5 ms·

So the PO creates a franchise program that they later decide isn't suitable for any sane, good-faith actor, and instead of revising the terms of the franchise p

by njovin 1y ago

So the PO creates a franchise program that they later decide isn't suitable for any sane, good-faith actor, and instead of revising the terms of the franchise program to make it so, they assume that the participants are criminals and prosecute them?

blitzar 1y ago
sociopathic lack of empathy basically
flir 1y ago
I see you've worked with a moribund bureaucracy before.
LiquidSky 1y ago
> isn't suitable for any sane, good-faith actor I think this is the parent’s point: this is the POV of the rich and powerful who lead the organization. They can’t imagine someone in a different position seeing these franchises as a way to secure good (or at least decent), long-term, stable employment.
lawlessone 1y ago
The same way many think about welfare/unemployment/disability schemes. Constant hoops to jump through to prove they're looking for work or still incapable. Or in the case of illness to prove they're still sick. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59067101 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59067101
- citizenpaul 1y ago
  There is a rather famous book written on this subject. Catch-22. In order to be given disability you must jump through so many hoops that no one whom is actually sick could complete them. Or how in unemployment you must prove you must spend your time proving you are looking for a job so you cannot spend you time actually looking for a job. My personal fav because its almost universal is sick-day policies that codify 100% abuse of sick days because people are punished for not using them because some people were "abusing" their sick days. In the case of the book to be discharged from military service they must prove they are insane which no insane person could complete.
  - viciousvoxel 1y ago
    Minor correction, but in the book the act of asking to be discharged on account of insanity is taken as proof that one is sane, because no sane person would want to keep flying bombing missions day after day with low odds of survival.
    - saghm 1y ago
      That honestly doesn't make much sense when presented like that. It doesn't seem obvious that every single insane person would pick the insane choice in every scenario. It sounds more like a case of "necessary but not sufficient" in terms of sanity. (I imagine the book probably had plenty more nuance than the oversimplified strawman that I'm criticizing).
- IshKebab 1y ago
  Yeah but in the UK there actually are lots of people claiming benefits that probably shouldn't be. Especially Personal Independent Payments. It's enough of an issue that even Labour (left wing) is having to deal with it. Though as usual Starmer has chickened out (I think this is like the third thing that was obviously a good move that he's backed down on after dumb backlash).
  - arranf 1y ago
    Can you provide sources for your claim?
    - IshKebab 1y ago
      If you're looking for hard numbers on how many people shouldn't be getting them then you won't find it. Only the government has access to the details of individual claims. However you can infer a lot from a) the insane rise in claims, especially mental health related: https://obr.uk/docs/box-chart-3-f.png https://obr.uk/docs/box-chart-3-f.png Has the mental health of the nation got twice as bad in 2 years? Obviously not. And b) whenever the BBC does touchy feely profiles of people there are always some weird red flags: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2gpl4528go https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2gpl4528go £400/month help with her bills because she struggles with time management? I'm sympathetic to her problems but that is a shit ton of money! Even some of the people receiving it agree: > "I was shocked by the ease with which it was granted. I was expecting to be interviewed, rightly so, but it was awarded without interview and he received backdated pay for the maximum amount." > > She was also surprised that her husband got mobility allowance for not having a car, even though she had a car and could drive him around. (This reminds me of WFA where plenty of people receiving that also thought it was ridiculous.) https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn0ry09d50wo https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn0ry09d50wo > Paul Harris, from Barnard Castle, gets £72.65 a week in PIP payments to help with extra costs associated with his anxiety and depression - such as for specialist therapy apps and counselling. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn4llx4kvv8o https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn4llx4kvv8o > Nick Howard, 51, from Cambridge, is neurodivergent and has been claiming Pip for five years. > > "Without Pip I would not be able to work as it pays for my transport to and from my workplace. > > "I'm currently buying an electric bike on credit, others I have had have been stolen or vandalised," he added. Great... but I don't think paying PIP for 5 years is a good way to buy someone a bike. Obviously not all cases are like this, but clearly something has gone wrong. And this isn't a partisan issue. Both parties agree that it has to change. The Tories just ignored the problem and Labour gave up after predictable "N people will die!" press. And to be clear I'm not anti-poor or anything like that. I also thing WFA is ridiculous and that mostly goes to the rich. Child benefit also goes to lots of people (myself included) who totally don't need it. They all need reform, but look what happens when the government tries...
- knowitnone 1y ago
  there is lots of welfare fraud. if you think money should just be handed out without question then you start handing your money out first.
  - thrance 1y ago
    Source? DOGE couldn't find any, even with all the ruckus they made.
- wagwang 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - jacksnipe 1y ago
    Sorry, but citation needed. Means testing might seem “obvious” from first principles, but from a policy point of view, it makes little to no sense. The macroeconomic effects of welfare programs create a society that is better for everyone to live in. Reducing the issue to a matter of personal responsibility is a reframing that allows you to completely lose sight of the big picture, and create programs that are destined to fail by not reaching many of the people they need to.
    - stretchwithme 1y ago
      Citation needed for the right to other people's money. Government running charity interferes with the normal feedback in society. And the need to ask politely, justify one's apparently bad decisions and change failing behavior. People become "entitled" to regular cash so a lot of the fear that ordinarily motivates the rest of us goes away. Any system that asks nothing of people is a bad system. I grew up on welfare. I've also seen how a lot of people on welfare actually live and how they spend their time. They don't spend it cleaning, I can tell you that.
      - soraminazuki 1y ago
        Citation needed that your neoliberal views are anything other than bad faith voodoo economics. We have decades' worth of proof that it's toxic for society, both politically and economically. Your whole talking point is an excuse for the ultra rich to get even richer through mass exploitation, which ironically is the embodiment of entitlement that you're so opposed to.
      - const_cast 1y ago
        > Citation needed for the right to other people's money. It's called taxation, it's codified in law. Like... literally. I don't think you could find a better citation for "rights" than that. Jesus Christ.

by njovin 1y ago

blitzar 1y ago

sociopathic lack of empathy basically

flir 1y ago

I see you've worked with a moribund bureaucracy before.

LiquidSky 1y ago

> isn't suitable for any sane, good-faith actor I think this is the parent’s point: this is the POV of the rich and powerful who lead the organization. They can’t imagine someone in a different position seeing these franchises as a way to secure good (or at least decent), long-term, stable employment.

lawlessone 1y ago

The same way many think about welfare/unemployment/disability schemes. Constant hoops to jump through to prove they're looking for work or still incapable. Or in the case of illness to prove they're still sick. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59067101 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59067101

citizenpaul 1y ago
There is a rather famous book written on this subject. Catch-22. In order to be given disability you must jump through so many hoops that no one whom is actually sick could complete them. Or how in unemployment you must prove you must spend your time proving you are looking for a job so you cannot spend you time actually looking for a job. My personal fav because its almost universal is sick-day policies that codify 100% abuse of sick days because people are punished for not using them because some people were "abusing" their sick days. In the case of the book to be discharged from military service they must prove they are insane which no insane person could complete.
- viciousvoxel 1y ago
  Minor correction, but in the book the act of asking to be discharged on account of insanity is taken as proof that one is sane, because no sane person would want to keep flying bombing missions day after day with low odds of survival.
  - saghm 1y ago
    That honestly doesn't make much sense when presented like that. It doesn't seem obvious that every single insane person would pick the insane choice in every scenario. It sounds more like a case of "necessary but not sufficient" in terms of sanity. (I imagine the book probably had plenty more nuance than the oversimplified strawman that I'm criticizing).
IshKebab 1y ago
Yeah but in the UK there actually are lots of people claiming benefits that probably shouldn't be. Especially Personal Independent Payments. It's enough of an issue that even Labour (left wing) is having to deal with it. Though as usual Starmer has chickened out (I think this is like the third thing that was obviously a good move that he's backed down on after dumb backlash).
- arranf 1y ago
  Can you provide sources for your claim?
  - IshKebab 1y ago
    If you're looking for hard numbers on how many people shouldn't be getting them then you won't find it. Only the government has access to the details of individual claims. However you can infer a lot from a) the insane rise in claims, especially mental health related: https://obr.uk/docs/box-chart-3-f.png https://obr.uk/docs/box-chart-3-f.png Has the mental health of the nation got twice as bad in 2 years? Obviously not. And b) whenever the BBC does touchy feely profiles of people there are always some weird red flags: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2gpl4528go https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2gpl4528go £400/month help with her bills because she struggles with time management? I'm sympathetic to her problems but that is a shit ton of money! Even some of the people receiving it agree: > "I was shocked by the ease with which it was granted. I was expecting to be interviewed, rightly so, but it was awarded without interview and he received backdated pay for the maximum amount." > > She was also surprised that her husband got mobility allowance for not having a car, even though she had a car and could drive him around. (This reminds me of WFA where plenty of people receiving that also thought it was ridiculous.) https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn0ry09d50wo https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn0ry09d50wo > Paul Harris, from Barnard Castle, gets £72.65 a week in PIP payments to help with extra costs associated with his anxiety and depression - such as for specialist therapy apps and counselling. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn4llx4kvv8o https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn4llx4kvv8o > Nick Howard, 51, from Cambridge, is neurodivergent and has been claiming Pip for five years. > > "Without Pip I would not be able to work as it pays for my transport to and from my workplace. > > "I'm currently buying an electric bike on credit, others I have had have been stolen or vandalised," he added. Great... but I don't think paying PIP for 5 years is a good way to buy someone a bike. Obviously not all cases are like this, but clearly something has gone wrong. And this isn't a partisan issue. Both parties agree that it has to change. The Tories just ignored the problem and Labour gave up after predictable "N people will die!" press. And to be clear I'm not anti-poor or anything like that. I also thing WFA is ridiculous and that mostly goes to the rich. Child benefit also goes to lots of people (myself included) who totally don't need it. They all need reform, but look what happens when the government tries...
knowitnone 1y ago
there is lots of welfare fraud. if you think money should just be handed out without question then you start handing your money out first.
- thrance 1y ago
  Source? DOGE couldn't find any, even with all the ruckus they made.
wagwang 1y ago
[flagged]
- jacksnipe 1y ago
  Sorry, but citation needed. Means testing might seem “obvious” from first principles, but from a policy point of view, it makes little to no sense. The macroeconomic effects of welfare programs create a society that is better for everyone to live in. Reducing the issue to a matter of personal responsibility is a reframing that allows you to completely lose sight of the big picture, and create programs that are destined to fail by not reaching many of the people they need to.
  - stretchwithme 1y ago
    Citation needed for the right to other people's money. Government running charity interferes with the normal feedback in society. And the need to ask politely, justify one's apparently bad decisions and change failing behavior. People become "entitled" to regular cash so a lot of the fear that ordinarily motivates the rest of us goes away. Any system that asks nothing of people is a bad system. I grew up on welfare. I've also seen how a lot of people on welfare actually live and how they spend their time. They don't spend it cleaning, I can tell you that.
    - soraminazuki 1y ago
      Citation needed that your neoliberal views are anything other than bad faith voodoo economics. We have decades' worth of proof that it's toxic for society, both politically and economically. Your whole talking point is an excuse for the ultra rich to get even richer through mass exploitation, which ironically is the embodiment of entitlement that you're so opposed to.
    - const_cast 1y ago
      > Citation needed for the right to other people's money. It's called taxation, it's codified in law. Like... literally. I don't think you could find a better citation for "rights" than that. Jesus Christ.