|
|
Post by Steve on Oct 14, 2022 16:08:33 GMT
...the best and only socially conscionable way of doing that is to get more people into work and more people into decent paid work... Well, with 1.3 million unfilled job vacancies that shouldn't be too difficult. So what's the plan? Well we may have 1.246 million vacancies but not too many people of the unemployed that can fit them. The 'can't make a brain surgeon in a day' dilemma although in practice it's location issues that tend to dominate. Who's going Anyway we have a working age population of 26.609 million employed 8.154 million part time employed But 1.554 million unemployed and 9.508 million just not economically active. Many shuffled off as disabled etc tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/labor-force-participation-rateOr in short we aren't creating enough employment and certainly not enough decent paid employment for the 50% below median capability. We need a) a Manufacturing strategy to get that sector back to being a major employer b) a serious review of the effects of the NMW c) an end to massively taxing employers for daring to employ people |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Oct 14, 2022 16:26:41 GMT
Well we may have 1.246 million vacancies but not too many people of the unemployed that can fit them. The 'can't make a brain surgeon in a day' dilemma although in practice it's location issues that tend to dominate. Who's going Anyway we have a working age population of 26.609 million employed 8.154 million part time employed But 1.554 million unemployed and 9.508 million just not economically active. Many shuffled off as disabled etc tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/labor-force-participation-rateOr in short we aren't creating enough employment and certainly not enough decent paid employment for the 50% below median capability. We need a) a Manufacturing strategy to get that sector back to being a major employer b) a serious review of the effects of the NMW c) an end to massively taxing employers for daring to employ people Overall, I agree. But in my view, a large part of that is training the people that we already have rather than throwing them on the scrapheap and then paying someone else. The number of unemployed is perilously close to the number of unfilled vacancies and if we could reconcile even a fraction of the two we would be making good progress towards solving our problems. You also seem quite close to the Truss ideal of growth. Again, I tend to agree (although Truss has the right idea but a terrible execution). |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Oct 14, 2022 16:31:10 GMT
This was the argument that the Labour Party put forward at the start of the NHS - a free health service would make everyone healthier and thus over time demand for healthcare (and therefore cost) would fall. 75 years later we are spending 12% of GDP on the NHS and have record numbers of workers out of a job and on long term sickness welfare... Isn't much of the rise in spending on the NHS due to the ageing population as a result of the post-war baby boom? The current top-heavy nature of the elderly and retired outstripping the younger workforce might indicate how successful the NHS has been since its inception. As I see it, the problem is not with the NHS but rather the decline in younger population able to support such a system, but this is no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater and de-fund the health system. The Chinese are already facing this dilemma (too many old vs. not enough young) and hence lifted their one-child policy - possibly too late. It needs to be decided which Social Services need to be ring-fenced and I believe the NHS is a prime candidate to ensure a future healthy workforce. Anyway, what happened to all the money saved by leaving the EU and now available for funding?  it's already getting it - spending has soared.. unfortunately service to the customer didn't soar as well...  |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Oct 14, 2022 16:31:30 GMT
Many state jobs are a job for life. You have indeed looked to the state with its prodigious waste to solve your income problem. LOL!  Not a bad point but nonetheless one which overlooks a few salient points: 1) I didn't have an income problem - I used to work quite happily in the private sector. 2) From an employee's perspective, the public sector is just another employer: They wanted my skills and I was happy with the package that they were offering. Same as any job. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Oct 14, 2022 16:33:31 GMT
Overall, I agree. But in my view, a large part of that is training the people that we already have rather than throwing them on the scrapheap and then paying someone else. The number of unemployed is perilously close to the number of unfilled vacancies and if we could reconcile even a fraction of the two we would be making good progress towards solving our problems. You also seem quite close to the Truss ideal of growth. Again, I tend to agree (although Truss has the right idea but a terrible execution). I'm not a 'go for growth whatever' person. We'd have to replace all those taxes on employers with other taxes - my favourite would be increasing VAT. Companies that employed Brits would be able to absorb it and more, companies that import big time would see their prices rise. A problem is that so so many people have got used to their £500 mahoosive TV renewed every 5 years and would complain. You mention training, I'd agree as part of a long term fix but we really do need to start increasing public awareness of basic economics and now. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Oct 14, 2022 17:39:02 GMT
I'm not a 'go for growth whatever' person. We'd have to replace all those taxes on employers with other taxes - my favourite would be increasing VAT... OK, I'm not disagreeing, but wouldn't the counter argument be that it would disproportionately affect the lower paid? ...Companies that employed Brits would be able to absorb it and more, companies that import big time would see their prices rise... And again, not disagreeing, but can you explain a bit more? |
|
baff
Junior Member
Posts: 75
|
Post by baff on Oct 14, 2022 19:29:53 GMT
Food, water, security and heating for starters. Do they not count as 'Health and Welfare'?[/quote] No. Of course they don't. The NHS does not provide your food. A lock on your door. Your police. An army or your heating. The job you need to pay for it all. It is a secondary concern to all these things. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 14, 2022 19:40:03 GMT
I think most of you talk a load of bollocks about welfare and benefits. You admit yourselves that you have no experience of dealing with these people. Of course there are some scammers and fiddlers claiming welfare they shouldn't. Of course some people don't try hard enough to find work. But you aren't going to tell me there aren't millions of employed people fiddling their hours of work, arriving late, going home early, nicking stuff, pulling sickies, and the self employed robbing the tax man etc. are you? And of course, you all know or have heard of the legendary the man in the pub or at the bus stop boasting about his "free car" and how much he's earning on the side while working. Well unfortunately life's not like that when you have to claim welfare. There are strict rules about looking for work, and strict medical checks for those claiming sickness benefit. If you think it's easy to claim welfare, try it.
Note how they conflate "fraud and error" together, wonder how it looks if it's just fraud alone? They don't want to publish more accurate figures. This is why:
Now compare that to tax evasion + avoidance, corporate welfare by the government (especially this government) and money sent to friends of the Tories during the pandemic with shoddy PPE contracts; a wealth transfer to their rich mates - the worst kind of cronyism. And don't mention MPs, HoL and others who are paid no matter how badly they fuck up, and don't mention fraudulent and otherwise undue loans during COVID that went to businesses who were prioritized over others, owing to cronyism once again. And as you alluded, definitely don't mention other kinds of fraud that exist across many companies and individuals in the private sector.
|
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Oct 14, 2022 19:42:11 GMT
OK, I'm not disagreeing, but wouldn't the counter argument be that it would disproportionately affect the lower paid? And again, not disagreeing, but can you explain a bit more? That's the age old argument and IMHO false argument about raising VAT. The poor buy potatoes which are VAT free, the rich by dauphinoise potatoes in fine restaurants where VAT is levied. But to explain a bit more. A company (like Dyson) that manufactures overseas would see little savings from killing off employers NI etc but would see its prices have to rise with say a 5% increase in VAT, a company that manufactured similar in the UK might see 10% off its total employee costs easily able to absorb the VAT. Now it's not as clear cut as to provoke a sea change overnight but move the goalposts by 5% and over the medium term 5% of make/buy (import) decisions would go towards make in the UK |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Oct 14, 2022 19:50:33 GMT
OK, I'm not disagreeing, but wouldn't the counter argument be that it would disproportionately affect the lower paid? And again, not disagreeing, but can you explain a bit more? That's the age old argument and IMHO false argument about raising VAT. The poor buy potatoes which are VAT free, the rich by dauphinoise potatoes in fine restaurants where VAT is levied. But to explain a bit more. A company (like Dyson) that manufactures overseas would see little savings from killing off employers NI etc but would see its prices have to rise with say a 5% increase in VAT, a company that manufactured similar in the UK might see 10% off its total employee costs easily able to absorb the VAT. Now it's not as clear cut as to provoke a sea change overnight but move the goalposts by 5% and over the medium term 5% of make/buy (import) decisions would go towards make in the UK Makes total sense. Good argument.  |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Oct 14, 2022 20:01:57 GMT
It's one of the great failings of UK Politics. The Tories won't do it because at heart they don't care and maybe even prefer high levels of effective unemployment and Labour won't do it because at heart they see employers as evil exploiters who have to be made to pay more for daring to employ people.
There has to be a third way (but maybe not Blair's third way)
|
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Oct 15, 2022 3:08:55 GMT
Many state jobs are a job for life. You have indeed looked to the state with its prodigious waste to solve your income problem. LOL! Not a bad point but nonetheless one which overlooks a few salient points: 1) I didn't have an income problem - I used to work quite happily in the private sector. 2) From an employee's perspective, the public sector is just another employer: They wanted my skills and I was happy with the package that they were offering. Same as any job. State jobs are fundamentally different. In the private sector you get paid so much and they expect to be paid more than that. This means you have to be good enough so a customer willingly buys your services. Whatever you do it has to be valuable. As for the state version, not that I have ever done a state job, but I understand the overriding important thing is you do stuff to satisfy some metric that department is supposed to achieve. I hear stories about state jobs and people bluffing it. The 'look like you are doing something useful' ploy etc. |
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Oct 15, 2022 9:25:29 GMT
Every day we read of shortcomings in our public services: The NHS, Social Services, Welfare, Education, Emergency Services etc. etc. are, we're told, all going to Hell in a handcart and the answer is always “More money”. But I wonder if we'd really be prepared for the sort of tax rises that would be required to deliver the services that “We” claim to want. I'd suggest at least a doubling of taxes and even then, having worked in the public sector with its prodigious waste, it seems unlikely that would do the trick. So since it's doubtful that we can fix the supply side, perhaps we need to look at the demand. I speak as someone who has never been out of work since leaving school. I've never claimed benefits, lived in social housing or used social services and my contact with the NHS has been minimal. Of course, some will say I've been lucky. I'd say that I don't look to others to solve my problems. But it seems to me that there are too many who do look to the state to run their lives for them. And it's that culture of dependency that we need to tackle. And it's not as if it's a big ask. Within living memory many state bodies (including the NHS) didn't even exist and people got on with it. So perhaps it's time tell people to stand on their own feet, to provide fewer public services rather than demanding ever more tax. Well I tried to claim benefits when my savings were exhausted while I was waiting four years for the asshole Welsh NHS under their utterly f**king hopeless twat management and Welsh labour government to get their f***king act together and remove the cataracts that made me go blind and lose my job The wanker at the job centre told me I had to register online. I tried telling the twat I couldn’t see to do that and he started treating me like a f**king four year old who didn’t know how to turn on a PC Honest to god if the Newspapers ever report a cruise missile /drone strike taking out Newport Job Centre at 9am when the place only has shits like him in there, come looking for me, as it will be one of mine that did it. I really, honestly do not understand why more of their staff are not murdered given the way they treat those made redundant or unemployed through no fault of their own, and I say that as the owner of six P45’s handed to be by an official receiver over the what is it now 49 years of my tax paying working life. And from the posts in here some of you clearly need to experience that first hand. But now Rishi’s ousted the man whose bright ideas were to increase employment opportunities, I bet some of you will. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Oct 15, 2022 9:28:37 GMT
State jobs are fundamentally different. In the private sector you get paid so much and they expect to be paid more than that. This means you have to be good enough so a customer willingly buys your services. Whatever you do it has to be valuable. As for the state version, not that I have ever done a state job, but I understand the overriding important thing is you do stuff to satisfy some metric that department is supposed to achieve. I hear stories about state jobs and people bluffing it. The 'look like you are doing something useful' ploy etc. If the money appears regardless of results, you can be pretty sure what the result is likely to be. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Oct 15, 2022 11:24:27 GMT
State jobs are fundamentally different. In the private sector you get paid so much and they expect to be paid more than that. This means you have to be good enough so a customer willingly buys your services. Whatever you do it has to be valuable. As for the state version, not that I have ever done a state job, but I understand the overriding important thing is you do stuff to satisfy some metric that department is supposed to achieve. I hear stories about state jobs and people bluffing it. The 'look like you are doing something useful' ploy etc. If the money appears regardless of results, you can be pretty sure what the result is likely to be. Stability, no corners cut for personal gain? Just look what happened with Railtrack where what should have been state jobs were put out to a private company. Several dead and a collapsed company that had to be rescued by our taxes. Some jobs need to be state jobs |
|
