Is there any wonder some of our young don’t want to work.

[MrSmith]

If you read my post above I don't disagree with getting people back into the workforce through meaningful training and experience placements.

 

My preference would be for the government to get going with infrastructure projects with an emphasis on training the next generation of specialists. We've got 1 million 16-24 year olds waiting for the opportunities but you'd rather have them cutting the grass and picking up litter.

 

You keep going on about infrastructure without giving details what we should build or how many people would be employed building it, what training do you want to give to the unemployed and how will you make them do the training. Where are all the jobs going to come from that they will be training for? Unfortunately many of the jobs that are available are low paid manual work and the unemployed don’t appear to have the incentive to take this kind of work,how will you encourage them to take the low paid manual work that is available?

[Jag82]

No.

 

I would rent out the land to people. The rent would then be distributed to all people. Each would receive an equal share, for the land belongs to the people.

 

At the minute landless people of the globe still starve to death.

 

Whilst land sits idle.

 

Perversely (in the UK, but this occurs elsewhere too) we subsidise land ownership, we actually pay people for owning land, and their land sits idle.

Whilst people without land queue to rent small parcels of lands for fairly large sums. And they wait, and they wait.

 

We have people starving to death, we have people queuing to rent land.

 

And what to we do? We use income taxes to subsidise land owners.

 

You can give a man a fish, and he will eat for a day. But teach a man to fish and he can eat for life and feed others too. Deny that man the ability to fish and you have yourself some slaves. So force that man to fish for but a fraction of the catch, then give the fish to the others in the form of 'dole'. Then demand that they work for their dole, because there is no such thing as a free lunch. And rile up the fisherman by telling him, all the non-workers on dole get to eat his fish and breed fish eating non fisherman to create public support for the slavery.

 

Neo-liberal laissez faire capitalism summed up.

[Guest sibon]

So you disapprove of working for money, should everyone get free money for doing nothing?

 

What bright ideas do you have to give the unemployed the incentive to work and what work would have them do?

 

.

 

One of many problems with your workfare solution is that it will depress the wages of those already employed.

 

That will help nobody.

[MrSmith]

No.

 

I would rent out the land to people. The rent would then be distributed to all people. Each would receive an equal share, for the land belongs to the people.

 

At the minute landless people of the globe still starve to death.

 

Whilst land sits idle.

 

Perversely (in the UK, but this occurs elsewhere too) we subsidise land ownership, we actually pay people for owning land, and their land sits idle.

Whilst people without land queue to rent small parcels of lands for fairly large sums. And they wait, and they wait.

 

We have people starving to death, we have people queuing to rent land.

 

And what to we do? We use income taxes to subsidise land owners.

 

So you want the government to take all the available land away from its owners and rent it to anyone that can pay, what if I want the same piece of land that you want and what will we be able to do on the land.

When my house has been taken will it be knocked down before someone else can rent the land I used to own?

[MrSmith]

One of many problems with your workfare solution is that it will depress the wages of those already employed.

 

That will help nobody.

 

 

How? I thought having millions of unemployed depressed wages as specially at the unskilled end of the workforce.

[Guest sibon]

How? I thought having millions of unemployed depressed wages as specially at the unskilled end of the workforce.

 

But you are talking about depressing wages at the semi-skilled level.

 

Put simply, if you force the unemployed to do the jobs of low ranking civil servants and then only pay them unemployment benefit, you force wages down. And probably cause more unemployment to boot.

 

Not the best of ideas really.

[chem1st]

So you want the government to take all the available land away from its owners and rent it to anyone that can pay, what if I want the same piece of land that you want and what will we be able to do on the land.

When my house has been taken will it be knocked down before someone else can rent the land I used to own?

 

Suppose you use your land well, you can pay the rent, so it isn't taken away.

 

Suppose there is a plot of land, 1 acre. You can use it better than me, and make more money from it, by growing more potatoes than I could. you can bid higher, you take the land, you use it, and you pay the tax.

 

There is another plot of land nearby, not as good quality, 1 acre. I can then bid for that, and use that and pay the tax, and people can buy my tatoes. You'd be better off than me, because you are the better tato grower.

 

Somebody somewhere is useless at growing tatos, so they don't bother doing it. But they can buy tatoes, because the new land system produces more potatoes, and he gets citizens income from the rent upon the land.

[Jag82]

But you are talking about depressing wages at the semi-skilled level.

 

Put simply, if you force the unemployed to do the jobs of low ranking civil servants and then only pay them unemployment benefit, you force wages down. And probably cause more unemployment to boot.

 

Not the best of ideas really.

 

Don't depress the wages of the lower ranks of local and national civil servants the unemployed should fulfil their proper task gang up with the imported immigrants to depress the wages of the great unwashed?

 

Do you wish to declare an interest perchance?

[chem1st]

But you are talking about depressing wages at the semi-skilled level.

 

Put simply, if you force the unemployed to do the jobs of low ranking civil servants and then only pay them unemployment benefit, you force wages down. And probably cause more unemployment to boot.

 

Not the best of ideas really.

 

Aye.

 

Whereas if he employed lots of people at minimum wage, as much work as they wanted. Then business would have to raise wages to compete for the workforce.

 

The problem is, do you pay them to dig and fill holes (do something non productive - at the expense of the productive part of the economy), or do you open Britains 2nd tractor factory and build tractors, or get them to do socially useful things ...

[MrSmith]

But you are talking about depressing wages at the semi-skilled level.

 

Put simply, if you force the unemployed to do the jobs of low ranking civil servants and then only pay them unemployment benefit, you force wages down. And probably cause more unemployment to boot.

 

Not the best of ideas really.

 

Taxes are paying for a machine and driver to sweep the streets and they don’t do it very often so the streets usually look a mess for months between sweeps.

Taxes are also paying for thousands of people to do nothing; it makes economic sense for the people that are paid to do nothing to sweep the streets and to stop using the machine.

Thousands of jobs are filled by foreign workers each years, jobs that our unemployed apparently won’t do because they are menial and don’t pay much more than they get on benefits, having to work for benefits will give them the incentive to take the jobs that are available so will reduce the benefits bill.

 

Government spend on benefits will drop, unemployment will drop, the country will look much nicer, immigration will fall as our unemployed take the jobs, housing will become more affordable and the strain on the public sector will decrease with less immigration.