, and that if you don't have an income of some kind then the state should support you in the kind of lifestyle that you like - rather than a bare minimum.
this is one way of seeing it- quite valid too
What's the point of living somewhere where there's no jobs? There's nothing here apart from care or university related work. I'm not qualified for either and know I won't be able to manage doing the former at all.
It's not about self-esteem either - why should someone be forced to live somewhere ? And what about those with no parents?
If I want a job, I have no choice but to move somewhere where there's work. I know I'm not alone in this.
"The government" don't pay for anything. The question you really should be asking is why, after paying into an insurance scheme, should I not be entitled to make a claim on it in the event that I lose my job? Because that's effectively what you're doing when you pay tax. And why should parents be held legally responsible for their adult children? Or will they? What if the parents refuse? But maybe the best way to reduce the burden of these people on the state purse is to actually increase the number of jobs, which might've happened by now if Cameron and his friends hadn't done such a piss-poor job handling the recovery.
Because clearly labour were doing such an amazing job - infinitely better in every way.
I don't think for a moment that I suggested under 25s shouldn't be entitled to Job Seekers allowance - which is the 'insurance' you pay into. I don't see anyone make a suggestion anywhere that they should be legally responsible for their adult children? Unless I've missed something pretty key somewhere along the lines. In reality, it's definitely not feasible - but I don't see any reason why under 25s shouldn't have their housing benefit capped at the bare minimum required to have a single room in a shared house.
But why should people under 35 (as it is now) have to live in shared housing; but someone who is 36 can have their own one bedroom flat? There aren't that many shared houses where I live either. Even then, the maximum rent allowance won't cover the required rent/
But you may be given very short notice for the job interview. You've then got to find somewhere to live, a deposit, first months' rent upfront, you may need furniture, money to live on before your first wage comes through, etc. But live in that place where are jobs, you won't have all the above mentioned issues.
I don't see the issue with paying someone enough housing benefit to rent a one bedroom flat. That shouldn't be in question. However I also don't have any issue with housing benefit rates being restricted to the cheapest houses in the cheapest areas. I have to live in a small house on the outskirts of town because I cannot afford anything else and I don't see why my tax should subsidise others to live in shiny city centre flats.
I'd just add that its easy for those of us in high flying jobs straight from top universities to forget that most people ain't so lucky.
Now, you only have enough housing benefit to rent the cheapest 30% in whatever city you live in. I've looked into moving out and there's nothing out there which would be covered by this amount.
I can see that point, but the problem is that saving money by cutting off support so that people can be independent too often introduce more problems later and I see it as just a short term solution.
The key issue is make people independent, and you won't be truly independent as long as you live with your parents. Moving out is also about self self-confidence and even if people regard that as unimportant it's in fact extremely important in the long run. Self confidence is what gets people through tough studies at uni and/or getting them into jobs so that they can support themselves.
By removing the chance to gain self-confidence one risks putting people into the position of not being able to develop the skills needed to an adult life. I don't live in Britain, but I've seen this happen over and over again in my country, and what was meant as a means of saving public money turns into a disaster where many of these people develop self-estheem issues and psychological illness - requiring even more support and resources from the government.
I think modern western governments need to realize that life - and especially working life - is far more different than when their parents got into working life. The economic climate is tougher and competition is more fierce, and formal education is an absolute necessity to a greater extent. Thus, it's much more difficult for many to take the step into modern working life. You need qualifications as well as self-confidence. Limiting people's chances to get just that is not saving money in a long term perspective, but quite the opposite.
Also, what happens with those who had a contract for tenancy, lost their job and were forced to move back in with their parents? How do they pay the rent on their old house and to their parents?
That's a valid question. Forcing people to move back home with parents in a place with few jobs is hardly productive. Also I'm wondering about the judicial aspect of this, i have a hard time seeing that you may be forced home since your parents aren't obliged to care for you after the age of 18.
shift of weight away from State provision to overwhelming families of one's origin
In Spain with 5 million unemployed, a couple million young people. Many of these have exhausted State benefit payable under law and such people rely on family and friendship networks to survive with life's basic necessities
This is another of those floated ideas which will last right up to the point that the middle class gets interested. When I see it in a Bill before HoC then I'll be concerned.
While I don't know enough about economics to know whether or not the government's policy is the best road to recovery, let's not pretend New Labour did anything other than cluster fuck the economy. Two years isn't long enough to have donned the rose-tinted specs. Labour operated without the faintest regard to the principles of tax and spend. And you don't have agree with Tory policy in order to be glad Labour are currently - and I hope for a while - completely irrelevant.
From the NY Times
I really don't get this constant repeating of the word 'ideological'. Unless you have a crystal ball any future actions are based on an ideology (ie a belief if we do this it will lead to this), your opposition to the Tories action is as ideological as their belief that cutting Government spending* (and increased tax take) are needed to get the economy onto an even keel - more ideological in fact as yours seems to be based on the reading of one blog.
Just as a couple of asides it may be worth pointing out that other Nobel Prize winning economists disagree with Krugman (eg Edward Prescott http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/mar2009/db2009038_985205_page_2.htm) - and even amongst Keynesians (and I'm not totally outside this camp myself) many recognise you can't only take the second half of his belief (increase Government spending in slow-downs) unless you're doing the first (paying off debt in the good-times). As the Government is still spending more than it gets in (and only has the ambition to reduce the gap between income and expenditure, not get rid off it) the Government is in effect running a stimulus programme and the question is how big it should be and how quickly you should get rid off it (http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/spending_chart_2010_2011UKb_11c1li111mcn_90t £30bn in 2010, over £40bn in 2011 and continuing to rise)
A major plank of the Government's policy is to keep interest rates low (so more money can go into services rather than debt repayment) as we recalibrate the economy towards growth. That takes time...
(for a depressing viw of the economic future and certainly not in the Krugman vein read this
http://www.tullettprebon.com/Documents/strategyinsights/Tim_Morgan_Report_007.pdf
* or rather increasing it at a slower rate
http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/spending_chart_2010_2015UKb_11c1li111mcn_F0t
I'm no fan of any of the major political parties, but it's not like the Tories have sprung austerity on us; austerity pretty much was their last election campaign. And the British public lapped up the notion of fiscal responsibility - the idea that tax and spend are related. Which they are. But of course when it actually comes to reducing the difference between what we spend and what we take in taxes, everyone thought it'd be someone else who'd be doing the belt tightening and everyone's all suddenly up in arms over the inhumanity of it all. If I hear one more person in their 50s wank on about how incensed they are they'll have to work to 67 rather than 65 I'll be digging a shallow grave.
If anyone voted Tory and thought they were getting something other than a smaller state with less government spending, a focus on business and less of a regard for the impoverished, then they're a tool.
People's memories are far too fucking short and the fact the Labour made such massive gains in the local elections shows it.
So they follow an ideology (ie a belief), I have to admit to that being a surprise as I always thought that a Government developed its policies based on tarot readings.
More seriously I don't follow your argument which seems tautlogical and assumes that we all agree what the problem is. If you don't have an ideology you have no mental framework and become a blank canvas upon which anyone can write - that's very nice in theory, in practice the only people who are blank canvases are babies, hermits and idiots.
Those who believe in a smaller state believe that the current problem (ie the deficit) is caused by too much spending (those ideologically opposed to that view will not only have a different solution they'll be seeing a different problem, eg the banks) though imhnio if we'd followed Conservative thinking there wouldn't be the problem (though I'll grant that there may have been other ones instead).
If you don't think Labour isn't following an ideological underpinning what do you think they are doing? Is it just guessswork? The intellectual equivalent of pinning a tail in a donkey? Are you expecting us to believe there is no ideological basis to your viewpoint (which I have to admit seems a remarkably consistent one from before the crisis and the current problem) And Krugman, who you seem to be enamoured with is quiet upfront about his ideological underpinnings - I mean he even wrote a book called 'conscience of a Liberal' (in the American sense one presumes from my reading rather than the UK sense)
You can criticise the Tories for following the wrong ideology, but it seems majorly hypocritical (or at leats foolish) to suggest that there is something wrong about having an ideology.
Good points (not a surpise I say that is it