General Chat

At its most basic the problem is too many people and too few jobs!

Just how is any government (Of any persuasion) going to solve that?

They could reduce the population by committing genocide. They could ban the use of the automated production machinery that put so many workers out of a job in the first place. They could ban the import of anything that could be produced in the UK.

I'm pretty certain that probably none of the above would be very popular.

The trouble with threads such as this one is that they will draw opinions of whether the proposed scheme will/will not work but rarely (If ever) does anyone offer a creditable workable alternative scheme.

Come on folks let's have your suggestions for getting the currently unemployed back into gainful employment.

It is unfortunately NOT the policy of government to achieve full employment or anything like it. That is because full employment tends to be associated with the perceived devil of inflation (*) and even worse a stroppy work force. Target unemployment is 5-7%. As the government intends for 1 in 20 to be out of work it could at least be a little more honest about the consequences.

(*) People who took out mortgages in the 60s 70s and 80s and "paid them off" have inflation to thank for making it much easier as wages went up with inflation and the mortgage remained the same. I wonder how they would have got on if the mortgage principle had been indexed linked ?

Many countries tax cash gains on private houses whether linked to inflation or not. Outside the UK the tax-free status of profit on residential property is regarded as an amazing subsidy to house owners. Those complaining about the expense of a person trying to get by on £ 60/week might reflect on that.

Jonesy, leaving aside the point that none of 'us' ( here) get paid a huge salary to contemplate or make such decisions...and perhaps given the time and the resources someone here MIGHT come up with a viable plan... :-D

Just thinking aloud... the proposed scheme will be focusing on 18-24 year olds and 'older' (50-67?) .

As the pension age has been increased significantly ( certainly for women, I would have retired at 60, now I will be 66) why not let men and women over 60 opt for a voluntary 6/7 years 'redundancy' in which they will recieve the 'pension' amount or JSA amount if lesser, but still have their stamp towards a full pension at 66/67.

And then in return for that 'advanced pension' ask them to use their work and life experience in community service, training of young people, supervising the young people put on schemes whch will actually improve their chances of a 'proper' job.

Old dogs teaching the young their tricks in effect :-) as well as freeing up some of those 'proper' jobs held by the older ones to enable the younger ones to progress to them.

As I said just thinking aloud, so I am sure that can be pulled apart. But I have given it about 2 minutes thought...the government are paid to do this better than I can, they say they can, I don't claim that lol.

What hasn't been said yet, presumably it will be when the scheme is announced officially? is who is going to supervise? who is going to stand and clock the workers in when they do community service ( for eg if the litter picker (or council workmen doing other work) comes round this estate once a month, is he going to be the one supervising a band of JSA people and come round weekly or daily instead? )

updated, the scheme is being announced today...

"Pick up litter for your dole: Long-term jobless will also clean up graffiti or cook for the elderly in Tory 'work for benefits' plan

George Osborne will announce the £300m 'work for the dole' scheme today

Will be funded from spending cuts to be detailed in the autumn statement

Could be introduced within 6 months, affecting 200,000 on welfare

Claimants would have to do 30 hours a week in a work placement"

300 miliion £ !!!!

My only comment at the minute is, if I were one of the long term unemployed is : what did the elderly ever do to me to deserve me cooking for them ? lol

Cleaning the streets, removing graffitti - this is what we pay our council tax for their employees to do.

Are the councils now going to let their street cleaners go (to become unemployed) in order to take on people for free, as these people will be being paid the 'dole' which is paid for out of our taxes.

It there is a job to be done, then the councils should employ these people and then get them off the dole.

And what about those people who live in areas where there is literally no work. Thanks to previous governments, closing pits etc., (thanks Maggie) and the decline of our high streets where so many big employers have gone broke (thanks bankers!!).

The amount of people who are considered long term umemployed is relatively small. And most people find work within 2 years (still a long time).

Why does this government just admit, they are toffs who hate the working classes, as they no longer do the traditional 'service' jobs and no longer tug their forelocks and bow and scrape to them......

Classless society my a***

the proposed scheme will cost too much - all the legal ramifications, health and safety, uniforms, supervisors - all that will hav to be paid for

my late husband was made redundant at 50 years old - a highly qualified engineer, 30 years with the same firm, one week off on the sick in all that - made redundant without warning - he wrote hundred of letters applying for suitable vacancies costing pounds in postage - all the time when he went to sign on he was asked "what are you doing to find work" - he showed copies of all the letters he had written and asked "what are you doing to find me work" We still had to pay full council tax

when it was suggested at that time, back in the nineties that unemployed should do anything to earn their measly dole money, such as cleaning up the river banks, I said the only reason he would have to go to a river was to throw himself in it - it was all so demeaning

there are families where generations have never held a proper job, even when there were jobs to get - these are the ones who should be targetted

One report states that more than a third of museums and galleries cut staff last year, while nearly half increased the number of interns and volunteers, according to a survey by the Museums Association.

"Interns and volunteers have plenty to offer but can never replace skilled, experienced staff," said Mark Taylor, director of the Museums Association.

The question is how many other organisations are doing this ;-)

if they are used for street cleaning as mentioned in our area
wont that put the street cleaners out of a job

i would like them to used to help the disabled
and give carers a break
maybe put a few shelves up or walk the dog
or maybe a little gardening or painting and decorating ;-)

But if they are to be doing that, eg respite for carers or working in people's homes in any capacity, especially vulnerable people, they will have to be CRB checked, and also be supervised... I was a carer and to be honest the last person I would want looking after me is someone who is being 'forced' to be there and probably has no idea what they are doing or wishes to do it.

Personally I'd much prefer sweeping the streets and litter picking to being a carer :-D

For my regular daily recreational rambles, I take along a few bin-bags & collect all the litter I see strewn around.

I must admit that this takes place in a countrified area but I am still surprised how quickly I can fill a bag or two with the stuff others recklessly discard. And on my return home, I have a certain sense of satisfaction for having done something useful - apart from the exercise.

Jusr another take on this work for dole scenario as the Prime Minister has announces further moves against the unemployed under the age of 25 in his speech yesterday to the Conservative party.

Yesterday David Cameron announced that his government would take action to curb the entitlement to certain benefits for the unemployed under the age of 25.

Earlier this year Mark Carney the Governor of the Bank of England announced that they plan to keep the base rate of interest at its record low level until unemployment falls to 7%.

The reason I have brought Mark Carney the Governor of the Bank of England's announcement into the equation is simple, it is because I have never accepted that the Bank of England is truly free from government influence, being the cynic that I am, I cannot help wonder if the two announcements are in some way connected.

It is worth noting that according to official figures it is estimated that there are about two and a half million people unemployed in the UK and just over one million of these are between the ages of 16 and 24.

David Cameron said he wants everyone under 25 "earning or learning" well the way my mind works is - that if you take all the unemployed under 25 years old and push them all on to work training programmes or into further education, they will no longer be counted as unemployed and this will bring unemployment down way below the Governor of the Bank of England's 7% figure to trigger a rise in interest rates.

The Bank of England would be happy, the financial institutions would be happy, and the government would be happy as they will not only be able to say they have dramatically cut unemployment but that they solved the problem of the young unemployed.

If there is a connection between these two announcements, it would be another example of how disjointed this government is. It would not only blow their policy of maintaining low interest rates to smithereens, it would also make a mockery of their mortgage guarantee schemes - a rise in interest rates would have serious consequences for a lot of people, not least those the Prime Minister calls - hard working people.

RR

In the Grenada region of Spain ..were I live ..all persons who "cobrar el paro" collect unemployment payment ...have to do 15 days community work, every 6 months ..

This applies to all ages and sex ... in rural villages "lanes" are often made with pebbles/stones collected from the river banks ,, and symbols and patterns are made

It is quite common to see quite dignified Spanish señoras ...attempting to kneel down to place stones ...or trying to crouch to paint railings .... whilst holding an umbrella to keep the sun off ......

but they do it .........

A wonderful simple way of life ....

Cameron, Milliband and Clegg are on a long flight in RAF One. Clegg pulls out a £100 note and says "I'm going to throw this £100 note out and make someone down below happy." not wanting to be outdone, Miliband, says, "If that was my £100 note, I would split it into 2 x £50 notes and make two people down below happy." Of course Cameron doesn't want these two candidates to outdo him, so he pipes in, "I would take 100 x £1 notes and throw them out to make 100 people just a little happier." At this point the UKIP supporting pilot, who has overheard all this bragging and can't stand it anymore, comes out and says, "I think I'll throw all three of you out of this plane and make 50 million people happy."

Please use your vote to support the pilot. :-)

Black Knight - very funny :-D

:-D BK

Edit :-

Interesting thread!

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.

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.

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.

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?

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