David Cameron wants young people to work 30 hours a week for benefits

This is just pure evil. Not only this will cause a total breakdown of society (collapse of births - no one will have a baby if they can&#x27;t have any social net, total socioeconomic isolation of a vast portion of young people - the issue isn&#x27;t their lack of will to work, but rather lack of will to hire people on reasonable terms - temp&#x2F;zero hour &quot;contracts&quot;, utter lack of will to pay enough for a lot of people to support themselves (i have some friends in Englanf&#x2F;Wales - some of them have STEM degrees, yet they couldn&#x27;t work simply because they would spend more money to get there than earn), zero job security He finally is able to function somewhat on his own becauee he spent a lot of time developing actual skills<p>People slaving away for 50 pounds a week will just get locked in the system Old people will be happy to have own personal slaves they can push around A lot of young people won&#x27;t even bother (yay, we fixed unemployment!) Much rant I just love &quot;fuck the poor&quot; The &quot;training&quot; will probably be done by one of huge private firms, sucking up all the money that should be spent to help those young people

&gt;“Yes, we will help them, but there is no more something for nothing. They must give back to their community too.”<p>Well, unless you&#x27;re a banker or a high net worth individual looking to avoid tax, of course. Then you are under no such obligation to give back to the community.<p>This is bad for you even if you <i>aren&#x27;t</i> earning minimum wage or jobless. The minimum wage has a ripple effect on the labor market. Raise the minimum wage and it increases the wage of those earning just above it, and those earning just above just above it and so on.<p>The effect is of course, muted the further up the wage ladder you go, but the effects of raising the minimum wage propagate up a lot further than you&#x27;d imagine.<p>Of course, if you lower the minimum wage the ripple effect works in the opposite direction.

£1.91&#x2F;h or $2.95&#x2F;h for you Americans, is damn near slave labour. That&#x27;s not even half the UK minimum wage. When I was 18 and on Job Seekers (around 4 years ago), the travel costs to my &quot;local&quot; job centre took up a non-insignificant portion of that (IIRC somewhere between £5-8&#x2F;week, which is a lot of money when you have almost literally none). To then have to travel to something else out of that money?<p>I actually think it&#x27;s a good idea to get some work experience for young people through this programme, but they definitely need a higher subsidy than £1.91&#x2F;h for it. You can literally make more per hour sitting on the street and begging.

I am a young person who succeeded (ish; I am still poor, but on a reasonable trajectory) in the labour market.<p>Many of my friends did not. They are not lazy. They are not useless. They are simply not a good match for the desires of the capitalist machine at the present time.<p>They do not deserve to be ground into dust. They have immense value to give to the world if given half a chance.<p>This effective slavery will grind down their morale and turn them against society even further.<p>Please, see through this &#x27;deserving&#x27; nonsense. This is simply a way for the capitalist class to devalue labour. They own all of the land, they own all of the raw materials. You cannot opt out of this; your choice is to work for a pittance (my basic household bills cost more than this), to leave your family behind, or to die.<p>This isn&#x27;t about being &#x27;owed a living&#x27;. This is about taking away the means of sustenance and renting them back to people.

I don&#x27;t know the transit situation in the UK but in the areas I&#x27;ve lived in the US a huge portion of their &quot;benefits&quot; would be eaten up by transit costs just to get to &quot;work&quot;.

This is nuts, if there are jobs they can be employed and pay tax, at min wage or above.<p>As it is, this will likely be jobs provided by cerco at el which will displace the bottom paid jobs.<p>From a tax POV it makes no sense, from a jobs POV it makes no sense.

Does David Cameron think that only poor kids have trouble learning the &quot;value of work&quot;? And clearly this policy will only apply to poorer kids.