INTERVIEWER Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 I think a lot of people go on these work experience schemes because it puts them in close contact with a potential employer like a badly written CV can't. Why aren't unskilled job seekers derseverving of the national miminum wage, my exploitative friend? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna B Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 Or it gives 60,000 people a £20k public sector job for a year. They spend their money & create more jobs. They produce something useful that others can use to create even more jobs. They pay taxes. They stop claiming dole. They gain useful skills & experience. Bear in mind that up till November last year there were only about 35,000 people on the scheme - they could all have been given £20k jobs for a year instead of just doing some unskilled rubbish for 8 weeks unpaid. £1.2billion is an absolutely ridiculous cost if you look at what it's spent on. More is spent in admin costs for JSA than is paid out. Ideas like this are the only way any country has ever got out of the ****. I bet you can't name a large developed country that has escaped a long recession without borrowing huge amounts of cash. The longer we wait the more it costs. Bond yields are at record lows, most other countries are the the **** too, there couldn't be a better time to do some serious government deficit spending. As long as it's spent on things that the country needs to help us become more competitive & not just wasted then there isn't much downside. They only need to beat 2% per annum interest. A fair proportion of our national debts are in pounds, they can be inflated away. If we look at other countries that cut spending & raised VAT in response to a recession then it caused a 10+ year depression. Japan in the 1990s, Europe in the 1930s. Inflation is 5%, the government could just sell a load of 2% bonds & use the money to buy something that'll last 10 years & go up with inflation - then keep the inflation rate high & they're making money. I'm not suggesting they should, just showing that it's very easy for the government to make money on 2% bonds. The problem is that people aren't spending enough, you don't solve that by spending less, unless you solve the real problems in the economy like the regulation & taxes that hold us all back. I agree with you wholeheartedly on this. We only recovered after the depression of the thirties because the war and its aftermath provided full employment rebuilding the county's infrastructure etc, and we were never so broke as we were then after paying for a war. We borrowed to do it. There is a need to continue investing and updating our infrastructure which would provide skilled jobs and training programmes, so that our population is fully skilled and ready to go when times improve. I would also like to see the retirement age return to 65, which is plenty old enough, to free up more jobs, (these older and experienced workers could then do what they do well - voluntary work if they so wished, adding greatly to the National good) We are never, in my opinion, going back to the days of full employment even when times improve, so I think we need to consider making jobsharing a national way of life, with benefits, tax cuts, tax credits etc. making up salaries up to a decent living wage. Red tape etc would also need to be simplified. Under less stress I think we would actually be more productive, and with more leisure time maybe we could return to things that matter like proper parenting, which would in itself be an enormous benefit to the country and save us money mopping up the mess. A lot of people already chose to take a cut in salary to improve their quality of life. A lot of the money needed could be found through good housekeeping. Government money is still being wasted hand over fist on daft schemes that only benefit the providers (A4e and many like it?) and wasted doomed vanity projects. I would like to see the maximum salary capped at £100,000 which should be enough for anyone. With everyone behind it and some genuine creative thinking I think it could be done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*_ash_* Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 If workfare is stopped, do we then just let young people who aren't particularly employable just fend for themselves? It seems so. The argument of 'if there is a job, it should have minimum wage' seems to be the basic argument. I could sit here and could easily type 1000 jobs that would ideally be being done, but they aren't necessarily jobs that need to be done. as you point out here... Companies don't necessarily need more paid staff especially as they can increase existing workers' hours as and when needed. However, as I understand it, some companies have been giving some basic job training to young people who are unemployed and claiming benefits. Some of those unemployed young people have found employment after their voluntary period is up. So for those unemployed people the scheme has worked. Or have I got that completely wrong? That is looking at it reasonably. Some people concentrate on who it hasn't/won't help. If a young person has been brought up in a family with no work ethic, no aspirations, has never been taught personal responsibility, and has few academic qualifications or any of the other qualities that help find work, how is that person ever supposed to access employment? They could go to anywebsite or interviewer who seem happy to pull names out of a hat. I also wonder why was there no outcry or demonstrations when all this was going on under the previous government? Perhaps something to do with facebook Many people who are employable take on voluntary roles if they are out of work, they have the sense to realise that volunteering can lead to paid work, it can help with self development and it looks much better on an application form or CV than just stating they were 'unemployed'. That's all too positive. In today's world, that's nonsense. Pluck this '1998' date of of thin air, my clever friend? Not at all, my learned question avoidance extraordinaire friend ... I was referring to when New Deal started - where... New Deal People all over the country have complained to the BBC about the compulsory courses, which are run by private companies with contracts from the Department of Work and Pensions. They are part of the New Deal, Labour's flagship policy to get people back into work, which was introduced in 1998. Link Slavery is much, much older than 1998. But you know that. Don't you? I never mentioned slavery. I mentioned 1998. It's fair to say that we all (on here) have different opinions of what slavery is. This type of thing could perhaps be labelled as 'modern slavery'. When this started could also be debated. However, the current 'modern slavery' (or for purpose of argument) this policy... started in 1998. Labour also claimed that it was working (at that time). The difference between now and then is very little. It is pretty much the same thing. Link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
57Varieties Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 i dont work, its a catholic word. Working = Worshipping the king (i.e. paying taxes). I earn. Same as the corporations, they pay no tax either. Everyones happy. Get rid of the catholic church and we get rid of working. Simple. Sovereigns, time to stand up part 1 Sovereigns, time to stand up part 2 Sovereigns, time to stand up part 3 Sovereigns, time to stand up part 4 Sovereigns, time to stand up part 5 Peace x Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anywebsite Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 I doubt that. Seriously, check the Tesco Express at Manor Top. Yellow stickers all over the place yesterday, only a couple of other people in the shop on a Sunday lunchtime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anywebsite Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 It seems so. The argument of 'if there is a job, it should have minimum wage' seems to be the basic argument. I could sit here and could easily type 1000 jobs that would ideally be being done, but they aren't necessarily jobs that need to be done. as you point out here... That is looking at it reasonably. Some people concentrate on who it hasn't/won't help. They could go to anywebsite or interviewer who seem happy to pull names out of a hat. Perhaps something to do with facebook That's all too positive. In today's world, that's nonsense. Not at all, my learned question avoidance extraordinaire friend ... I was referring to when New Deal started - where... Link I never mentioned slavery. I mentioned 1998. It's fair to say that we all (on here) have different opinions of what slavery is. This type of thing could perhaps be labelled as 'modern slavery'. When this started could also be debated. However, the current 'modern slavery' (or for purpose of argument) this policy... started in 1998. Labour also claimed that it was working (at that time). The difference between now and then is very little. It is pretty much the same thing. Link New deal didn't force people to work unskilled jobs for their benefits. I was on it in 1998 & it helped me to get a pretty good job. It was a totally different job market back then too, "back to work" schemes can work well if there are plenty of jobs around for everybody. I was signing on at that time & there was a massive improvement in the job centres in 1998. Before that it was just wait in a queue, sign your name & get paid. I got a personal adviser who was good & gave genuine help. I got a good job from new deal that gave me the skills to start my career. It was genuine help to get the unemployed into (or back into) work, rather than just being punitive. That's why there weren't any protests in 1998, it was actually a good scheme. This is totally different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*_ash_* Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 I was on it in 1998 & it helped me to get a pretty good job. You did the placement, and it helped you get a good job? I'm not sure how I can argue with your posts. Your posts clash, and stand both in favour of it, and vehemently against it. You're giving me brain overload! The only issue then that we are debating is the issue of whether or not it was YOUR choice (i.e FORCED) Under the revision, young long-term unemployed people who refuse a job or training offer three times could lose benefit for six months. This is taken from my earlier link from the New Deal link. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anywebsite Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 You did the placement, and it helped you get a good job? I didn't have to do a placement, that was only one of the options & it was voluntary. Training was another available option. I found myself a job, but I only got the job due to the subsidy being paid to my employer (roughly the same as JSA) for the first 6 months. I was paid above minimum wage & the job involved a lot of training. You got put on new deal after six months, then a lot of extra help was available to help you find a job, there were lots of different options, none of them were forced unpaid labour. I'm not sure how I can argue with your posts. Your posts clash, and stand both in favour of it, and vehemently against it. You're giving me brain overload! I appreciate how hard it must be for you, but you don't seem to understand that you started talking about a totally different scheme & tried to compare it. I support one, but not the other. The only issue then that we are debating is the issue of whether or not it was YOUR choice (i.e FORCED) Another issue is over whether it is PAID & who does the paying. Another issue is over the type of experience on offer. It was 2008/2009 when the benefits system really started to get more punitive & it's got worse since, exactly the wrong time to do it in a bad jobs market. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emma royd Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 Why aren't unskilled job seekers derseverving of the national miminum wage, my exploitative friend? I think if an out of work person feels he/she would benefit from a months work experience and that might help them secure full time employment then that is up to them. If people are picking up experience and skills that help them find work and an employer is putting resources into training then that is more important than any wage rate. What is it that makes you think you have the right to tell young jobless people that they can't gain this type of on the job experience if they want to? It would seem that you are the expoitative one for trying to dictate to young people how they are allowed to go about searching for jobs for your own political motives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anywebsite Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 Emma, it wasn't voluntary. There are (were?) other schemes called work trials that do much the same thing, except they are voluntary, nobody here is arguing against those. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.