Bit of a ramble following another shutdown...

Welcome back, we haven't heard from you for sometime.

And welcome to the club.  I'm also facing homelessness in the near future. 

I'm getting plenty of jobs interviews but that's it.  

Hi Robert123,

I haven't been on the forums as much as I have been trying to focus on getting well ready for my return to work.  I'm sorry to hear things haven't improved for you.  :-(

It's not a nice situation to be in and I wish I had a magic wand to make everything wonderful.  If homelessness is a real threat and you don't own or have a mortgage on your home, I would suggest getting in touch with the council to see what emergency accommodation is available - there is normally a waiting list unless you are deemed as being vulnerable, although I would argue everyone is who is facing this type of situation.  If you do own or have a mortgage on your home then it's very difficult as you are not seen as being viable for support unless you are actually homeless.

It seems such a backward way of working to me, but what do I know.

I hope something comes through for you soon.

Last time I was in a crisis, the local council were useless.  

Their publicity material claims that they will help and negotiate to prevent problems becoming out of hand.

But when it comes down to it. They will only do something when problems have reached a crisis point and not before.

Very kind of you to say such a thing, but I am merely standing on the shoulders of giants.

DongFeng5 said:

The basic problem here is a huge western cultural fallacy that "everyone busy working as hard as they can" equates to "maximum efficiency".

It would take the following to fix this:

1) enlightened individual diverts a % of total budget to deal with important but less urgent cases, so that they are dealt with earlier, whilst they are cheaper to fix. This requires faith that this is the right thing to do IN THE LONG TERM.

2) spend the rest on fire-fighting as usual

3) over time, the number of urgent cases should come down, if the % being diverted to a preventative approach is high enough.

I did have an urge to cover this topic myself, but I tend to go into heinous detail when I do, so I thought best not, and you have rounded and summed it up a total treat, nice one!

Total bonus factor ten.

I suspect they do realise, but are told to manage with a budget which is smaller than they would like.

That state of affairs forces them to enact triage, which predictably means they prioritise the most urgent and serious cases... which of course leads to a fire-fighting spiral, and increases the total amount of money required.

The basic problem here is a huge western cultural fallacy that "everyone busy working as hard as they can" equates to "maximum efficiency".

It would take the following to fix this:

1) enlightened individual diverts a % of total budget to deal with important but less urgent cases, so that they are dealt with earlier, whilst they are cheaper to fix. This requires faith that this is the right thing to do IN THE LONG TERM.

2) spend the rest on fire-fighting as usual

3) over time, the number of urgent cases should come down, if the % being diverted to a preventative approach is high enough.

Problem:

One urgent case does not receive the timely resolution it deserves, because some funds were diverted to preventative measures. The media and politicians latch on to the scandal, and insist that Something Must Be Done.

People Who Know Best insist that the enlightened individual dedicate all available funds to fire-fighting so that scandals are avoided (humanity in general is too stupid to realise that the very existence of fire fighting is itself a scandal). At least with fire-fighting, People Who Know Best can respond to any criticism by retorting that all funds are allocated to the most deserving cases...(!)

It's sad that it has to come to this.  I'm starting to come to the realisation I may need to put a Plan B in place to prepare for the instance that I lose my employment and have to carry on paying all my expenditures. 

I have always been a believer that prevention is better than cure, but I have found that most things in society are based on fire fighting approaches, where you are only deemed viable after you have failed and come down with a bump.  It would be nice if those who make said decisions on intervention and support realised that the amount of effort and resource required would be much less with earlier intervention, rather than waiting until it's at crisis point.

It's sad that it has to come to this.  I'm starting to come to the realisation I may need to put a Plan B in place to prepare for the instance that I lose my employment and have to carry on paying all my expenditures. 

I have always been a believer that prevention is better than cure, but I have found that most things in society are based on fire fighting approaches, where you are only deemed viable after you have failed and come down with a bump.  It would be nice if those who make said decisions on intervention and support realised that the amount of effort and resource required would be much less with earlier intervention, rather than waiting until it's at crisis point.

Very kind of you to say such a thing, but I am merely standing on the shoulders of giants.

DongFeng5 said:

The basic problem here is a huge western cultural fallacy that "everyone busy working as hard as they can" equates to "maximum efficiency".

It would take the following to fix this:

1) enlightened individual diverts a % of total budget to deal with important but less urgent cases, so that they are dealt with earlier, whilst they are cheaper to fix. This requires faith that this is the right thing to do IN THE LONG TERM.

2) spend the rest on fire-fighting as usual

3) over time, the number of urgent cases should come down, if the % being diverted to a preventative approach is high enough.

I did have an urge to cover this topic myself, but I tend to go into heinous detail when I do, so I thought best not, and you have rounded and summed it up a total treat, nice one!

Total bonus factor ten.

I suspect they do realise, but are told to manage with a budget which is smaller than they would like.

That state of affairs forces them to enact triage, which predictably means they prioritise the most urgent and serious cases... which of course leads to a fire-fighting spiral, and increases the total amount of money required.

The basic problem here is a huge western cultural fallacy that "everyone busy working as hard as they can" equates to "maximum efficiency".

It would take the following to fix this:

1) enlightened individual diverts a % of total budget to deal with important but less urgent cases, so that they are dealt with earlier, whilst they are cheaper to fix. This requires faith that this is the right thing to do IN THE LONG TERM.

2) spend the rest on fire-fighting as usual

3) over time, the number of urgent cases should come down, if the % being diverted to a preventative approach is high enough.

Problem:

One urgent case does not receive the timely resolution it deserves, because some funds were diverted to preventative measures. The media and politicians latch on to the scandal, and insist that Something Must Be Done.

People Who Know Best insist that the enlightened individual dedicate all available funds to fire-fighting so that scandals are avoided (humanity in general is too stupid to realise that the very existence of fire fighting is itself a scandal). At least with fire-fighting, People Who Know Best can respond to any criticism by retorting that all funds are allocated to the most deserving cases...(!)