The unemployed should do more to find work


R

Robert

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/politics/7759905.stm

Yes they should, but being realistic, now is not a good time to look for
a job. What all these proposal fail to mention it how much more it
would cost to chase the unemployed.

I'm sure when Darling was presenting pre budget statement he said there
were 200k vacancies in the economy. Does that sound right, it has gone
down a lot from 600k it was?
 
Ad

Advertisements

G

ghostwhistler

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/politics/7759905.stm

Yes they should, but being realistic, now is not a good time to look for
a job.   What all these proposal fail to mention it how much more it
would cost to chase the unemployed.

I'm sure when Darling was presenting pre budget statement he said there
were 200k vacancies in the economy.  Does that sound right, it has gone
down a lot from 600k it was?
What do you mean they should do more? Where is your evidence they are
not doing enough and what constitutes enough?
 
M

Mike

Robert said:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/politics/7759905.stm

Yes they should, but being realistic, now is not a good time to look for
a job. What all these proposal fail to mention it how much more it
would cost to chase the unemployed.

I'm sure when Darling was presenting pre budget statement he said there
were 200k vacancies in the economy. Does that sound right, it has gone
down a lot from 600k it was?
There are plenty of unemployed prepared to languish on benefits making
no effort to find work and there are plenty who's employment aspirations
are unrealistic due to the economic climate and/or their skills.

However with so few vacancies and increasing numbers of unemployed
actually desperate for work it makes more sense to target the resources
on them. Trying to up skill and chase the feckless/unrealistic ones is
resource intensive.

Mike
 
R

Robin T Cox

Robert said:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/politics/7759905.stm

Yes they should, but being realistic, now is not a good time to look for
a job. What all these proposal fail to mention it how much more it
would cost to chase the unemployed.

I'm sure when Darling was presenting pre budget statement he said there
were 200k vacancies in the economy. Does that sound right, it has gone
down a lot from 600k it was?
If more of those who are responsible for the economic mess we are in were
punished by losing their jobs, their bonuses and their pension rights, I
wonder if New Labour would be chasing the unemployed with such zeal.
 
M

mart2306

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/politics/7759905.stm

Yes they should, but being realistic, now is not a good time to look for
a job.   What all these proposal fail to mention it how much more it
would cost to chase the unemployed.

I'm sure when Darling was presenting pre budget statement he said there
were 200k vacancies in the economy.  Does that sound right, it has gone
down a lot from 600k it was?
Subtitles of his speech were a bit funny, as is usually the case with
live broadcast. But it showed 600k jobs.
Of course, some of those jobs will be ones people don't want to do.
Involving work.

But hey - what would it be without the guy in charge of our finance as
a country believing people can do jobs.

Martin <><
 
M

mart2306

There are plenty of unemployed prepared to languish on benefits making
no effort to find work and there are plenty who's employment aspirations
are unrealistic due to the economic climate and/or their skills.

However with so few vacancies and increasing numbers of unemployed
actually desperate for work it makes more sense to target the resources
on them.  Trying to up skill and chase the feckless/unrealistic ones is
resource intensive.

Mike
You'd think that would be more realistic.
But this is a government we are talking about. Realism isn't one of
its strong points to begin with.

Every so often they target resources on the 'permanently unemployed' -
a group that generally has little chance of a job at the best of
times.
Some will be found work - tick a box. Some will keep the job over a
certain period. Tick another box.

Its basically a choice between spending the limited resources wisely,
to get the best number of people back into work. Or spend it trying to
get some of those who have smallest chance of a job into work rather
than keep them on benefits.

Which would employers prefer? A 36 year old with several jobs over his
working life, years in each one, and only recently unemployed? Or a 36
year old who left school at 16 who has never had a job yet?


Martin <><
 
Ad

Advertisements

G

ghostwhistler

There are plenty of unemployed prepared to languish on benefits making
no effort to find work and there are plenty who's employment aspirations
are unrealistic due to the economic climate and/or their skills.
Again, your evidence please. You are making appalling generalisations
and demonstrating a rather unpleasant level of prejusidce. Despite
what the dwp and it's media stooges might like you to believe this
simply isn't the case as fraud is at negligible levels. Corporate
fraud costs the treasury more, for example.
 
F

Farcry

Robert said:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/politics/7759905.stm

Yes they should, but being realistic, now is not a good time to look for a
job. What all these proposal fail to mention it how much more it would
cost to chase the unemployed.

I'm sure when Darling was presenting pre budget statement he said there
were 200k vacancies in the economy. Does that sound right, it has gone
down a lot from 600k it was?
600K 200K It makes no difference if there are currently 1.8 million out of
work.... best case scenario if there where 600k jobs vacancies available
where are the other 1.2 million jobs coming from ? like I said before too
many people not enough jobs to go round unfortunately that's how it is and
now with increasing unemployment its just going to get harder to find a job.

All I can do is continue apply for jobs and to get more training and
additional qualifications so to increase my chances of finding work more
strings to my bow the better as it where.

Farcry.
 
M

Mike

Again, your evidence please. You are making appalling generalisations
and demonstrating a rather unpleasant level of prejusidce. Despite
what the dwp and it's media stooges might like you to believe this
simply isn't the case as fraud is at negligible levels. Corporate
fraud costs the treasury more, for example.
Languishing on benefits is nothing odo with fraud!

It's sad but true, I used to live on one of these estates as a kid and
I've seen it at first hand. When I dealt with unemployed/working age
claims I used to see claims daily from people who had been on benefits
for decades, often from school leaving age.

Whole families going from cradle to retirement with rarely a few years
work between them. They aspire to nothing more in some cases and the
gov. will have to put a whole lot of money and effort into forcing those
people off benefits into a job they don't really want.

Better to help more people who really want work, especially when the
unemployed so vastly outnumber the vacancies and employerscan be even
more picky.

The evidence is there in the tax, NI and benefit records.

Mike
 
G

ghostwhistler

In my area unemployment has increased by almost 50% in a year. Where
do the right wing brigade and the likes of James Purnell (who's
ambition is causing him to ignore the government's own advisors)
suppose the jobs are going to come from.

Helping people is one thing; but this government is not helping
people, they are stigmatising them, criminalising them and ultimately
sanctioning them as 'scroungers' so they have no means to even access
the essentials. Even criminals get food, clothing and shelter!
Meanwhile benefits such as JSA are so criminally low, what are people
exepcted to do to survive?

Britain in the 21st century has really let it's people down.
 
E

e.david6

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/politics/7759905.stm

Yes they should, but being realistic, now is not a good time to look for
a job.   What all these proposal fail to mention it how much more it
would cost to chase the unemployed.

I'm sure when Darling was presenting pre budget statement he said there
were 200k vacancies in the economy.  Does that sound right, it has gone
down a lot from 600k it was?
At exactly the same time last year, John Hutton appeared on TV saying
he was going to hammer the unemployed. Nothing has changed.
 
Ad

Advertisements

M

mart2306

At exactly the same time last year, John Hutton appeared on TV saying
he was going to hammer the unemployed.  Nothing has changed.
It takes time. There's a green paper, which has to be drafted, then
consulted on, then comments looked at (whether anything is done with
comments is debateable).
Then a white paper. Then legislation.
Somewhat quicker for getting some changes than revamping in a big
way.
I believe the press is currently talking about the white paper? Could
be a year or two then for changes.

Martin <><
 
R

Robbie

It takes time. There's a green paper, which has to be drafted, then
consulted on, then comments looked at (whether anything is done with
comments is debateable).
Then a white paper. Then legislation.
Somewhat quicker for getting some changes than revamping in a big
way.
I believe the press is currently talking about the white paper? Could
be a year or two then for changes.

Martin <><
It normally takes about 2 to 3 years from policy being drafted to
implementation if it involves wholescale changes - as you said, there's
consultation, green and white papers and then legislation. It it's just
one benefit then it might be 18 months.

I believe that the timescale for the proposed changes is that everything
will be fully implemented by 2013 though the legislation should be in
place by 2010. But 2013 seems to be the date when Income Support will be
more or less abolished and the current crop of Incapacity Benefit
claimants will be more or less moved over to the new Employment and
Support Allowance regime. The Social Fund is also being reformed with
proposals to extend Budgeting Loans to people on low income who are not
on Income Support and that takes time too as the Government are looking
for financial providers to help fund any new scheme by offering low cost
loans (unlike the free loans made under the SF as at present). The SF
reforms will take a few years too.
 
M

mart2306

It normally takes about 2 to 3 years from policy being drafted to
implementation if it involves wholescale changes - as you said, there's
consultation, green and white papers and then legislation. It it's just
one benefit then it might be 18 months.

I believe that the timescale for the proposed changes is that everything
will be fully implemented by 2013 though the legislation should be in
place by 2010. But 2013 seems to be the date when Income Support will be
more or less abolished and the current crop of Incapacity Benefit
claimants will be more or less moved over to the new Employment and
Support Allowance regime. The Social Fund is also being reformed with
proposals to extend Budgeting Loans to people on low income who are not
on Income Support and that takes time too as the Government are looking
for financial providers to help fund any new scheme by offering low cost
loans (unlike the free loans made under the SF as at present). The SF
reforms will take a few years too.
Sounds like the ideal time to apply for a job in benefits or social
fund sections then.

Martin <><
 
R

Robin T Cox

Sounds like the ideal time to apply for a job in benefits or social
fund sections then.

Martin <><
It also gives them time to abolish the National Insurance scheme, under
which UK employers and employees pay squillions in order to protect workers
from the consequences of joblessness, sickness etc.

After all, if the government is going to rat on its obligations, then
presumably we shall be expecting to move to a US-style system under which
the cost of all welfare services falls entirely on employers. Against
which, I believe the US car industry is now protesting.
 
M

mart2306

It also gives them time to abolish the National Insurance scheme, under
which UK employers and employees pay squillions in order to protect workers
from the consequences of joblessness, sickness etc.

After all, if the government is going to rat on its obligations, then
presumably we shall be expecting to move to a US-style system under which
the cost of all welfare services falls entirely on employers. Against
which, I believe the US car industry is now protesting.
Plenty already falls on employers.
I wasn't aware the money was to protect workers at all. Looks like
simply a tax to me. Though at least for employees, the fact that
something is paid or credited for that particular tax (no matter about
amount) is used for deciding entitlement to certain other things.

Martin <><
 
Ad

Advertisements

R

Robin T Cox

Plenty already falls on employers.
I wasn't aware the money was to protect workers at all. Looks like
simply a tax to me. Though at least for employees, the fact that
something is paid or credited for that particular tax (no matter about
amount) is used for deciding entitlement to certain other things.

Martin <><
The original concept is described in the Wikipedia article below. The
name 'National Insurance' was deliberately chosen 'as an expression of the
government's aspiration that the system should be qualitatively different
from conventional general taxation such as income tax.' For example,
benefits were to be related to contributions, not means tested.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Insurance

Since Robert Maxwell showed everyone the way to rob employees' pension
funds, most other employers and now the State have also jumped on the
bandwagon, and so the original concept has been abandoned in practice as
far as benefits go, but not as far as contributions go. What a surprise! We
even have benefits means tested now, not related to contributions any
longer.

Hence my suggestion that it's about time to re-examine also the
justification for charging the NI contribution at all, instead of simply
calling it a tax and including it as part of general taxation. Not that New
Labour, with their fondness for stealth taxes, will like that idea very
much, doubtless.
 
Ad

Advertisements

M

mart2306

The original concept is described in the Wikipedia article below. The
name 'National Insurance' was deliberately chosen 'as an expression of the
government's aspiration that the system should be qualitatively different
from conventional general taxation such as income tax.' For example,
benefits were to be related to contributions, not means tested.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Insurance

Since Robert Maxwell showed everyone the way to rob employees' pension
funds, most other employers and now the State have also jumped on the
bandwagon, and so the original concept has been abandoned in practice as
far as benefits go, but not as far as contributions go. What a surprise! We
even have benefits means tested now, not related to contributions any
longer.

Hence my suggestion that it's about time to re-examine also the
justification for charging the NI contribution at all, instead of simply
calling it a tax and including it as part of general taxation. Not that New
Labour, with their fondness for stealth taxes, will like that idea very
much, doubtless.
Ah, I see what you mean.
Rather like how taxation initially was only levied on the nobility.
Then someone had the idea that getting the poor to give a penny each
added up to a hell of a lot more than the nobility were paying.

And as such we now have everyone paying, from birth to death - and
their estates paying even after that.

I'm wary of getting government to re-examine whether a type of tax
should be paid. They ae unable to resist meddling at the best of
times, I'd honestly expect them to hit us harder if its changed.
Especially now, when general government revenue is falling while their
costs are rising.
Come to think of it, the VAT cut is 13 months. My employers employer
NI from 2011 will increase by about the amount we could save in this
13 month period from the reduced VAT.
Yet the NI increase hasn't, as far as I know, got a time limit.

Sneaky. Very sneaky. I'd take my hat off to them but they've already
repossessed that.

And employees will also pay more NI - so government claws more into
its coffers quickly.
And whats the odds that we will all be in a better position
financially by 2011?

Martin <><
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Top