General Chat

Theories are there to be argued John.

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

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.

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

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.

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'.

Rollo

The best economist: 'Pareto'

80/20

So buddy true :-|

What a heart warming story OFIG

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

OneFootInTheGrave - excellent, well said

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

Agreed

OFITG


:-D

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.

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 ;-)

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

TheBlackKnight :-D :-D :-D

RolloTheRed Report 28 Sep 2013 12:35

Spot on!

I'm not saying I agree with this plan but, if it is going ahead, why not have the unemployed work about 10 hours a week for their benefits?

This would equate to working on the minimum wage

And just who is going to benefit from the £300m budget set aside for this scheme.....rubs chin, hmmm....A4E or the likes

Why not inject £300m into industry and get the (real) job market moving?



>>>>>>>>>>off to work

Annx - Yes, to a degree voluntary work would be good - but there still won't be any jobs for them at the end of it.
We need proper jobs, not stupid schemes that only benefit employers, and ensure there are no jobs available.

As an employer, what would you rather do - 'employ' an unemployed person for nothing for a year, with a subsidy from the government. Someone you could get rid of whenever it suited you, or employ a young person with all the rigmarole and cost that would cause - pension, NI, tax, unfair dismissal problems etc?

here here Maggie....many people are choosing to remain in their jobs beyond 70 even those who do not need to for financial reasons. I work with 11 other women, 5 of which are over 65 (one even 73) and 3 others aged between 60-65....Its clear to see why there's no jobs for the youngsters.

What's 'demeaning'.........a bit of honest work to help earn the money taken from taxpayers to help pay for your benefits. That is a huge problem with some youngsters these days that keeps them stuck and out of work. They think it's 'demeaning' to accept anything less than what they perceive is their right because they have degrees. A mother was chatting to me about her son the other day about exactly the same thing and said she couldn't get through to him that the world didn't owe him the living he wanted just because he had education. She was worried sick about his attitude as she had worked her way up from the bottom in her line of work. These youngsters could be gaining work experience, confidence, teamwork skills, practical skills, understanding, empathy, self discipline, self respect, a work routine etc and could be helping and respecting the plight of pensioners who are on very little more money than themselves. If you were an employer, which would you employ......a youngster who had done nothing or a youngster who was trying to gain different skills and was prepared to be flexible and who was used to doing some work.

My hubby retired early 3 years ago and initially found voluntary work in the community. It wasn't similar or 'suitable' compared with what he had done before as a senior manager in a large organisation. He didn't consider demeaning though......he actually considered it to be 'contributing'. Doing that voluntary work led to him finding 3 other paid part time jobs which both had in their criteria , 'demonstrating an interest in the community'.' Without the voluntary work he did in the community he wouldn't have got any of the paid jobs.

Anyone can see drawbacks and problems, but if the idea could operate in some limited way it can only be a good thing surely.

So, you're a married woman aged 23, with a very young child.
Your husband dies.
What happens then?
I presume you have to get a job (s*d the child's welfare)
There are no jobs. You're under 25 so not entitled to benefits.
Do you have to sell your body?

'All unemployed to work/attend the Jobcentre every day'.
Who pays the bus fare?
What if you live in a very remote area with no bus?
You may be able to get a lift once a week - but every day?
How will they all fit into the jobcentre?

Unemployment among the under 25's has risen - strangely so has retirement age.
Will the government admit there's a link?
Personally, I'd prefer to retire in 3 years and give my job to a young person rather than wait 9 years.

:-D BK

Edit :-

Interesting thread!