Back to the workhouse

[Tangled up in Blue]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/jun/08/jubilee-stewards-unpaid-labour-growing

Is this really the best way to give young people work experience and get out of the economic crisis? Frankly, I don't think so.

 

[Benfleet A1]

Come then Barna, I'll bite, give us your expert views and tell us how it will be funded and who should be considered for whatever it is you want to suggest,

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Come then Barna, I'll bite, give us your expert views and tell us how it will be funded and who should be considered for whatever it is you want to suggest,

Sorry GHG but I don't have any expert views,though I'm quite a fan of Community Service from my time in social work.
It would appear however, that the Government's current "Mandatory work scheme, does not improve job chances,research finds."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/jun/13/mandatory-work-scheme-government-research

 

[South Bank Hank]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/jun/08/jubilee-stewards-unpaid-labour-growing

Is this really the best way to give young people work experience and get out of the economic crisis? Frankly, I don't think so.

So we can just get past the banality of links to a site we could all simply visit anyway if we wanted to, what IS the best way to give young people work experience and get out of the economic crisis BB?

 

[Mad Cyril]

Polly Toynbee doesn't seem to have many answers either.

 

[Cricko]

So we can just get past the banality of links to a site we could all simply visit anyway if we wanted to, what IS the best way to give young people work experience and get out of the economic crisis BB?

There is no foreseeable way this country or many others will get out of the economic crisis for many many years,If ever..This country for one is far to over populated for the amount of jobs that are available. Technology for all it's + points has taken away so many basic jobs that no longer exist..The huge companies like Tesco's have crushed all local small business's in their wake as they and many others have to answer to shareholders wanting ever increasing profits. The Financial bodies of this country can fail at any time knowing full well the government will not let them fall..How many other normal companies out there can make such **** up's and be able to start again bailed out.

IMO this "Workforce" idea is slave labour..half of these jobs that are now appearing from nowhere would not even exist if they were not wage free. I know of people who have had their hours cut in half because their employers are using this scheme for free labour knowing full well that they just get rid of them and get new ones as soon as their work period is up.

The +thing about The Workhouse was at least those people were given somewhere to live,this new force has to fend for itself outside of free work.

In 1952 there were 8.5 million manufacturing jobs in this country with 3 vacancies for every person looking for work, today we have a population busting out at the seams with about 2 million working in manufacturing jobs and about 20 people looking for just one available vacancy...Times have changed of course the whole world over and to answer your initial question, quite simply there is no answer but there are ways we could have helped ourselves in hindsight.

If some think this is as bad as it's going to get, I think they will be in for a very rude awakening over the next few years.We are all going to be facing a very different future that has yet to be shaped.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

So we can just get past the banality of links to a site we could all simply visit anyway if we wanted to, what IS the best way to give young people work experience and get out of the economic crisis BB?

We all know that there is a shortage of work in advanced Western capitalist societies.Marx correctly forecast this.His solution was for the proletariat to rise up and take over the means of production,distribution and exchange.This used to be official Labour party policy.
The proletariat are such a disappointment to those of us on the left.:winking:

To(try and)answer your question: either work has to be "rationed",as it is being at the present time with such disastrous results, or a programme of public works(infrastructure improvements etc)has to be embarked on in classic Kenysian style.

I await your own answer with interest.

As I suggested earlier,personally I'm quite a fan of Community Service programmes (or Peace Corps type initiatives as introduced in the US in the 60's) as long as such programmes are of a voluntary and and not a compulsory nature.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Polly Toynbee doesn't seem to have many answers either.

Glad you're a fan.:winking:

 

[canveyshrimper]

Polly Toynbee doesn't seem to have many answers either.

She can however curdle milk with a single glance.

 

[Neil_F]

We all know that there is a shortage of work in advanced Western capitalist societies.

This is the "Lump of Labour fallacy". The number of jobs in the UK is not finite. Employment is a simple calculation of whether the value generated is greater than the cost of employment. At the moment, with suppressed demand, value generated is lower. The options are either to manage demand (extremely difficult and very expenseive) or reduce the costs of employing someone, which this government simply refuses to do.

or a programme of public works(infrastructure improvements etc)has to be embarked on in classic Kenysian style.

This is the 1920s approach, which worked quite well. We no longer live in the 1920s though. Obama's 2010 stimulus included a lot of "shovel ready" infastructure projects. The economic benefits were found to be negligible.

It would be even worse in the UK because infastructure projects suck in immigrant labour because UK nationals often make more money on welfare. The Olympic Park is a huge infastructure project but the unemployment rate in Newham has hardly budged. I've been trying to find some stats on foreign labour but can't.

Trend growth has been permanently affected since 2008. Whilst it used to be 2-2.5% a number of economists think this has now been reduced to 1%. We therefore face a choice: do we want to maintain our current level of social protection at the cost of permanent slow growth (per Italy, Japan) etc, or do we want to sacrifice some social protection and spending to stimulate economic activity and increase growth rates?

I'm in favour of option 2, but I can understand why people would choose option 1.

 

[Cricko]

This is the "Lump of Labour fallacy". The number of jobs in the UK is not finite. Employment is a simple calculation of whether the value generated is greater than the cost of employment. At the moment, with suppressed demand, value generated is lower. The options are either to manage demand (extremely difficult and very expenseive) or reduce the costs of employing someone, which this government simply refuses to do.



This is the 1920s approach, which worked quite well. We no longer live in the 1920s though. Obama's 2010 stimulus included a lot of "shovel ready" infastructure projects. The economic benefits were found to be negligible.

It would be even worse in the UK because infastructure projects suck in immigrant labour because UK nationals often make more money on welfare. The Olympic Park is a huge infastructure project but the unemployment rate in Newham has hardly budged. I've been trying to find some stats on foreign labour but can't.

Trend growth has been permanently affected since 2008. Whilst it used to be 2-2.5% a number of economists think this has now been reduced to 1%. We therefore face a choice: do we want to maintain our current level of social protection at the cost of permanent slow growth (per Italy, Japan) etc, or do we want to sacrifice some social protection and spending to stimulate economic activity and increase growth rates?

I'm in favour of option 2, but I can understand why people would choose option 1.

I respect your views Neil as you obviously know your stuff and are well up on economic opinions. Where in your view does this new found economic activity and growth actually come from in a country that is fast falling onto it's backside?

 

[Napster]

I respect your views Neil as you obviously know your stuff and are well up on economic opinions. Where in your view does this new found economic activity and growth actually come from in a country that is fast falling onto it's backside?

Well I have found most if not all of my current work is dealing with China and India. So in my opinion the growth comes from dealing with new growing countries.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Trend growth has been permanently affected since 2008. Whilst it used to be 2-2.5% a number of economists think this has now been reduced to 1%. We therefore face a choice: do we want to maintain our current level of social protection at the cost of permanent slow growth (per Italy, Japan) etc, or do we want to sacrifice some social protection and spending to stimulate economic activity and increase growth rates?

I'm in favour of option 2, but I can understand why people would choose option 1.

How exactly does sacrificing "some social protection and spending" necessarily lead to a stimulation of "economic activity and increase growth rates?"

 

[steveo]

BACK TO THE WORKHOUSE

Well if it inspires another film as good as Oliver then I'm all for it.

 

[Neil_F]

It reduces the cost of employment (for example cutting employer NIC and abolishing a lot of employment protection rights would be supply side reforms that decrease the unit cost of labour. In other words it would increase total factor production which is the driver of economic growth).

Cut enough spending and you can cut taxes as well, which increases demand. This is in the medium run. Short-term tax cuts would not, in my opinion, increase demand because the UK is going through a massive deleveraging process. That is, most extra cash would probably go toward paying down debt.

There are obvious trade offs here and there is no particular science to it. If spending was cut to 30% of GDP to fund tax cuts, increase work incentives (by reducing welfare entitlement) and reduce the cost of employment then growth would increase. How much it would increase by and whether it would be worth it is the key question.

 

[Mad Cyril]

Glad you're a fan.:winking:

However much she tries to pretend otherwise she is only in her cushy lifestyle because of her privileged background.

Normal people don't drop out of university and end up working for the BBC and The Guardian. Neither do they own villas in Tuscany.

 

[steveo]

Normal people don't drop out of university and end up working for the BBC and The Guardian.

Thts odd Cyril. Where do the Guardian et their staff from then? (or their readers?)

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

This is the 1920s approach, which worked quite well. We no longer live in the 1920s though. Obama's 2010 stimulus included a lot of "shovel ready" infastructure projects. The economic benefits were found to be negligible.

Fact.The theories forming the basis of Keynesian economics were first presented in The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, published in 1936.Hardly the 20's.:nope:

Opinion.The jury is still out on "Obama's 2010 stimulus".

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

However much she tries to pretend otherwise she is only in her cushy lifestyle because of her privileged background.

Normal people don't drop out of university and end up working for the BBC and The Guardian. Neither do they own villas in Tuscany.

I know at least one fairly normal person who dropped out of University and is now Director of Studies at the most prestigous Business School in Barcelona.:winking:

 

[Neil_F]

Fact.The theories forming the basis of Keynesian economics were first presented in The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, published in 1936.Hardly the 20's.:nope:

Opinion.The jury is still out on "Obama's 2010 stimulus".

Calendars are not my strong point. I was asked in a meeting today what year something happened and I couldn't remember what year it is at the moment.

On the Obama stimulus, the Congressional Budget Office found that the medium term effect would be negative, though it sustained employment numbers in the immediate short-term.

There are numerous problems with infastructure projects as a stimulus in the modern era:

1 - EU labour movement - as I explained above, major infastructure projects suck in immigrant labour (see the Olyumpic Park).


2 - Planning system - "shovel ready" projects don't exist because of the planning restrictions and permissions required to start. If the UK government identified 30 projects today how long would it be before they started?

3 - What to actually build? HS2 is all but dead, a new airport? That would take years to approve. Additional road capacity, housing?

4 - How to pay for it? We can't borrow the money so how is it to be paid for without further spending cuts to revenue items (which would almost certainly be benefits and entitlements)