For some reason, people love to speak from a position of authority when discussing poverty. However, if I may so boldly ask, how many of you have actually met those in poverty or those who have pulled themselves out of poverty? I've met both. In fact, both are members of my own family.

My mom was born and raised in a small village in the Philippines. Her childhood home has no running water, no glass windows, and intermittent electricity. I know because I lived there for a summer. Given these circumstances, she saw few opportunities where she lived, so she worked and worked and worked so that she could take advantage of opportunities elsewhere. Unsurprisingly, her strategy worked, and she was accepted to one of the top universities in the country despite being in the worst possible circumstances. I've met plenty of other Filipinos who were in similar situations, and who did exactly the same thing to much success.

On the other hand, instead of studying or working, my uncle has occupied himself with mahjong and drinking, and he has worked odd jobs to support his lifestyle (he also benefits from "welfare" thanks to my mom). Many of those living in my mom's poverty stricken village do the same. Few, if any, of them have made much progress in terms of monetary success. When asked about the source of their financial woes, guess what they say? They blame their circumstances. There are no opportunities. They lack skills. In short, excuses.

Generally, my mom and others who fought their way out of poverty look upon the aforementioned excuses with disdain. According to their mindsets, if there are no opportunities, you find them or you make them. If you lack skills, then you develop them as quickly as you can. As they see it, you can either do nothing and blame everything around you or you can do everything in your power to make your situation better.

Of course, I'm not saying it's just as easy for a poverty-stricken individual to find a good job as it is for someone well-off. There are plenty of obstacles, and they certainly makes things more difficult. However, such obstacles are not insurmountable. There are those who encounter such obstacles and overcome them, and there are those who encounter such obstacles and sink their heads into their hands (or riot and loot).

I traveled much of the world to understand poverty. I have a son in Mabini, Bohol, Phillippines and immigrated his mother to America. I paid for her to go to school and get a skill. Now, everyone in her extended family is well taken care of. The vast majority of Americans have no idea what real poverty is. Of course few would turn down free cash, but this act actually works to strip away all sense of self-worth. I think it is a basic human wish to contribute and in doing so makes us a little happier.

As far as street rioters, they are all pussies. This is how real men (and women) fight injustice.

It's spread to other parts in England as well. Where I live, Nottingham, two police stations were petrol bombed and various shops looted-- but obviously, it's not as bad as London...

there's lots of different people in the world, and the world is usually better off because of that.

Even look at what happened because of the riots: people came together as a community to clean up the mess. It's kind of interesting, because it seems like a similar type of feeling that inspires some people to take part in riots... the feeling that they can do something for a while, and have power over their own environment. It's just channelled way better.

You see the exact same type of feeling in the groups of people doing vigilante defending of property.

@vileru: yeah, it's very easy to divide people in the world like that if you have the energy and motivation to work that hard. You could, so others should be able to as well, right?

Reasons other people don't or can't aren't excuses, just like they're not justifications.

i've been in both positions, and i don't think it's like one position has more merit than another. At some times, for some people, there are obstacles that can't be overcome without help from others, self confidence, and the right situations. Just because someone else could overcome them just through self reliance doesn't mean everyone else can or should. They just had the right tools to begin with. Of course, it's something they should be proud of. But that doesn't mean it's ok to look down on other people or think they're making excuses either.

@ vileru.
I agree with much of post. I am from an extremely poor background. I am well off now and my greatest pleasure in life is to donate to charities (but even that was hard work find where the money goes). Most of it goes to third world countries, mostly agriculture based. Humanity's greatest crime is to allow food and water starvation. I get really pissed off seeing strawberries from Kenya knowing how much water was used to grow them to the detriment of local people who do not have enough to eat. The rioters are weak pussycats.

We all take our own path. Members of my family are in prison. We came from the same background, same lack of opportunity. The rest of us took a diffeent path.

To all you left wing bleeding hearts. You have had your social experiment for 40 years and look at us. We need to sort this scum out now or the right wing nutters will do it for us and that will be awful. Spoken with all the feeling of an ex commie.

Re the minimum wage. When it was introduced, inflation did go up and jobs were lost. But it was not the disaster some Tories had us believe. It would be now. We are on the edge, with massive debts. America is on the edge and has failed so we cannot rely on them anymore.

Rent allowance, tax credits etc were meant to help the poor. All it did was increase inflation and allow landlords to charge more, worse it encouraged people to stay at home and not work.

If you do not believe me. Go onto the Direct Gov site and work out all the benefits and tax credits (and more ) you could claim, say as a single parent with 3 kids. Or use any combo you like. The worst off are single people, the rest could not easily get the same working. There are jobs out there. They may not always be great jobs it is true. The real calculation made is this - why do a 40 hour week for the same money at worst or about £50 quid more at best? My brother's next door neightbour calculates he would need to earn £42K to equal his benefits. The average wage is £26K! Actually, I don't many who earn that round here.

We need all the cuts and probably tax rises. That will hurt the economy. There will be more pain, but if we do not do this now future pain will be unbearable and the social unrest far worse than you are seeing on TV today. Debt does not necessarily have to be a problem - the size of it is and the funding of it.

rather than cutting services to people who need them most, e.g. telling people with advanced multiple sclerosis and terminal cancer that they're fit to work (only a couple of the most extreme examples of the decisions ATOS has made, so you can imagine what it's like for people with less extreme problems) so they can save money, cutting services to people with drug problems, charities set up to help engage people in the community doing useful things, all manner of health and education cuts... all things that will cause more long term problems for society and cost more in the future...

they could actually try to get to the heart of the problem in the money system that caused the massive debt problem in the first place (i'm looking at you fractional reserve banking and loans with interest). Debt is just an illusion, they could fix it if they wanted to.

IceCream Wrote:rather than cutting services to people who need them most, e.g. telling people with advanced multiple sclerosis and terminal cancer that they're fit to work (only a couple of the most extreme examples of the decisions ATOS has made, so you can imagine what it's like for people with less extreme problems) so they can save money, cutting services to people with drug problems, charities set up to help engage people in the community doing useful things, all manner of health and education cuts... all things that will cause more long term problems for society and cost more in the future...

they could actually try to get to the heart of the problem in the money system that caused the massive debt problem in the first place (i'm looking at you fractional reserve banking and loans with interest). Debt is just an illusion, they could fix it if they wanted to.

If you had a full reserve banking system, there would be no liquidity in the market. You would certainly have a full depression. Fractional reserve banking works but like anything it can be abused. This country already had huge debt problems thanks to decades of overspending, Gordon Brown and two wars. We were finished off by the exposure of British banks to American debt and particularly exposure to mortgage loans given to people who could not afford them (including people on benefits). This is not to do with fractional reserve banking but more with idiots who don't know how to invest and crooks taking advantage of such ignorance. Part of the problem now is the banks won't lend because they have to build up capital reserves which is what they should have done before. That the weakness of fractional reserve, if you don't have enough reserves you may not be able to ride a crisis. Too many graduates involved and too many people who have not had to make money for themselves - not enough real business people.

Cutting spending to Charities has not happened really. The govenment has not taken away their tax status. They receive less money because donations are down due to the economy. Actually, the frightening thing is most cuts of any kind have not happened yet. It is certainly a shame some government services have been cut. However, people have been stealing from the state for years depriving those who really need the help. My brother is disabled and he works whenever he can unlike half of his mates on incapacity benefit, most of whom did not even turn up the new assessment knowing they had lied. The examples you cite are disgraceful. I listened to a debate on Radio 4 with other examples. Most were overturned on appeal but I am sure there will be unfair decisions. Unfair decisions should be fought against.

But IceCream are you going to pursue the fraudsters with the same vigour?

I have said before, millions have been poured into these areas in terms of services and youth investment, sure starts, new schools etc It has not worked.

My personal grievance is the lack of help for home carers. Fraudsters and malingers deprive them of the extra funds them deserve. In fact, in this steet over the past view days this has turned out to be the greatest source of resentment. That and the benefit scroungers who have more money that those us of us working (does not apply to me. I am quite rich now). There are two small factories near us. When they adverstize for vacancies they hardly get any replies but there are people with several hundred yards they say they cannot get job. Bollocks. One guy even knocked on their doors to offer a job. Sure he is only paying 7.20 per hour, but it is a job!

Reading your posts I conclude you are either a Social Worker or a Philospher. honourable professions but I would not rely on you to get us out of this mess.

Must say I am trying not to be personal. I like reading your posts and ideas. Just strongly disagree with you on this.

Tell you who makes me angry - Dianne Abbott. What a hypocrite. She comes out with all this twaddle and then sends her son to posh schools. Hackney not good enough her little boy then.

IceCream Wrote:@vileru: yeah, it's very easy to divide people in the world like that if you have the energy and motivation to work that hard. You could, so others should be able to as well, right?

Reasons other people don't or can't aren't excuses, just like they're not justifications.

i've been in both positions, and i don't think it's like one position has more merit than another. At some times, for some people, there are obstacles that can't be overcome without help from others, self confidence, and the right situations. Just because someone else could overcome them just through self reliance doesn't mean everyone else can or should. They just had the right tools to begin with. Of course, it's something they should be proud of. But that doesn't mean it's ok to look down on other people or think they're making excuses either.

I should qualify my previous post by saying that what I said only applies in general. Of course, I think there are exceptions, e.g. people with disabilities, diseases, truly inescapable situations. However, these exceptions are rare, and definitely not countable in the millions (for advanced nations).

Believe it or not, but there are people who refuse to take opportunities when offered to them, even when offered freely. My mom paid for the entire education of all five of my uncle's children in the Philippines. Only one finished a college degree. The rest dropped out at my mom's expense. Similar cases are abound. There were plenty of people in my high school who were perfectly capable of performing well academically, but did otherwise. In such a situation, the majority of the blame falls on the person who avoided the opportunity when it was standing right in front of them. Such cases aren't rare either. I'm sure everyone on these forums can recall similar stories.

Now, I'm not saying that we shouldn't help people out. We should be doing our best to make sure that every member of society has the opportunity to make a decent living (although having equal opportunities for everyone is preferable, I'm skeptical of whether that ideal is financially possible). However, allowing people to be dependent on our tax dollars is definitely the wrong way to go about it.

Let me ask: is it prudent parenting to spoil a child rotten? Likewise, is it prudent governing to give welfare without strings attached?

bodhisamaya Wrote:

vix86 Wrote:This sort of stuff is really what people talk about when they say "Lets tax the rich and pump money into infrastructure building so we can create jobs." Although that's not the same as forcing people on welfare to work, which some may be incapable of doing, but the point still stands. We simply do not have the money to do anything like that. That's ignoring some of the logistic issues too, such as fighting the corporation's sock puppets (read: Republicans & Teabaggers) which will balk at the "big government" and disrupting free market economics.

If GE or Google, paid $1 in taxes, it would be a tax increase on the rich. How would having welfare recipients put to work upset the Teabaggers?
When it comes to corporate welfare, the Republicans are silent.

The teabaggers might be in favor of forcing welfare receipts to work, but the leftists and possibly some on the right too that think "govt. shouldn't be able to tell you what to do" would be very strongly against forcing people into work. Leaving open the possibility for welfare to take these jobs first though would be a more likely situation. Like I said though, not everyone on welfare is necessarily capable of working. Not to mention there are women on welfare and I doubt you'd be able to get them to work construction jobs.

Women do construction jobs in Japan. They direct people away from the site. I am only speaking of those who are physically and mentally capable of working.

If businesses were allowed to pay people their actual worth (i.e less than minimum wage), then businesses would find plenty of work for them. Governments could either pay the difference (so they do get minimum wage) or offer minimal welfare (with employment as a requirement). You could even set up agencies that introduce this cheap labour to businesses who would gladly accept it. Non-conditional welfare should be for people with disabilities and some other special cases only. This problem has gotten as bad as it is now because it has gone on for generations.

vileru Wrote:For some reason, people love to speak from a position of authority when discussing poverty. However, if I may so boldly ask, how many of you have actually met those in poverty or those who have pulled themselves out of poverty?

My mum was working class, my dad came from the 3rd world, though I am spoilt brat myself.

nadiatims Wrote:If businesses were allowed to pay people their actual worth (i.e less than minimum wage), then businesses would find plenty of work for them. Governments could either pay the difference (so they do get minimum wage) or offer minimal welfare (with employment as a requirement). You could even set up agencies that introduce this cheap labour to businesses who would gladly accept it.

You can't let greed to decide how much people's work is worth.

People who have the economic power tend to be related to people with political power, or in lots of cases they are actually the same. Under your idea, business men would get rich by making use of cheap labor while their friends and cousins in government would take tax money from workers to subsidize their rich friends undertakings.

@midnightsun:

i'm not sure the problem is not having enough reserves, isn't it more that the ability to call in loans lays with the loaners (and therefore can be driven by short term almost emotional reactions, as well as pulling strings to influence government policy)?

Well, to (over)simplify things... money is created when a loan is given (through fractional reserve banking). So, the money goes out into the economy, great. But the money to pay the interest on the loan wasn't created, that has to come from what's existing in society already. So, a large number of loans being called in at any one time = depression. Even if money wasn't lent badly, it's still going to lead to depression, because that money never existed in the first place.

have you seen the documentary "the money masters"? It's really interesting, though long, and proposes a non-radical solution to the problem. What the bank of england is like now is quite ok, but it counts for less than 10% of money creation in the UK (or some ridiculous statistic like that). The other 90% is independant, and has ties to American markets and such, and so we get affected too when America suddenly calls all their loans in.

Anyway, it's here if you want to watch it:

it's mainly about America but the same kind of principles apply to the UK in lots of ways.

*********
The problem with the charities doesn't seem to be just that the money has been cut, it's because it's being cut so quickly. For years, the kind of charities we're talking about have been functioning as sort of a part of the government - they provide services that are useful to local governments and local people, but aren't covered already in completely government run stuff. They're closely tied in with government run agencies though.

And a large part of their funding has come from the government because of that. What charities seem to be saying though, is that it takes some time to be able to switch from a subsidised model to a donation based model. Many don't have the kind of flexibility they'd need to be able to do that straight away, so they have to close. And yeah, it's happening already, because the order already came from central government and through the local government in many places.

*********
Y'know, i don't think the scheme to get people with a disability back to work is a bad thing in any way. i think it'd be hugely beneficial to a huge number of people!! What's that statistic... if you've been unemployed for more than 2 years, you're more likely to die or retire than go back to work. And i can understand that, totally... you lose the confidence to go back after a while, or even apply, and in so many workplaces the practical solutions, or desire, to work with people with disabilities just aren't there.

Even for the fraudsters... well, i dunno how much you can really blame people for making a rational choice under the circumstances. (of course it's not rational to break your back working a 40 hour week for the same amount of money or slightly more than you get from benefits). But living on benefits isn't the ideal lifestyle people make it out to be either. It's boring, and unfullfilling. In many cases it ends up isolating people who need the support and social interaction with others most.

The problem is the underhand way they're going about it, and the lack of support that's being given.

ATOS are employed just to tell people they're fine for work. They put people in imaginary wheelchairs and then tell them they can move. If you can get to the interview on time, you're fit for work. If you can't get to the interview, you're off the benefit anyway. The kinds of questions being asked border on the ridiculous... "can you make a cup of tea for yourself?" "can you go to the corner shop on your own?" "are you on facebook?" "what's £2.00 minus 25p" (seriously! these were all asked to me) It's most obvious when it's terminal cancer cases they're declaring fit for work, but there's also basically no chance that anyone with any kind of mental health issue is going to be declared unfit for work, ever. Perhaps if they wet themselves in the interview, who knows... they might score 1 point on their "test", but even that's not good enough to pass, you need to score 15!! (or maybe they'd just stick them in an imaginary nappy and still give them 0 points lol)

What a waste of money... why they don't simply ask for a letter detailing the types of problems you face from your own GP, and then employ people in the jobcentre dedicated to finding work that can be flexible enough to deal with any problems, god only knows. If they can't find it, you stay on benefits until they can. Simple. Very little cost.
The idea that aphasiac was talking about in Taiwan isn't bad either as a transitionary role for people.

... and yeah, i studied philosophy lol. But i think the main thing is that lots of problems with society are fixable, but it's slow, hard work, and people are always gonna fall through the net. The solutions are out there, but quick band aid solutions aren't usually it... they might show a short term profit, but don't work, or end up costing more in the long run.

vileru Wrote:I should qualify my previous post by saying that what I said only applies in general. Of course, I think there are exceptions, e.g. people with disabilities, diseases, truly inescapable situations. However, these exceptions are rare, and definitely not countable in the millions (for advanced nations).

Believe it or not, but there are people who refuse to take opportunities when offered to them, even when offered freely. My mom paid for the entire education of all five of my uncle's children in the Philippines. Only one finished a college degree. The rest dropped out at my mom's expense. Similar cases are abound. There were plenty of people in my high school who were perfectly capable of performing well academically, but did otherwise. In such a situation, the majority of the blame falls on the person who avoided the opportunity when it was standing right in front of them. Such cases aren't rare either. I'm sure everyone on these forums can recall similar stories.

Now, I'm not saying that we shouldn't help people out. We should be doing our best to make sure that every member of society has the opportunity to make a decent living (although having equal opportunities for everyone is preferable, I'm skeptical of whether that ideal is financially possible). However, allowing people to be dependent on our tax dollars is definitely the wrong way to go about it.

Let me ask: is it prudent parenting to spoil a child rotten? Likewise, is it prudent governing to give welfare without strings attached?

well, i dunno, i wasn't really thinking of people with disabilities or diseases, etc.

The thing is, the people who can pull themselves up on their own and face huge amounts of adversity are the exception, and not the rule. That's why their stories end up being inspiring to so many people.

It's not that i think that other people don't have the ability to do so if they really tried, it's more that the ability to try that hard is exceptional, if you see what i mean...

What you really need in order to be motivated to do something, is a clear idea of what it is you want to achieve and why. Then you need the confidence to get there. And the things that might hold you back need to be not so important to you.

There's many reasons people can't achieve what your mum did. Maybe they don't want to leave their friends and family behind to move somewhere else. Maybe they didn't really have a clear idea of how their life would be if they put in all the work, or want that particular life enough. It's perfectly possible to wish your life was better, without wanting to change your life unrecognisably before it becomes so.

Other times, part of the problem is just not knowing that certain options exist, or that they apply to you, or having the confidence to believe that you can really achieve things.
There's one teenage girl i met in London, who was expelled from school before sitting her GCSE's because she set fire to a desk. She was telling me that she does regret it now, and how thankful she is that she even got any job at all, though she sometimes wishes she could do something better.
i suggested that she could take the GCSE's by herself, just by speaking to a local school and asking to be included on the exam list, or going to a college and explaining the situation... they might even waver the need for GCSE's to let you on some courses. She looked at me like i was crazy...
i don't think she'll do it, but i think she hadn't ever even thought that it was possible, not even once. i don't think she'd have the confidence to carry it through though either really.

You can't force people to change, but it's not always pure laziness either, if they seem to choose not to, i think.

props to your mum though, it's really a great achievement!!

Considering how much emotional suffering and adversity most of us endure during our teenage years, I think all who survive into their 20s are miraculous.

Another interesting article that may shed some light...

Quote:The UN’s first ever report on the state of childhood in the industrialized West made unpleasant reading for many of the world’s richest nations. But none found it quite so hard to swallow as the Brits, who, old jokes about English cooking aside, discovered that they were eating their own young.

According to the Unicef report, which measured 40 indicators of quality of life – including the strength of relationships with friends and family, educational achievements and personal aspirations, and exposure to drinking, drug taking and other risky behavior – British children have the most miserable upbringing in the developed world. American children come next, second from the bottom.

nadiatims Wrote:ok...idea number 2. Scrap the welfare. Keep the minimum wage, but allow employers to pay whatever they feel that person's ability is actually worth. The government can then pay the difference. So say minimum wage is 10$, the employer is willing to pay 2$, so the governement should pay 8$. This way the recipient gets to have a job where they can slowly increase their skills and start to understand the value of money.

This exact system is already in place in the UK - it's called "working tax credits".

GREAT idea in theory, but in practise guess what - doesn't work. Person can either work a dead-end job for less than minimum wage (i.e. the job must be really terrible) and get their wages topped up at the end of the month, or sit at home 24/7 relaxing and pull in the exact same money on welfare; guess which one is preferable?

Now factor in the fact that there are other free benefits to being unemployed that suddenly disappear when you take a job - it's not worth it. Only people who claim working tax credits are single Mums.

Like i said, the UK system is really broken!

It's interesting to contrast the UK to Taiwan. The work situation is soo different here!

- All shops are open 10am till 10pm, 7 days a week. People work their asses off! High value / respect is placed on working hard.
- There is no minimum hourly wage, but there is a minimum monthly wage of $18,000NT.
- How many hours you work depends on how good your job is. It's not uncommon for shop workers to do 10-12 hour shifts 6 days a week.
- Cost of living is cheap here. A studio flat in Taichung is $4000NT per month, a one bedroom apartment will be $8-$10,000NT. Food is nothing, fuel is nothing, transport costs are dirt cheap. So even if you have a lowly job in a tea-shop, you can live comfortably in your own place.
- No benefits here. You either work, live with your parents or marry a rich guy.
- Cost to start a business is low here. If someone can't find a job, they can rent a shop and start their own business. If it fails, doesn't matter.

I get the impression people are happy with their lot here - but it is a really different working and living culture.

a lot of that does sound good, but what do single parents do? Also, do women work after marriage there, or is it more like Japan where they tend to become housewives?

yeah, it's something that really struck me hard when i travelled to Taiwan and Japan, especially... the working culture is so different. People really take pride in their jobs, and try to do them well. Here, you're not really supposed to like your job, or take it too seriously, i think. Well, not if you don't have a really good job, anyway...

IceCream Wrote:a lot of that does sound good, but what do single parents do?

They move back in with their parents - your family are expected to look after you and the baby. There is some sort of state handout if you really have no relatives, so mother and the child won't starve.

Remember though, having babies (and indeed sex) outside marriage is not really socially acceptable here; therefore this situation is rare. If a girl makes the decision to be a single Mum and her parents support it, she will be looked down upon by society, her child will be bullied, and she can forget about getting married or even dating for the rest of her life..she's now "spoilt goods".

IceCream Wrote:Also, do women work after marriage there, or is it more like Japan where they tend to become housewives?

Yep it's still fairly traditional; women are expected to be housewives, and men the main breadwinners.
There's no "salaryman" culture though, so men still have to work their butts off but not to the same extent as in Japan. Also unlike Japan work hours get less as you move up in your career; graduates start off working 12hrs/day, six days a week, but with more experience they can settle into a regular 9-6 role.

aphasiac Wrote:

nadiatims Wrote:ok...idea number 2. Scrap the welfare. Keep the minimum wage, but allow employers to pay whatever they feel that person's ability is actually worth. The government can then pay the difference. So say minimum wage is 10$, the employer is willing to pay 2$, so the governement should pay 8$. This way the recipient gets to have a job where they can slowly increase their skills and start to understand the value of money.

This exact system is already in place in the UK - it's called "working tax credits".

GREAT idea in theory, but in practise guess what - doesn't work. Person can either work a dead-end job for less than minimum wage (i.e. the job must be really terrible) and get their wages topped up at the end of the month, or sit at home 24/7 relaxing and pull in the exact same money on welfare; guess which one is preferable?

Now factor in the fact that there are other free benefits to being unemployed that suddenly disappear when you take a job - it's not worth it. Only people who claim working tax credits are single Mums.

Like i said, the UK system is really broken!

I meant to say that the payment should be conditional on having a job. Eliminating the minimum wage is a way of eliminating the barrier to entry into the workforce for unskilled labour. I could see the system i proposed leading to all sorts of dodginess in accounting though, such as businesses 'employing' people on the condition that the employees pay back some percentage of the government handout to the business. Maybe a better system would be something like the government pays an extra 50% based on the wage earned (up to a certain wage). So if the employer can pay $5, the government pays an extra $2.5. This way there is more of an incentive to the employee to negotiate a higher pay with the employer.

IceCream Wrote:a lot of that does sound good, but what do single parents do? Also, do women work after marriage there, or is it more like Japan where they tend to become housewives?

My guess would be people do their damn best not to become single parents. Presumedly parents in such cultures would understand the costs of parenthood and make damn sure their teenage daughters don't get pregnant and would pressure their sons to take responsibility when they impregnate some girl. I imagine abortion rates are also much higher.

aphasiac Wrote:It's interesting to contrast the UK to Taiwan. The work situation is soo different here!

- All shops are open 10am till 10pm, 7 days a week. People work their asses off! High value / respect is placed on working hard.
- There is no minimum hourly wage, but there is a minimum monthly wage of $18,000NT.
- How many hours you work depends on how good your job is. It's not uncommon for shop workers to do 10-12 hour shifts 6 days a week.
- Cost of living is cheap here. A studio flat in Taichung is $4000NT per month, a one bedroom apartment will be $8-$10,000NT. Food is nothing, fuel is nothing, transport costs are dirt cheap. So even if you have a lowly job in a tea-shop, you can live comfortably in your own place.
- No benefits here. You either work, live with your parents or marry a rich guy.
- Cost to start a business is low here. If someone can't find a job, they can rent a shop and start their own business. If it fails, doesn't matter.

I get the impression people are happy with their lot here - but it is a really different working and living culture.

When I told someone from Singapore they were shocked we just give out free money to people. Crime is low and the streets are clean. Their system certainly seems much more functional than ours...

Quote:My guess would be people do their damn best not to become single parents. Presumedly parents in such cultures would understand the costs of parenthood and make damn sure their teenage daughters don't get pregnant and would pressure their sons to take responsibility when they impregnate some girl. I imagine abortion rates are also much higher.

Taiwan is pretty low.
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/a...334pd.html

As I said - couples don't have sex outside marriage! And I hear morning-after pill is *very* popular here...more than the regular pill in fact..

Bloody hell though, those stats are astonishing though - in Greenland (and Russia pretty much ) 50% of ALL pregnancies are aborted?! That's totally screwed up - what the hell is going on in those countries??

@ icecream
Yes that was a simplification of Fractional Reserve Banking but frankly I am not sure how to explain it any better! It is the lesser of two evils. If unregulated it can be a disaster as it has been recently and was in the 30s. Without it I coud never have bought a house or started businesses and dragged myself from poverty. The rich would have been far richer - they would have lent with their own terms through far more dodgy vehicles than a Bank - if you can imagine such a thing. The critical things is, can you pay back and does the bank have sufficient reserves if a glut of depositers want there money back? Money is a dirty thing really.

My greatest sadness is that Communism does not work. Though it may still have its day when the worlds resources run out and we have to work together fairly or we are doomed.

Always thought the Japanese would have made the best communists.

I am now a capitalist. No question, but I do not respect or trust most instituions. Most have never had to make their own money. The saddest thing is that banking has taken many of our brightest and best and yet how many really could start their own business from scratch? Few. And if they are so smart how come they do not forsee crashes when they are obvious to business people. Ordinary business did not invest in the .com boom. Too smart. But a bunch of geeks went to City and said we have started a wonderful company called BigFart.com it is really going to blow wind and change the whole retail world (if only we could think of something to retail). Sure it is, says the City - here is £3 million pounds of my investors' money. Go blow wind. Which they did. 6 months later £3 million had vanished into stale air.

Another example of dishonesty/stupidity. Private pension projections sent to customers have always been on 5%, 7% and 9% growth. Sure, 20 years ago but they still use the same projections. When was the last time anyone got a 5% return? Take into account fees and inflation the real return is under 1%. Without Tax Relief pensions are not worth it. Surely the FSA should stop this practice, or at least add...... "however, returns over the past decade have been 3% (or whatever is really is)" That is honest.

Could go on an on and on and on but thankfully won't.

Agree with your point about no time for Charities to adjust to the new situation.
Also, agree about the waste of money re ATOS, though I agree with the principle.
I think Labour started this process. The coalition should have killed it dead and just been stricter with the present system.
..................

Re single Mum's. My mum had five children over 20 years. 3 fathers, all a dead loss. Very little benefit paid. Sad stories can happen. But what pisses me off are 5 children 3 fathers - Mum is 23. I would look after the first child. Not the second orfurther children. People would soon learn. It is emotional blackmail against society. Everyone knows how the system works and they take advantage. We should be like Italy, Taiwan etc. No benefits. You get in trouble, you rely on your family or your are on your own.

Have you seen the footage of people charged and interviews. Looking at the parents you can see the problem. And I don't mean underlcass people. There were teachers, graduates, professional people, a millionaires daughter. As I said in my first post, Britain has become a selfish country without respect for others, the law, community et.

However I do respect the black girl who after 3 nights of no sleep could not live with what she had done and handed herself in.