General Chat

TheBlackKnight :-D :-D :-D

what we really need is for this government to open factories
to produce something everybody needs
like toilet rolls sanitary ware medication ect

that way there would be real jobs for real pay

and maybe a small profit in it for the more factories
maybe making cheep clothing shoes underwear ect :-D :-D

A personal experience earlier today encourage me to post this comment about all young unemployed people being regularly portrayed by senior politicians as layabouts and scroungers :-|

The language this government chooses to defend their changes to benefits is designed to make us believe that their changes are all about helping and encouraging the disadvantage in our society and doing it in a compassionate way to help them unlock their full potential and thereby become an asset to society instead of a liability, if that was true it would be a laudable ambition worthy of praise.

However, in my opinion their reasons are far from the truth, as David Cameron, George Osborne, and Iain Duncan Smith, remind me of the old fire and brimstone preachers who denounced people from the pulpit by naming and shaming those who had strayed from the path of righteousness - you are a sinner you will go to hell :-|

In truth their reasons are based on their long held right wing ideological ambition to dismantle the welfare state, if they could get away with it they would legislate to bring back the work house :-|

Earlier today I went into town shopping on my mobility scooter, and got a puncture. A group of young lads were passing and offered to help me, they got the wheel off and took it to a nearby mobility shop and got it repaired then refitted the wheel to my scooter. I offered them some money to go and get a drink, they told me not to be silly, but if I wanted to I could buy them a coffee :-)

There were 5 of them and I got talking to them, it turned out none of them had jobs, they wanted to work, but despite all their efforts they could not get a job, one of them said he went for a job at a store in a nearby retail park to find a queue of nearly 50 others, all hoping to get one of the three jobs on offer :-(

What I say to Ian Duncan Smith is stop branding all young unemployed people as layabouts and scroungers, some may be but most are not, so instead of spending millions on your pet projects such as "Universal Credit" spend the money on creating proper jobs, plenty time for your pet projects once you have sorted out the chronic shortage of jobs. As for David Cameron and George Osborne - well what can I say except I would not give either of you any money to buy a round of drinks as you would probably pocket the change ;-)

The question I’ve seen asked most is who pays for these daily trips to Job Centres which might be miles away from claimants’ homes? Fair enough, especially as they are no more than punishment for being unemployed long-term but there are, though, rather more serious questions that need to be addressed.

For example, Job Centres currently have their “clients” distributed over the whole of the week (or whatever time-period they work to). So how do they cope when all of their long-term claimants are expected to turn up every day thanks to IDS’s latest lunatic scheme?

Can the staff actually manage such numbers? They would, I suspect, be in serious trouble if things got even moderately out of hand, and while I’m aware that JC staff have a very poor rep, most, like the rest of us, are just trying to get by.

Would the numbers breach fire regs? Buildings have a maximum number of people that they may safely and legally accommodate – does this apply to office buildings? In the normal course of events claimants would be in and out relatively quickly, and there wouldn’t be a problem – now they are liable to be stuck there for hours. Possibly most of the day if they’re unlucky or, as I suspect, this idiot plan crashes and burns (hopefully metaphorically).

And if not metaphorically, how long before the first riot when people get severely pissed off with waiting for hours to be seen, with multiple claimants turning up for every time slot? Or when the JC computers go down under the load?

Does anyone at the DWP actually have any interest in any of these questions, and the many others that need to be addressed - like who pays for travel? Because IDS sure as hell doesn’t. He just dreams up these half-cocked schemes and moves on to the next, leaving chaos for everybody in his wake.

Agreed

OFITG


:-D

OneFootInTheGrave - excellent, well said

Nice to hear the story of the boys that helped you. Bet that doesn't make the news :-|

The problem to be far is not of I.D.S.making. U.C. has the possibility of creating a much simpler and fairer benefits system. The major implementation problem is that IDS has wildly underestimated the costs and effort needed to shoehorn the existing baroque system ( of which Gormenghast would have been proud ) into U.C. without requiring substantial primary legislation.

The Treasury always foresaw this problem and opposed U.C. Given the 20 months to the next election there is now no possibility at all of any substantial roll out of U.C. Labour will undoubtedly pick it up and finish the job as (a) any legislation needed would not be an obstacle and (b) U.C. could be a far more useful tool for Labour to achieve its policy objectives than the current mish-mash. That is another reason why IDS has little cabinet support.

Getting back to jobs. Gorgeous George believes in a C19 economic dictum often referred to as Say's Law after the French economist. Say's Law basically stands Keynesian thinking on its head and says that production will of itself create demand.

Given the primacy of Say's Law in his thinking Osbourne does not concede any reason why the government should involve itself in demand management and job creation. Quite the opposite, Osbourne's thinking is that by reducing production costs and taxes that will of itself increase demand and hence employment. It is this thinking that now dominates everything the government does, don't blame the individual ministers. afaik Clegg, Pickles and Boris are the only signed up disciples. Anything to do with numbers is well beyond the ken of Brave Dave as is well known.

The attempt to stoke up the housing market is a classic example of a politician who only half ( at best ) understands Say's Law.

fwiw the Treasury forecasting model ( as used by the OFBR ) is pure Keynesian and thus quite unable to produce the results demanded by the boss. OTOH the model keeps cranking out results fairly close to reality. This is shall we say causing some tensions within the department.

So there you go, it can only get worse.

:-0

What a heart warming story OFIG

Rollo

The best economist: 'Pareto'

80/20

So buddy true :-|

Have to admit, when I heard the two Daily Mail reporters had been sacked, my first thought was - 'So, I hope you realise that, according to what your 'rag' prints - you're 'scrounging scum' now'.

Well if you are happy with fascism then Pareto is of course your man.
NIgel Farage is a great admirer ...

Pareto was wrong about Italy though with his 20/80 law.
The mafiosi take 80%.
The elite take 80% of what's left.
Leaving 4% of the original cake for the everybody else.

Can't say anyone (including myself) would call me a fascist!

What I meant (in simple terms) was of 20% the people reap the rewards of 80% of the workers

I think these theories are all very well. Pareto seems to apply to a lot of situations. For example, 80% of our time at work is spent chasing 20% of our profitable activity.

But to take theories like Keynesianism and Say's law and say that Osborne and Balls and civil servants apply them to the letter is a bit disingenuous. We are all individuals who are influenced by what we read and hear. But at the end of the day, we make up our mind which bits of these theories are useful and which are not.

And times change. And we sometimes have to alter our views.

Theories are there to be argued John.

It's means of getting people to 'think' not just accept!

Totally agree, Gins. I was such a fan of Keynes. I did economics at Uni in 1960's and my professor was a keen Keynesian. So were his tutors.

And it was a brilliant theory of how to run the economy. But there were key things missing that I began to realise as years progressed. We have to be so careful to keep our minds open, use our eyes and ears and be prepared to alter our views sometimes.

Just noticed we are all wavering a lot from Opening Post about these new rules for dole claimants :-( Hope you don't mind, Rose

No I don't mind John, though I admit on the topic of economics my eyes have glazed over in much the same way that they do when Dan is explaining almost anything from his networking course or mentions 'sub-prime' 'ponzi schemes' or 'quantative easing' ;-)

I am a simple soul :-) " Many a mickle makes a muckle'? lol.

edit, very interesting replies though, so thanks to all

:-D

And what are they meant to do at the Job Centre all day. Once they have scanned the computers to see if there are any jobs available, which can take up to 15 minutes......

My partner is a Postman and really hates his job, and would love to find part-time work (in a supermarket etc.) so a few weeks ago I took him down to the local job centre in Woolwich. Took a book as I was expecting to have to sit and wait for some time!!! Less than 10 minutes later he was back. NOTHING.

And I regularly apply online to Tesco, M & S (they have the most complicated web site I have ever encountered) and many other supermarkets. Most never both replying. And I know from my nephews personal experience that one of the very cheap supermarkets only looks at applications from people with foreign surnames. His has Polish ancestors on fathers side, hence the foreign surname and when he went for an interview he was told that they were shocked he was English as his surname had thrown them. He got the job in their warehouse in Erith. Poorly paid and has had to move back home with parents as he cannot afford to pay any form of private rent and get to work and live generally.....

And do not get me started on Zero Hours contracts......

Have heard this expression zero hours contract but have not understood it. Does anyone know what it means?

Yesterday, I heard the NUM in Wales spokesperson saying that one mine (there is still a bit happening) had had to put his members on a zero hour contract. First time ever in coal mining. Do you get holidays, notice etc? My memory of employment law is that, whatever your contract says, if you have been employed regularly for so many hours, that becomes your contract - no matter what the words say. Think technical words are implicit and explicit terms of employment.

It means John that you are not guaranteed the minimum number of hours you work, eg the employer may say we need you 30 hours this week, but if we don't need you 30 hours next week it will be 10 or 0 or 50 if someone else can't come in... there is just no guarantee of hours and income and i don't see how anyone with commitments can do it.

A zero hour contract according to one legal source is a contract designed to create, an on call arrangement, between employer and employee, and is most commonly used by employment businesses who provide temporary work and short term assignments within different organisations. The most important thing about a zero hours contract is that it does not oblige the employer to find work for the employee. These are now being widely used by many other organisations other that employment businesses as their is no legislation that defines their use.

The employment agency ask an individual to sign a contract which makes them what is known as an agency worker, more often than not this is a zero hour contract, and the individual will not be treated as unemployed as they sre on the agency's payroll and deemed to be employed