People on the dole for years

Sam Quentin

bunderoon wrote: »

Is it not clear to you that it was started as to question the people who are not the ones that you are referring to.
You have those who need a hand up (we all agree that is a good thing) and others who are given a hand out over many years without progression (which isnt). The OP is clearly asking about the latter.

I totally understand the op... But I don't understand how anyone can make a judgement or question the reasoning that someone is receiving social welfare payments without living with them or knowing them personally!?

bunderoon

Sam Quentin wrote: »

I totally understand the op... But I don't understand how anyone can make a judgement or question the reasoning that someone is receiving social welfare payments without living with them or knowing them personally!?

Maybe re-read the OP again.

Sam Quentin

bunderoon wrote: »

Maybe re-read the OP again.

Your starting to sound a tad(just a tad mind) condescending!?

Kirby

ceadaoin. wrote: »

These "children's payments" don't actually fully or even mostly cover the cost of raising children you know. Unless you mean cut off all payments and plunge the entire family into even worse poverty. Yeah that sounds workable. Great solution

Don't strawman. Nowhere did I suggest, or nearly suggest, "Cut off all payments". You came up with that chestnut on your own. The only person who suggested that solution.....was you. I suggested capping the number of children you can claim for.

Ultimately, you are missing the point. The state shouldn't be subsidizing people's bad decisions. If you are long-term unemployed with four children already and proceed to have a fifth that you can't afford, you should have to shoulder that responsibility yourself. Why should the state?

It's easy to judge from far away and abstractly. If you want first-hand experience of this problem, go work in a post office for a while. You begin to see some of the welfare problems first hand as you hand out the money every week.

bunderoon

Sam Quentin wrote: »

Your starting to sound a tad(just a tad mind) condescending!?

Not intentionally.
The OP is clear.

Graces7

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

There is a cohort in every society who are unemployable.

Possibly they should be on disability. Possibly they are low intelligence but not quite bad enough for disability. Possibly they just had really **** parents who taught them nothing sbout being contributing citizens.

Everyone in town knows they aren't fit for work and won't offer them a job. So even if they were looking, no one will employ them.

Welfare staff know this - and they know that if the dole is cut to them, the people will have no option but to turn completely to crime for an income. We don't want that.

Thank you for this excellent post. Needed saying. And is the truth

Ally Dick

Go to New Delhi and look for the dole office. You won't find it. It doesn't exist

myshirt

Ally Dick wrote: »

Go to New Delhi and look for the dole office. You won't find it. It doesn't exist

B*stards. That's a wasted flight and 3 hours of wondering around looking for it. Anyway, at least I got a few photos for my poverty porn collection.

Dial Hard

Ally Dick wrote:

Go to New Delhi and look for the dole office. You won't find it. It doesn't exist

Are you really saying you think New Delhi is a place we should aspire to emulate???

myshirt

I think what the op is referring to here are people who can only be described as 'unemployed as f*ck'. Not plain vanilla unemployed, but 'unemployed as f*ck'.

You are talking complex issues here. It's hard to get a job when you are wearing your underwear outside your pants.

Graces7

ShaneC93 wrote: »

Does an applicant with a conviction have to tell their employer they have one? Because many employers just wouldn't check. If it's a finance/legal/tech firm then sure, they'd probably check but a min. wage position or a manual labour position? Most wouldn't.

In that situation all the person needs is some experience & recent references, once they have that they won't struggle much finding a job if the theft was far in the past. They just to work hard, low-paying jobs until they get there in retail, support, construction / labour or remote / online working.

I'm surprised there has been little investment into giving access to online courses / training for scenarios exactly like the one you proposed. There's well-paying, massively in-demand roles in design, programming, marketing etc. that can be learned to a proficient level within only 6-12 weeks of part-time study and in those industries it would be easy to get hired very quickly on a decent wage, whether online / freelancing or employed in an Irish company.

With all respect I think you are missing a large part of the point. Many of these are people who do not have the basic capability/ability to work at a job. Low attention span, low IQ etc. Not bad enough to be labelled disabled, but just incapable of being trained etc.

Mrcaramelchoc

Graces7 wrote: »

With all respect I think you are missing a large part of the point. Many of these are people who do not have the basic capability/ability to work at a job. Low attention span, low IQ etc. Not bad enough to be labelled disabled, but just incapable of being trained etc.

Would retards be the technical term?

myshirt

Mrcaramelchoc wrote: »

Would retards be the technical term?

No it wouldn't. The last time I heard someone use that word they had just kicked the sh't out of a disabled person in a wheelchair collecting for charity. Cut it out. It's disgusting.

Wanderer78

Graces7 wrote:

With all respect I think you are missing a large part of the point. Many of these are people who do not have the basic capability/ability to work at a job. Low attention span, low IQ etc. Not bad enough to be labelled disabled, but just incapable of being trained etc.

I think there's a little ignorance in this post, once again, some of the most common causes of long term unemployment would be developmental disorders such as autism, personality disorders, mental health and addiction problems, behavioural disorders, learning disabilities etc etc etc You will find that many of our existing social systems such as our educational systems, are deeply illequipped to deal with these kind of issues, and in fact can greatly exasperate them. Many of these individuals would in fact be very intelligent but would suffer with very low self esteem due to their life experiences interacting with such systems. Many of these individuals would also have undiagnosed issues, of which have been mentioned earlier

Mrcaramelchoc

Mrcaramelchoc wrote: »

Would retards be the technical term?

Get to fcuk. A bloody disgusting and derogatory term for anyone.

Lollipops23

I'm going to admit something extremely petty and something I'm not proud of.

I have a relative- a teen, who earlier this year had a baby. Baby's father has not been in the picture from Day 1. Fair enough, I believe her when she says her and the child are better off without him and his family.

She has dropped out of school- not just for a year while she finds her feet in motherhood, whichI would be totally fine with. She has zero plans to do a leaving cert, attend a college (even at PLC level) or even find a job. She wants to spend her time sitting at home with her baby, taking pictures of the child for Instagram and writing about how they're the "love of her life" "so proud to be your mammy" etc.

It's not the lifestyle I necessarily object to; the lack of intention to do anything more with her her life and the expectation that the world will simply "provide" for her annoys me. The fact that the rest of us work bloody hard to get some sort of education and get on our feet financially to provide for potential families.

I know it's unreasonable to be angry at a kid like her. I know it's no real life that she's setting up for her and her child.

But I can't help how I feel about it.

Thomyokk

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

There is a cohort in every society who are unemployable.

Possibly they should be on disability. Possibly they are low intelligence but not quite bad enough for disability. Possibly they just had really **** parents who taught them nothing sbout being contributing citizens.

Everyone in town knows they aren't fit for work and won't offer them a job. So even if they were looking, no one will employ them.

Welfare staff know this - and they know that if the dole is cut to them, the people will have no option but to turn completely to crime for an income. We don't want that.

You think everyone on welfare would turn to crime?

SEPT 23 1989

I would say its a full time job keeping one step ahead of that pesky social welfare inspector

Graces7

Wanderer78 wrote: »

I think there's a little ignorance in this post, once again, some of the most common causes of long term unemployment would be developmental disorders such as autism, personality disorders, mental health and addiction problems, behavioural disorders, learning disabilities etc etc etc You will find that many of our existing social systems such as our educational systems, are deeply illequipped to deal with these kind of issues, and in fact can greatly exasperate them. Many of these individuals would in fact be very intelligent but would suffer with very low self esteem due to their life experiences interacting with such systems. Many of these individuals would also have undiagnosed issues, of which have been mentioned earlier

No need to be patronising - a lot of teaching and other relevant experience behind my words

And a lot of caring .

Your post offers no support, just a lot of theory and "waffle", and support is what this thread is about . Practical accessible support. Like money for food. accommodation. Nothing can be done until and unless that support system is in place and reliable.

Graces7

Lollipops23 wrote: »

I'm going to admit something extremely petty and something I'm not proud of.

I have a relative- a teen, who earlier this year had a baby. Baby's father has not been in the picture from Day 1. Fair enough, I believe her when she says her and the child are better off without him and his family.

She has dropped out of school- not just for a year while she finds her feet in motherhood, whichI would be totally fine with. She has zero plans to do a leaving cert, attend a college (even at PLC level) or even find a job. She wants to spend her time sitting at home with her baby, taking pictures of the child for Instagram and writing about how they're the "love of her life" "so proud to be your mammy" etc.

It's not the lifestyle I necessarily object to; the lack of intention to do anything more with her her life and the expectation that the world will simply "provide" for her annoys me. The fact that the rest of us work bloody hard to get some sort of education and get on our feet financially to provide for potential families.

I know it's unreasonable to be angry at a kid like her. I know it's no real life that she's setting up for her and her child.

But I can't help how I feel about it.

This is what she needs to do at this stage of her life. That can and will change in years to come.

Mrs OBumble

Mrcaramelchoc wrote: »

Would retards be the technical term?

It would never be the technical term.

And in the fictional-but-based-on-an-amalgam case I wrote about, it wouldn't even be the correct degogatory slang term either. Johnny isn't thick. But he is badly educated.

ShaneC93 wrote: »

Does an applicant with a conviction have to tell their employer they have one? Because many employers just wouldn't check. If it's a finance/legal/tech firm then sure, they'd probably check but a min. wage position or a manual labour position? Most wouldn't.

If the employer asks, they have to tell.

But it's irrelevant: the managers in Dealz, Pennys, Supermacs and the other minimum-wage jobs in town already know Johnny's family very well, and aren't going to be employing him, or anyone with his address, any decade soon. And the managers in the large supermarket-distribution warehouse just outside town most certainly do ask about convictions and check references carefully.

ShaneC93 wrote: »

I'm surprised there has been little investment into giving access to online courses / training for scenarios exactly like the one you proposed. There's well-paying, massively in-demand roles in design, programming, marketing etc. that can be learned to a proficient level within only 6-12 weeks of part-time study and in those industries it would be easy to get hired very quickly on a decent wage, whether online / freelancing or employed in an Irish company.

You must have missed the bit about Johnny's junior cert results. They weren't flash. At least the teachers were polite while being honest with him about his prospects if he stuck around to try Leaving. He really didn't need another failure in his life, and not trying was really the kindest option. He's not likely to succeed at even enrolling in an on-line course, much less learn anything useful in just a few weeks or months.

You may not know it, but there are / have been a lot of training options. There are 3rd level colleges operating at a level lower than an IT all over the place. But as someone said, it takes years and years of training and community development to turn this situation around. Very likely things will never change for Johnny: the best case is that his kids get enough education and avoid crime for long enough to get a job in some other town where their family isn't so well known.

And as someone else noted, it's very likely that there are even more issues. The Jobpath employee is probably praying that Johnny won't tell her about them - because she's not trained or paid enough to advise about recovering from sexual abuse or whatever it was that caused Johnny's brain to stop functioning when he was about 13.





For the record - I've never been the Jobpath worker. But I have been in a back office supporting their IT, and from that I've heard quite enough to know that this story isn't far-fetched. Rather it repeats over and over again, with very few solutions in sight.

Graces7

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

The poster said she has no intention of working or even doing her leaving cert though. I have every sympathy with people who need to take time to attend to family issues, or people who end up unemployed through no fault of their own, but when we have people just deciding they don't want to work, there's a problem with the system.

Intentions can and do change. At present her child needs her there and that is grand. When the child gets older? Nothing is fixed in stone. Many women go back into education and work later in life. She is doing far better for her child than putting it in day care.

Thomyokk

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

It would never be the technical term.

And in the fictional-but-based-on-an-amalgam case I wrote about, it wouldn't even be the correct degogatory slang term either. Johnny isn't thick. But he is badly educated.





If the employer asks, they have to tell.

But it's irrelevant: the managers in Dealz, Pennys, Supermacs and the other minimum-wage jobs in town already know Johnny's family very well, and aren't going to be employing him, or anyone with his address, any decade soon. And the managers in the large supermarket-distribution warehouse just outside town most certainly do ask about convictions and check references carefully.




You must have missed the bit about Johnny's junior cert results. They weren't flash. At least the teachers were polite while being honest with him about his prospects if he stuck around to try Leaving. He really didn't need another failure in his life, and not trying was really the kindest option. He's not likely to succeed at even enrolling in an on-line course, much less learn anything useful in just a few weeks or months.

You may not know it, but there are / have been a lot of training options. There are 3rd level colleges operating at a level lower than an IT all over the place. But as someone said, it takes years and years of training and community development to turn this situation around. Very likely things will never change for Johnny: the best case is that his kids get enough education and avoid crime for long enough to get a job in some other town where their family isn't so well known.

And as someone else noted, it's very likely that there are even more issues. The Jobpath employee is probably praying that Johnny won't tell her about them - because she's not trained or paid enough to advise about recovering from sexual abuse or whatever it was that caused Johnny's brain to stop functioning when he was about 13.





For the record - I've never been the Jobpath worker. But I have been in a back office supporting their IT, and from that I've heard quite enough to know that this story isn't far-fetched. Rather it repeats over and over again, with very few solutions in sight.

Your postings say more about yourself and your smug worldview than anything else

suicide_circus

I agree there are people who are just plain unemployable in the ordinary sense of the word but the idea that they have a right to free money with no responsibilities attached is wrong. if they are adults who have sufficient mental capacity they must contribute to their own upkeep. if they don't have the mental capacity, they need to be on disability benefit.

_Brian

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

There is a cohort in every society who are unemployable.

Possibly they should be on disability. Possibly they are low intelligence but not quite bad enough for disability. Possibly they just had really **** parents who taught them nothing sbout being contributing citizens.

Everyone in town knows they aren't fit for work and won't offer them a job. So even if they were looking, no one will employ them.

Welfare staff know this - and they know that if the dole is cut to them, the people will have no option but to turn completely to crime for an income. We don't want that.

This is a great post and I’m my opinion nails much of the problem.

Think of kids being raised in an environment where essentially nobody they know has regular work, they are second and possibly third generation unemployed, there is little hope they will see employment as a realistic option. Unemployment and social welfare has been normalised to them.

This will be a difficult cycle to break without as pointed out above these people turn further and further to crime.

mfceiling

Kolpe wrote: »

Crazy the more children you have the richer you get.

As a father of 3 I can assure you that this is not true.

Wanderer78

Graces7 wrote: »

No need to be patronising - a lot of teaching and other relevant experience behind my words

And a lot of caring .

Your post offers no support, just a lot of theory and "waffle", and support is what this thread is about . Practical accessible support. Like money for food. accommodation. Nothing can be done until and unless that support system is in place and reliable.

my response was not meant as an attack, i appreciate your opinions on the forum, but the world of research has moved on greatly in regards these matters. again, this is not theory or waffle, these are what i guess you could call, known knowns, and is supported by decades of research. i will agree with you though, major investment is needed to start tackling these issues in our society, but a major part thats required to start that is education, education of all in society about these kind of issues, as very little occurs without informing people about such issues.

calling people with these kind of issues as 'low iq' is beyond ignorant in my eyes, as even the iq system is highly debated as an accurate measure of intelligence. i will also agree with you though, memory issues would be very common amongst such people, and you ll find a major part, and a major failure, in my opinion of course, of our educational system, is based on memory. i.e regurgitation of information. this is an extremely bad way of learning, and you d have to wonder do people actually learn from the experience. its common for students to not be able to explain what they have learned after an exam situation, as short term memory is what is used for this process, many long term unemployed would have short term memory issues, hence struggle within our educational system.

Lollipops23

Graces7 wrote: »

This is what she needs to do at this stage of her life. That can and will change in years to come.

And she's making things so much harder on herself than it needs to be. She's lucky enough to have plenty of support at home- if she wanted to go back to school next Sept she'd be completely supported by parents and they'd make it as easy as possible on her.

She's happy to just sit under the child for the forseeable.

Graces7

Wanderer78 wrote: »

my response was not meant as an attack, i appreciate your opinions on the forum, but the world of research has moved on greatly in regards these matters. again, this is not theory or waffle, these are what i guess you could call, known knowns, and is supported by decades of research. i will agree with you though, major investment is needed to start tackling these issues in our society, but a major part thats required to start that is education, education of all in society about these kind of issues, as very little occurs without informing people about such issues.

calling people with these kind of issues as 'low iq' is beyond ignorant in my eyes, as even the iq system is highly debated as an accurate measure of intelligence. i will also agree with you though, memory issues would be very common amongst such people, and you ll find a major part, and a major failure, in my opinion of course, of our educational system, is based on memory. i.e regurgitation of information. this is an extremely bad way of learning, and you d have to wonder do people actually learn from the experience. its common for students to not be able to explain what they have learned after an exam situation, as short term memory is what is used for this process, many long term unemployed would have short term memory issues, hence struggle within our educational system.

None of which has any real practical relevance to the issue raised in this thread of arbitrarily cutting benefits to long term unemployed.

You are accusing /judging me of failing to do what I nevr posited.

First things must come first. In this situation, provision of basic needs eg food, accommodation, a sound and secure place from which to move on if that is needed..

So no cutting of benefits and no judging and accusing of those who for whatever reason cannot work.

OK?
OK!

Mrs O'Bumble is right on this and so am I. Your ideas go off at a tangent. Nothing to do with anything I wrote.

Over and OUT from me on this.

Graces7

Lollipops23 wrote: »

And she's making things so much harder on herself than it needs to be. She's lucky enough to have plenty of support at home- if she wanted to go back to school next Sept she'd be completely supported by parents and they'd make it as easy as possible on her.

She's happy to just sit under the child for the forseeable.

Her decision; her choice, her life. Not anyone else's to judge. Good luck to her.

suicide_circus

Graces7 wrote: »

Her decision; her choice, her life.

but not her money

The Bishop Basher

I couldn't give two flucks why Johnny can't work.

And I don't see why me or my family should lose out financially because of Johnny's "issues".

If people are genuinely in need we should of course support them but we have way too many people like Johnny walking around doing SFA and the reality is we can't afford to keep them all.

The Bishop Basher

Graces7 wrote: »

Her decision; her choice, her life. Not anyone else's to judge. Good luck to her.

Those of us who are paying for her and her likes have every right to judge..

Wanderer78

Graces7 wrote: »

With all respect I think you are missing a large part of the point. Many of these are people who do not have the basic capability/ability to work at a job. Low attention span, low IQ etc. Not bad enough to be labelled disabled, but just incapable of being trained etc.

you may need to further explain the above highlighted post grace, maybe im misinterpreting it, maybe the issues i highlighted earlier are the root causes of such situations, theres a lot of research showing so.

Graces7 wrote: »

None of which has any real practical relevance to the issue raised in this thread of arbitrarily cutting benefits to long term unemployed.

You are accusing /judging me of failing to do what I nevr posited.

First things must come first. In this situation, provision of basic needs eg food, accommodation, a sound and secure place from which to move on if that is needed..

So no cutting of benefits and no judging and accusing of those who for whatever reason cannot work.

OK?
OK!

Mrs O'Bumble is right on this and so am I. Your ideas go off at a tangent. Nothing to do with anything I wrote.

Over and OUT from me on this.

i beg to differ, if we dont understand the route causes of such situations, it will keep occurring again and again, strangely enough, we re kinna on the same page or similar page. apologies for upsetting you, but....

Plumbthedepths

Graces7 wrote:

Her decision; her choice, her life. Not anyone else's to judge. Good luck to her.

Sorry but if you are drawing your income from the well of taxpayers money that you have not contributed to it is very much the concern of others. Saying it's it's not, does not make it so.

Assetbacked

mfceiling wrote: »

As a father of 3 I can assure you that this is not true.

That must be because you work.

ToddyDoody

Kolpe wrote: »

Easier Open the legs that open ones mind to education.

Put that on a tombstone.

pekitivey

How much are social welfare payments costing the state each year? How much are fraudulent payments costing the state each year? I bet its pittance in comparison to the state pension. Which comes from the same budget does it not?

LirW

Rennaws wrote: »

I couldn't give two flucks why Johnny can't work.

And I don't see why me or my family should lose out financially because of Johnny's "issues".

If people are genuinely in need we should of course support them but we have way too many people like Johnny walking around doing SFA and the reality is we can't afford to keep them all.

You have people like Johnny in every country. You have two choices on how to deal with it: you pay them welfare to keep them entertained, it's a very basic lifestyle that you can maintain with it.
Or you cut them off and they'll very likely turn towards crime to keep themselves going.

In a perfect world they'd wake up then and go off to get qualifications but for every person that does that you have 10 that literally have no idea on what to do then because they never were taught the value and purpose of work and it might be too late to turn that around.

I was raised by a single mother and we didn't have much money and lived on some seriously sh1tty areas. Plenty of kids I used to play with were destined to turn into Johnny. The parents would keep them fed and clothed but cared very little about what they do after school or their education and would often be quite hostile towards the idea of work. They came into life with little perspective and few of them managed to turn that around.
It's pretty sad.

Sweet.Science

pekitivey wrote: »

How much are social welfare payments costing the state each year? How much are fraudulent payments costing the state each year? I bet its pittance in comparison to the state pension. Which comes from the same budget does it not?

FFS not one of these again . The state pension is for people who have worked all their lives and are now unable to do so because of their age. Perfectly acceptable and the least that can be done after paying taxes for over 50 years.

Jesus imagine the state pension was taken away . Why work at all

Plumbthedepths

Sweet.Science wrote:

FFS not one of these again . The state pension is for people who have worked all their lives and are now unable to do so because of their age. Perfectly acceptable and the least that can be done after paying taxes for over 50 years.

Not trying to be a smart ass, but there are plenty of people drawing the state pension who have never worked a day in their lives. I would differentiate between the person who was a carer all their life though unable to work in the workforce. Personally I think the pension for those that worked should be 20 per cent greater than those that never did a tap.

Sweet.Science

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Not trying to be a smart ass, but there are plenty of people drawing the state pension who have never worked a day in their lives. I would differentiate between the person who was a carer all their life though unable to work in the workforce. Personally I think the pension for those that worked should be 20 per cent greater than those that never did a tap.

Im no expert but im sure you have to make a certain amount of tax contributions over the course of your working life to qualify

Hector Savage

pgj2015 wrote: »

140 euro per month BUT they don't need to pay a creche as they are not working so can look after the kids themselves.

indeed, an important point that the poster disingenuously hid

Lollipops23

Sweet.Science wrote: »

Im no expert but im sure you have to make a certain amount of tax contributions over the course of your working life to qualify

There's "contributory" pensions and "non-contributory". This was designed for the housewives who got married in 1950 and then stayed at home for the next 50 years raising the kids. Meant they still got some money in their pockets.

Plumbthedepths

Sweet.Science wrote:

Im no expert but im sure you have to make a certain amount of tax contributions over the course of your working life to qualify

You don't . At present we have two pensions. Contributory and non contributory the latter at present being slightly less.

pekitivey

Sweet.Science wrote: »

FFS not one of these again . The state pension is for people who have worked all their lives and are now unable to do so because of their age. Perfectly acceptable and the least that can be done after paying taxes for over 50 years.

Jesus imagine the state pension was taken away . Why work at all

Who said take the pension away? Certainly not me. Maybe you should read posts with a little more of an open mind instead of the one minded approach in which you've replied.

I'm trying to highlight the insignificance that dole payments have on the state. It is virtually pennies in comparison to the pension. Penny wise pound foolish it seems.

Lollipops23

I have zero problem with paying into the State Pension fund. None at all.

I also have no issue with paying into it for illness and disability benefits, or even for jobseekers benefit. I've been on that myself for a time, as has my OH very recently. It happens to most people sooner or later.

I do take issue with supporting people who have never ever worked through sheer laziness. Or people who don't want to do anything to better their circumstances.

pekitivey

Lollipops23 wrote: »

I have zero problem with paying into the State Pension fund. None at all.

I also have no issue with paying into it for illness and disability benefits, or even for jobseekers benefit. I've been on that myself for a time, as has my OH very recently. It happens to most people sooner or later.

I do take issue with supporting people who have never ever worked through sheer laziness. Or people who don't want to do anything to better their circumstances.

I agree 99.9%. But every country in the world has these "lazy" people who want to get away with doing shag all. But tbh, I pity them. Imagine living that lifestyle? It must be depressing. I get bored if I have a week off and don't do anything special with the time.

Sweet.Science

pekitivey wrote: »

Who said take the pension away? Certainly not me. Maybe you should read posts with a little more of an open mind instead of the one minded approach in which you've replied.

I'm trying to highlight the insignificance that dole payments have on the state. It is virtually pennies in comparison to the pension. Penny wise pound foolish it seems.

I didnt know if you never worked you get a state pension

This country is insane . It really is bonkers .

Sweet.Science

pekitivey wrote: »

I agree 99.9%. But every country in the world has these "lazy" people who want to get away with doing shag all. But tbh, I pity them. Imagine living that lifestyle? It must be depressing. I get bored if I have a week off and don't do anything special with the time.

I agree . It has to be linked to suffering to poor mental health. I spend a fortune on my time off trying to keep busy.