Public Works

[I am Rod Hull]

Rip up the Schengen agreement and give the people born in this country a chance.

[leicsmac]

Rip up the Schengen agreement and give the people born in this country a chance.

 

What, the Jeremy Kyle fodder you mean?

 

Being a feckless layabout is origin-independent.

[Jon the Hat]

Rip up the Schengen agreement and give the people born in this country a chance.

 

Classic.  We are not a party to the Schengen agreement.

[Harry - LCFC]

Don't support this idea, sounds far too much like coercion. Prison sentences for not working? Slavery essentially. Disgusting.

 

Just make sure a life on benefits offers no comforts to individuals who choose to live like this. You have a right to live but you don't have a right to luxuries (however small they happen to be).

[Jon the Hat]

No disagreement there - the present system is useless for stuff like that, and could do with change.

 

Edit: Also Jon, as you know a lot about this stuff, could you have a go at the question I mentioned earlier?

 

Unemployment was really high during the late 70's and throughout most of the 80's. Is there an economic model that encourages mass unemployment, and if so why?

 

A reasonable question.  In my view what creates mass unemployment is the failure of government or business to respond to the changing macroeconomic environment.  For example, failing to recognise the impact of globalisation on labour intensive industries and move to ensure the workforce is sufficiently skilled and mobile to move into areas with demand both geographically and sector wise.  Or for a business example, the failure to respond to competition from lower cost producers, or to innovate in your product or service offer in the face of competion from outside your market. Generally I think (although I would) that socialist governments have been a blocker to businesses making such changes to adapt and survive, while conservative governments have tried with varying success to remove the barriers.

 

In my view, you can only hold back the forces of human nature for so long, and ultimately we will all by the cheaper or better product, despite interference from the government designed to make us do otherwise.

[I am Rod Hull]

Classic.  We are not a party to the Schengen agreement.

 

I know 

[Webbo]

 

 

Unemployment was really high during the late 70's and throughout most of the 80's. Is there an economic model that encourages mass unemployment, and if so why?

You could argue there was an economic case but in a democracy it doesn't make any sense for any party to deliberately make people unemployed.

[Smudge]

Rip up the Schengen agreement and give the people born in this country a chance.

I thought the Schengen Agreement was about freedom of travel not employment and in any event Britain and Ireland opted out of it

[I am Rod Hull]

I thought the Schengen Agreement was about freedom of travel not employment and in any event Britain and Ireland opted out of it

 

My mate mentioned it to me today when he was moaning about the Poles and I didnt have a clue what he was going on about, I`d never heard of it. 

 

Cant wait to see him tomorrow 

[leicsmac]

A reasonable question.  In my view what creates mass unemployment is the failure of government or business to respond to the changing macroeconomic environment.  For example, failing to recognise the impact of globalisation on labour intensive industries and move to ensure the workforce is sufficiently skilled and mobile to move into areas with demand both geographically and sector wise.  Or for a business example, the failure to respond to competition from lower cost producers, or to innovate in your product or service offer in the face of competion from outside your market. Generally I think (although I would) that socialist governments have been a blocker to businesses making such changes to adapt and survive, while conservative governments have tried with varying success to remove the barriers.

 

In my view, you can only hold back the forces of human nature for so long, and ultimately we will all by the cheaper or better product, despite interference from the government designed to make us do otherwise.

 

Thanks for that Jon. 

 

I would say that if conservative governments allowed businesses so much flexibility to change and therefore by extension allow for greater employment, why was the rate so high during most of the 80's? Perhaps it was the fault of the businesses not adapting despite being given chance to do so?

 

Certainly agree with your last line. I think that regulation from some source other than big business is necessary though, purely because of my own cynical view of human nature.

[Captain...]

No disagreement there - the present system is useless for stuff like that, and could do with change.

Edit: Also Jon, as you know a lot about this stuff, could you have a go at the question I mentioned earlier?

Unemployment was really high during the late 70's and throughout most of the 80's. Is there an economic model that encourages mass unemployment, and if so why?

You could argue that capitalism encourages unemployment, the basic tenet of capitalism is selling things for more than it cost you to make them, and maximising that profit. You do that through innovation and increased reliability and efficiency, human beings aren't reliable or efficient, they are unpredictable and prone to breaking down not turning up, or buggering off altogether. Technology has led to increased efficiency and reduced need for human beings. Computers and robots can do basic tasks so much quicker and more efficiently and facilitate the provision of goods and services 24 hours a day, seven days a week. In some ways it almost seems perverse to spend so much research, time and money in creating a technological utopia, just to then force people to work longer, then make unemployed pick up litter because there are no jobs out there.

I realise we are a long way from this technological utopia, but the model we are following would logically end up in mass unemployment.

[The Year Of The Fox]

By putting in place a system which gets them into the routine of working, develops skills, gives them self confidence, provides training in apply for jobs.  Education doesn't stop when you leave school you know.

 

This is not aimed at people like you though is it?

In what way?

Don't support this idea, sounds far too much like coercion. Prison sentences for not working? Slavery essentially. Disgusting.

 

Just make sure a life on benefits offers no comforts to individuals who choose to live like this. You have a right to live but you don't have a right to luxuries (however small they happen to be).

What do you define as a luxury? Broadband? A car?

[Smudge]

My mate mentioned it to me today when he was moaning about the Poles and I didnt have a clue what he was going on about, I`d never heard of it. 

 

Cant wait to see him tomorrow  

on the bright side we've all learned summat today.

[Webbo]

Don't support this idea, sounds far too much like coercion. Prison sentences for not working? Slavery essentially. Disgusting.

 

Just make sure a life on benefits offers no comforts to individuals who choose to live like this. You have a right to live but you don't have a right to luxuries (however small they happen to be).

Who's mentioned prison?

[Harry - LCFC]

In what way?

What do you define as a luxury? Broadband? A car?

 

Difficult to give an exact definition but I would definitely include the two you've mentioned. I'd put smaller things like designer clothes, jewellery and cheesecake in there too.

 

My general idea is to make living on welfare for an extended period of time unenjoyable.

 

 

 

Who's mentioned prison?

 

OP. Suggested prison sentences for those who don't turn up to his public labour programmes, not too important, no-one else seems to support that idea anyway.

 

EDIT: Wow, only just realised the first post was written ages ago. Sorry about that, guess my comment's a bit out of date!

[The Year Of The Fox]

 

Difficult to give an exact definition but I would definitely include the two you've mentioned. I'd put smaller things like designer clothes, jewellery and cheesecake in there too.

 

My general idea is to make living on welfare for an extended period of time unenjoyable.

 

 

 

 

OP. Suggested prison sentences for those who don't turn up to his public labour programmes, not too important, no-one else seems to support that idea anyway.

 

There are two different benefit claimants. People like me who hated every second and did pretty much anything to get a job, and the Jeremy Kyle lot who love being on the dole. The thing is, I may not have got off the dole without BB and a car! You can't job hunt without the internet nowadays. It's sometimes hard to know whether someone who's been claiming for say 2 years has any real intention of getting employed. But denying them the internet etc denies any hope of them ever getting employed.

[The People's Hero]

I won't link to it, but if I'm understanding the article correctly, they have 6 kids as they are 'super fertile' and immune to contraception, have a free (new) 4 bed house, and £27k of benefits, tax free of course. Neither have worked since 2005, and I think only one of them worked then.

 

To put this in to context. I earn less than £27k, pay tax on that and struggle to pay my mortgage (3 bed house). I have 3 kids.

 

I'm clearly just bitter though, right? I mean, that's totally fair.

[I am Rod Hull]

Does anyone remember The Community Task Force or was it just a South Derbyshire thing?. I`m going back a few years 1983/84/85ish.

 

It employed people that were out of work to tidy up public pathways, parks and such. My brother was on it and earned just over £60 for 3 days work, it was £110 for the full 5 days but you had to have kids to get 5 days (I think). My brother was getting about £15 a week on the dole back then so this scheme was brilliant. 

 

Unfortunately we no longer have North Sea gas revenue to bankroll such schemes because Maggie pissed it up the wall 

[ADK]

I don't believe this is anything to do with genuinely helping people back into work and everything to do with appeasing an ironically uninformed section of the white lower middle class.

[I am Rod Hull]

I don't believe this is anything to do with genuinely helping people back into work and everything to do with appeasing an ironically uninformed section of the white lower middle class.

 

Its a vote winner, nothing more.

[Harry - LCFC]

There are two different benefit claimants. People like me who hated every second and did pretty much anything to get a job, and the Jeremy Kyle lot who love being on the dole. The thing is, I may not have got off the dole without BB and a car! You can't job hunt without the internet nowadays. It's sometimes hard to know whether someone who's been claiming for say 2 years has any real intention of getting employed. But denying them the internet etc denies any hope of them ever getting employed.

 

Agree that there are two types of claimants and that's why I'd start benefits at a fairly high rate for the recently unemployed. Then I'd have it come down over time as it became clear that someone wasn't putting the effort in.

 

Definitely in favour of giving people the opportunity to find work though and low incomes shouldn't stop people from looking, perhaps offer free internet access at job centres?

[Rincewind]

Some people cannot generally use the internet due to mental ability, lack of knowledge due to age, disability or affordability. Apex offer internet training and access to job searches.

Has anyone questioned when hearing of someone that is on benefits and wearing designer gear whether they bought it from a High Street shop or from Oxfam or a church rummage sale? I have bought some good stuff from charity shops at a fraction of the original price.

First impressions can sometimes be deceiving.

[ADK]

Poor people can't really win when it comes to clothing, dress poorly and they are criticised, dress well and they are clearly getting too many benefits!

[Webbo]

Poor people can't really win when it comes to clothing, dress poorly and they are criticised, dress well and they are clearly getting too many benefits!

Who is actually saying that?

[Jon the Hat]

Thanks for that Jon. 

 

I would say that if conservative governments allowed businesses so much flexibility to change and therefore by extension allow for greater employment, why was the rate so high during most of the 80's? Perhaps it was the fault of the businesses not adapting despite being given chance to do so?

 

Certainly agree with your last line. I think that regulation from some source other than big business is necessary though, purely because of my own cynical view of human nature.

 

If you ignore the realities of the world economy and subsidise industries, or indeed give in to pressure from unions wihch push up costs until they are unsustainable, then you are putting off the inevitable, which when it happens is much worse than the gradual change you might have had otherwise.  The late 70s and early 80s were a correction after the failures of the 70s.