Merrick
|
Re: Tories and unemployment benefits
Aug 22, 2008, 15:33
|
By subtracting the number of Job Seekers Allowance claimants from the number of vacancies, Vybik John came up with 229,800
However, there are far more people unemployed than that. And I'm not talking about those who can't/won't work. I'm using, as Jim did, the government's definition of 'jobless people who want to work, are available to work, and are actively seeking employment'.
The government's figure for that, cited by Jim, leaves a discrepancy of around a million people.
There's a few reasons for the difference between Vybik and Jim's numbers. Some unemployed people don't claim benefits, others can't. Then there's all the figure-fiddling scams that the Conservatives brought in during the period of high unemployment in the 80s and early 90s - only count one of a couple, don't count men over 60, don't count the ones you've coerced into Mickey Mouse training courses. Labour soundly jeered at these measures as they were brought in, then chose not to repeal them once in power.
There certainly are more who could work - the government says those who are of working age but economically inactive number about 8 million (mostly students, raising family or disabled) (Note: the figure I found is 4 years old, but as they say there's been no massive changes in previous years I don't see any reason why they'll have changed much since 2004).
But it seems that even if we exclude all those scamming sickness benefits, all those parents who could get part-time work and whatever, there are a million people properly unemployed.
Full employment is never coming back. It was demolished by automation and the huge influx of women into the labour market; neither thing is going to ever go away. So, there will always be more people than jobs. I don't see that compelling people to do the same activites we give to minor criminals - effectively criminalising long-term unemployment - is humane, fair or value for money.
|
shanshee_allures
|
Edited Aug 22, 2008, 16:01
Re: Tories and unemployment benefits
Aug 22, 2008, 15:58
|
I would have been 'statistically' unempolyed a few years back.
Since, we've become a single income household, save the help with tax credits etc (and I am not knocking Nu Labuor for that one at all, never will).
I got a small job coming up soon, but for a while I have been 'unemployed' in the tradiitonal sense (being a mum and studying), but I doubt if the govt cared or if Cameron would care to single me out as a 'problem', as I 'claimed' nothing for myself.
My contribution to the national kitty because of this little job will be virtually negligible too.
But I'll be 'working' none the less. I won't feel any more pride in myself as a result, just a little bit better off, which I'm looking forward to. For that reason alone people will almost always want to work more than they don't. Ain't that the point, mainly? Never did get the 'work ethic' bit TBH.
EDIT: Unless of course you have a career in mind, which I certainly do when the time is right:-)
x
|
Vybik Jon
|
Re: Tories and unemployment benefits
Aug 22, 2008, 16:29
|
Sorry, Jim.
I got my figures here:
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/instantfigures.asp
|
Vybik Jon
|
Re: Tories and unemployment benefits
Aug 22, 2008, 16:30
|
Merrick, I got my figures here:
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/instantfigures.asp
|
Merrick
|
Re: Tories and unemployment benefits
Aug 22, 2008, 16:50
|
|
Not doubting your figures matey, just the idea that the claimant count is the same thing as being jobless available for work and actively seeking it.
|
grufty jim
|
Re: Tories and unemployment benefits
Aug 22, 2008, 16:56
|
Right, but as Merrick has already pointed out, those on JSA do not make up the total number of unemployed. Not even close. Governments see it as being in their interest to minimise the 'unemployed' figure (it's -- wrongly -- seen as a barometer of success). So they split the statistics into different categories so that they can cite smaller-sounding numbers when pressed.
The actual number of unemployed (i.e. those available for work) is closer to 1.6 million. It's that total number that will be targeted by any compulsory work order, so it's that total number that we should be focussing on.
|
Vybik Jon
|
Re: Tories and unemployment benefits
Aug 22, 2008, 17:37
|
No argument there.
The figures I posted were merely to illustrate that the 80,000 figure that pooley suggested was way off and that getting access to the numbers isn't hard.
|
Vybik Jon
|
Re: Tories and unemployment benefits
Aug 22, 2008, 17:39
|
No argument.
See my reply to Grufty Jim below.
|
Sir John Dunn
|
Re: Tories and unemployment benefits
Aug 22, 2008, 17:47
|
|
pooley wrote: pooley wrote: Sir John Dunn wrote: pooley wrote: Merrick wrote: pooley wrote: I know loads of people who wont get a job as they are better of on the dole
Can you agree that there are more people than jobs? (As there are 1.6 million unemployed, that seems like you can)
Can you agree that there are always going to be more people than jobs?
If so, we face several options, and I'm wondering which you'd consider best;
1) We make the large pool of unemployed play musical chairs for the smaller pool of jobs
2) We remove benefits from those without a job
3) We find those who can live full and contented lives on the bare minimum, and give them dole, focusing our benefits budget on those who actually want help into work.
As an employer, I find it extraordinary that there are more people than jobs (as you claim, I don't know the figures so cant agree or disagree). I'm always struggling to fill positions for good fairly well paid jobs. In my experience, there is a lack of suitable people to fill the positions available.
To me, this means a huge retraining program is in order - I simply can not accept that anyone who doesn't need to should spend their whole lives on benefit, without giving something back.
Does that make me a Nazi, or worse a tory?? I have no idea.
The idea that we should find people that want to do nothing all day, at the expense of everyone else is awful, to me. I'd love to do fuck all, but I have a family and I have to work.
Pooley, with employers like you, who needs Nazi Tories? You are the problem, not the solution.
Is this a money thing? Do you honestly believe that you would pay less tax if everyone had a job?
Who cares whether people work or not? We’ll all be dead soon, anyway.
i'm the problem? hilarious. I work for a failrly decent company
Game over. Swap shirts everyone. See y'all in the dressing room.
|
