Tories NOT punishing the unemployed.

[Stan Tamudo]

So the unemployed should get money but give nothing in return. ? I totally agree they should have to sign on every day . Personally id make people work for their giros .

 

Nasty is that Desmundo, don't you remember your time on the dole?

[tinfoilhat]

So the unemployed should get money but give nothing in return. ? I totally agree they should have to sign on every day . Personally id make people work for their giros .

 

If there is a job that needs doing, can we not just pay a wage to the person doing it like every other job? And besides the ones likely to benifit are the big corporates many of whom don't pay enough tax anyway. But really, who wants some of the long term unemployed within 50 yards of my business - which is why they're long term unemployed I suppose.

[Mecky]

Are you a Socialist Mecky?

 

No I'm not, why? And what if I was anyway?

[tzijlstra]

I find yours a very interesting observation, although I have no evidence, on reflection, I suspect what you say is true. If, further automisation takes place in the way I quote above, do you envisage any shrinkage in jobs or further expansion?

 

There is a lot of debate on this. Let me point you to the Swiss debate on paying everybody a monthly income of 2000 euros. Everybody. Why? Because their service industry can afford to support that.

 

If you regard economies in the world as part of a hierarchical, constantly developing and progressing pyramid, than the nearer to the top you are, the more you profit (like the Ponzi scheme). Yes, there is an end to this, but it is unclear what that end is. Could we automate to the point where people don't have to work anymore? With enough natural resources, yes, without doubt. So the end point is the natural resources. Space anybody? There is a reason China, the most populous and most rapidly expanding economy in the world, is looking to exploit the moon and other stellar bodies.

 

Of course computerisation, automation and outsourcing has created jobs, it would be strange if it hadn't, but the point is, has it created as many jobs as it has displaced? And the answer to that is no, otherwise what is the point?

 

If you actually read my reply you would know that we now have a bigger working population than before automatisation. Does that not mean that where you say the answer is no, the answer is actually yes?

 

Your vision of work is that of physical labour, the reality of an increasing amount of people working in this world is that of knowledge. Let that sink in for a bit.

 

I would dispute your assessment regarding the working population. Firstly the population has increased, creating work, but the eighties also saw the rise of the underclass / long-term unemployed, which is with us still. Please don't insult me by saying all these are people 'who don't want to work.'

 

You are attributing a quote to me that is utterly false. Where do I say 'who don't want to work.' Don't put words in my mouth, what I said was that

"The only people who get hit with long-term unemployment in these processes are those that have never accepted that they needed to continue their professional development and banked on a job-for-life."

 

As early as the 70's leading philosophers and thinkers on professional development recognised that this would be the key-issue with the working populace. I can provide you with a chapter out of my thesis detailing this problem, but for now I will suffice with pointing you to the work of Donald Schon. Knock yourself out on scholar.google.com.

 

It's also wrong to say people who get hit are those who refuse to continue their professional development - chance would be a fine thing. Often professional development is a perk of being employed, or a very expensive lottery which isn't open to all.

 

As I was pointing out: those that lose their jobs long-term are those that ignore professional development. So I can't be wrong, as in the assertion you put here, you state that professional development is a perk of being employed. As I was clearly talking about people that lost their job, your statement makes no sense.

 

Try harder Anna.

[Stan Tamudo]

No I'm not, why? And what if I was anyway?

 

I just wondered that's all. I'm not surprised by the prickly response I might add!

[monkey69]

All of this is all very well but the Truth of the matter is that there is not enough jobs for everyone in the UK. so what do we do?.

the elderly are encouraged or rather forced by inflation to keep working for as long as they are physically able.

the young are given very little choice but do take these supposed apprenticeships. these have been called anything but. the cost of living is ever increasing and the wealth gap as never been as huge as it is now.

this is all leading to an increase in the prison population, its never been higher. although crime is supposedly been the lowest on record.

don't you think that we might all be lied to by the government? how else can certain economic indicators say we are all getting richer, but do you feel richer?

i certainly dont, i am worried sick about fulfilling the commitments that the works program demand. so far it looks like a scheme for the DWP to hand out sanctions of JSA benefit. first one four weeks, second one three months, third and last one THREE YEARS.

[Anna B]

There is a lot of debate on this. Let me point you to the Swiss debate on paying everybody a monthly income of 2000 euros. Everybody. Why? Because their service industry can afford to support that.

 

If you regard economies in the world as part of a hierarchical, constantly developing and progressing pyramid, than the nearer to the top you are, the more you profit (like the Ponzi scheme). Yes, there is an end to this, but it is unclear what that end is. Could we automate to the point where people don't have to work anymore? With enough natural resources, yes, without doubt. So the end point is the natural resources. Space anybody? There is a reason China, the most populous and most rapidly expanding economy in the world, is looking to exploit the moon and other stellar bodies.

 

 

 

If you actually read my reply you would know that we now have a bigger working population than before automatisation. Does that not mean that where you say the answer is no, the answer is actually yes?

 

Your vision of work is that of physical labour, the reality of an increasing amount of people working in this world is that of knowledge. Let that sink in for a bit.

 

 

 

You are attributing a quote to me that is utterly false. Where do I say 'who don't want to work.' Don't put words in my mouth, what I said was that

"The only people who get hit with long-term unemployment in these processes are those that have never accepted that they needed to continue their professional development and banked on a job-for-life."

 

As early as the 70's leading philosophers and thinkers on professional development recognised that this would be the key-issue with the working populace. I can provide you with a chapter out of my thesis detailing this problem, but for now I will suffice with pointing you to the work of Donald Schon. Knock yourself out on scholar.google.com.

 

 

 

As I was pointing out: those that lose their jobs long-term are those that ignore professional development. So I can't be wrong, as in the assertion you put here, you state that professional development is a perk of being employed. As I was clearly talking about people that lost their job, your statement makes no sense.

 

Try harder Anna.

 

Your first two paragraphs make sense, but you have woefully misinterpreted everything I said.

 

Yes we now have a bigger working population, because we have a bigger population - people generate jobs - the need for more nurses, teachers, food production etc.

 

My vision of work is no longer physical labour, but you must admit these are a lot of the jobs that have been lost. Not everybody is capable of of moving into the new industries which require new skill sets, no matter how much they retrain, and when they do they are often up against younger, cleverer, more experienced people.

 

If you look you will see I never accused you of using the 'people who don't want to work' phrase, but as you very well know, it is a well used generic phrase on here.

Who are you to say that 'all the long term unemployed have simply never accepted they needed continual professional development.' Do you know them all personally? I can assure you life is not that simple and no end of problems get in the way, and retraining certainly doesn't come cheap.

 

as for your philosophers and professional development thinkers, can I point you towards their thoughts on our 'leisure society' and the 'paperless office' just for starters.

 

May I also draw your attention to your assertion - 'So I can't be wrong.'

 

Says it all really...

[tzijlstra]

Your first two paragraphs make sense, but you have woefully misinterpreted everything I said.

 

Yes we now have a bigger working population, because we have a bigger population - people generate jobs - the need for more nurses, teachers, food production etc.

 

My vision of work is no longer physical labour, but you must admit these are a lot of the jobs that have been lost. Not everybody is capable of of moving into the new industries which require new skill sets, no matter how much they retrain, and when they do they are often up against younger, cleverer, more experienced people.

 

If you look you will see I never accused you of using the 'people who don't want to work' phrase, but as you very well know, it is a well used generic phrase on here.

Who are you to say that 'all the long term unemployed have simply never accepted they needed continual professional development.' Do you know them all personally? I can assure you life is not that simple and no end of problems get in the way, and retraining certainly doesn't come cheap.

 

as for your philosophers and professional development thinkers, can I point you towards their thoughts on our 'leisure society' and the 'paperless office' just for starters.

 

May I also draw your attention to your assertion - 'So I can't be wrong.'

 

Says it all really...

 

That just demonstrates that you can't read comprehensively. You conveniently missed out hte clause: "as in the assertion you put here".

 

Knock yourself out believing that automatisation is making people unemployed, in the mean time I'll deal with reality, thanks.

[tinfoilhat]

All of this is all very well but the Truth of the matter is that there is not enough jobs for everyone in the UK. so what do we do?.

the elderly are encouraged or rather forced by inflation to keep working for as long as they are physically able.

the young are given very little choice but do take these supposed apprenticeships. these have been called anything but. the cost of living is ever increasing and the wealth gap as never been as huge as it is now.

this is all leading to an increase in the prison population, its never been higher. although crime is supposedly been the lowest on record.

don't you think that we might all be lied to by the government? how else can certain economic indicators say we are all getting richer, but do you feel richer?

i certainly dont, i am worried sick about fulfilling the commitments that the works program demand. so far it looks like a scheme for the DWP to hand out sanctions of JSA benefit. first one four weeks, second one three months, third and last one THREE YEARS.

 

So why are care homes, hotels and warehouses full of workers from across the globe? Who is picking fruit at the moment? The jobs are there but being taken by foreigners because Brits don't like hard work, Brits don't want get caught in the trap of coming off benifits on a temporary basis and finding themselves skint while the system catches up (don't blame them for this) or something else. And this is for minimum wage(ish) work so they can't be under cutting the locals (which is the argument those in the building trade use).

[Mecky]

So why are care homes, hotels and warehouses full of workers from across the globe? Who is picking fruit at the moment? The jobs are there but being taken by foreigners because Brits don't like hard work, Brits don't want get caught in the trap of coming off benifits on a temporary basis and finding themselves skint while the system catches up (don't blame them for this) or something else. And this is for minimum wage(ish) work so they can't be under cutting the locals (which is the argument those in the building trade use).

 

I wouldn't say foreigners work harder. What they tend to do, but not not always because there are gangs looking to exploit people so nothing is a given, is live in crap accomodation for a short period, put up with some discomfort and lack of privacy in dormitories, save as much money as possible and then return home and start a small business with the money they saved.

 

A British person has an house to keep which is much more of a struggle both physcially and financially. Incidentally, I read in the Metro today that UK salaries are the lowest, in relative terms, they've been for 134 years. Coupled with the fact that average houses prices will soon be 10 times the annual salary making a deposit £72K, something will have to give.