Unemployed To Be Told 'move To Parts Of The Country Where There Are Jobs'

[Dave Spart]

God save us from those who claim to have 'made it' and tell us that anybody could do the same if they 'applied' themselves.

The thing that they never seem to realise is that it is impossible for more than a certain number to be on above average incomes and that without the large number who, for various reasons end up at the lower end of the scale, their income would not be above average either.

This site is full of folk who at one time were coining it. When too many others spotted their wealth and jumped on the gravy train it went wrong for them. The folk who came here worried about the housing market and the prospects for their 'portfolio' spring to mind. Then there are those groups who complain about imported workers willing to work for less. IT guys have had a lot to say on that subject.

I don't know what you do for your six figures but I can be certain that there are many who would do it for less and their numbers are growing fast.

'Fraid not old chum. It requires passing some extremely tough exams you could even still be taking into your forties. As the vast majority want the easy life, they make things easy for people who are prepared to put themselves out.

[ParticleMan]

I have however worked some pretty nasty jobs in my time,

I'm guessing you took them largely because they were work that needed doing... and you could?

I'm not quite as far off the deep end as some, but I do find it a little bewildering when people espouse the notion (generally, with an absolutely straight face) that "there's no work" when up and down the road I see lunch bars with "help wanted" notices.

And then proceed to tell me how they can't "do" those jobs "because they wouldn't cover the rent" or "it'd take them too far away from the family" or a myriad other "reasons".

The implicit defeatism comes across as absolutely bonkers, to me.

Heck, the guy (Filipino, adult student) cleaning our office cold-called and just offered a rate.

He's supporting a family of five, back home.

(I once took a job scrapping PCB's into their components, that was... engaging)

[Dave Spart]

Like you, you mean.

Come back when you've stopped 5h1tting yellow, won't you and have some life experience outside your own bubble.

I've had an amazing life so far, had some amazing success, suffered some terrible tragedies. What I learnt is that the true test of your character is not how you deal with success but how you handle disappointment.

. . . it ain't about how hard ya hit. It's about how hard you can get it and keep moving forward. How much you can take and keep moving forward. That's how winning is done!

(Rocky Balboa)

Edited June 27, 2010 by Dave Spart

[Bruce Banner]

Don't take your failures out on others just because you're too dim to understand irony and/or sarcasm.

A lie is a lie.

[Dave Spart]

Ain't that the truth.

But it is possible to earn more than £6.87 a week.

[miko]

At present I cannot think of anywhere that has a surplus of jobs. I notice that when this statement was made it was not backed up by a list of places where work is avaliable, if it had been the statement might have had a bit more substance to it.

London for one is a city of two halves and has a very high unemployment rate.

Telling people to move for work is one of those things that is more often a lot eaiser said than done. If you do not have to do it and have a good job it is very easy to tell others to do it.

The logistics for many make it almost immpossible . Yes i know people move for work all the time , however being in a job and moving due to a better offer and having the resources to move is much eaiser than being on benefits and moving elsewhere for a low paid job.

Another time people move for work is when their current company want them to move to a different part of the company , That's an easy one as the company pay for all the cost's ( worked for a big firm and people made out of the very generous relocation package).

Looking at what this government want is a lot harder.

When I STR'd and started to rent due to my salary not being 3x the annual rent I had to pay six months rent up front . I showed the agent's my bank balance saying that my money in the bank was a better guarantee than a salary that had not been earn't yes . No sorry not good enough so i paid 6 months rent and 6 weeks deposit .

Friend sold house this week £250,000 went in the bank and he goes to agent's looking for a £700 a month flat . Due to not having a job they want the 6 months rent up front , 6 weeks depsit up front and a garantor.

How would someone on benefits come up with this money ? how would someone on benefits pay the cost's of travel to another part of the country looking for work and attending interviews ?

If someone moves from a part of the country where there is little work to somewhere where there is more work ( if such places exist ) my bet would be that rent's would be more in the palce where there is work.

It so much easier said than done.

[pathfinder]

I'd take a punt that they'll be paid a wage rather than a salary, and that it'll be inadequate to cover the cost of much other than a basic room...

... given how prices are arrived at.

But hell's teeth, in the statistical soup that is the average UK city population, you'd have to literally be one in a billion or so to be so incapable of adding value that this were anything other than an income floor.

You realise there's enough emigres out there who came to the UK (let alone to any city in particular)... with nothing much other than loss, misery, and in most cases enough debt to capitalise a small bank... so many cases of this that at least a few of them are likely to be contributors?

If only someone would invent some sort of way to communicate over long distances... some sort of... tele... phone.

At least you're talking about people who are still in the same timezone...

I do not disagree, people should work for a pay packet, I question where are these jobs, and who is going to employ nonjob applicants over the flood of recently unemployed worked 14+ years. Actually if they provide a 30k pay packet travelling some distance would not be a problem better than prison housing costs, or a massively discounted travel card? Although it does rather smack of nanny state. This still leaves a worrying effect locally, kind of mini detroits. Mind due I do see the cunningness of devaluing housing stock harshly in chosen areas. No one is going to take the risk of buying there.

I disagree you can maintain family relationships let alone a lover/wife via the phone sure some will make it but the odds are against you, but that is a personal outlook and it is unlikely for either of us to change our opinions through the medium of an internet forum. So we both disagree on this point.

30k with no formal training think of the debt of our hard working students or perhaps free travel? I can see the wail articles right now

[miko]

You could, of course, have educated yourself in something that pays, but self-righteous c*nts like you think the world owes you a living so you opt for the easy sh*t and then expect to spend your life cadging off the tax payer.

You make your bed, you lie in it.

Oh dear Dave,

Swearing, when answering is the first sign of limited intellect, I'm afraid, and I've not even started with you yet.

Firstly, I've done exactly what I should have, moved around the country (and indeed the world when working), I've put myself through university, (paid for from my own wallet, thanks), but am (possibly) over the hill because I have a 4 at the beginning of my age.

As for my own personal circumstances, I'm mortgage free (when I want to be, because I'm earning more out of the banks than I am paying on the mortgage), and have no debt, I worked for 20 years before that btw, so your uncalled for comments, don't cut it.

As for benefits, I don't claim and rightly so, although I understand why some would. You really do need to get in touch with the 50% of society which don't earn 25k or more.

I feel people, like yourself, need to understand that society is made up of, (and here's where it will be hard for a selfish person like yourself to understand), all sections of our society and we should have a more inclusive bent for our people.

Now, you can spout al you want, but tell me, when all the factories and work is in the far east, what exactly are you going to do to earn a crust?

Or are you going to be far away from the UK when it's (possibly) in flames?

Btw you never answered my questions?

Why is that I wonder?

+ 8 million ( all those in the country that are currently economicaly inactive )

It's very easy for people to tell others what to do when they don't have to do it themselves . I got a 4 at the front of my age might as well put swear words on the c.v. instead of the age .

[miko]

+ 8 million ( all those in the country that are currently economicaly inactive )

It's very easy for people to tell others what to do when they don't have to do it themselves . I got a 4 at the front of my age might as well put swear words on the c.v. instead of the age .

Hi Milko,

I don't know what you've done there, but you've got Dave's words as mine!

But I know what you mean anyway.

I know sorry not done on purpose the reply did not appear in the normal way . It done it again.

Edited June 27, 2010 by miko

[alexw]

Ever cleaned windows to make ends meet?

How about pressed shirts?

Cleaned offices?

My drycleaner's ongoing battle to find warm bodies to man a till (two shifts, six hours apiece, and leave/ sickness cover for same) tells me that the highest bid in the market (the public purse) is still too high.

And how does that provide a wage they can live on in any shape or form??

Its not even two days worth of work. And i'm willing to bet its minimum wage or close to too. And good luck in finding a job you can work for the three other days and has to be fit around that drycleaning job.

And didnt you say they were looking for 3 workers in a previous post??

So why not 1 person full time? Or do they not want someone they will have to provide sickness/pension benefits to, and which they can avoid by taking on multiple part-timers?

[pathfinder]

That's one anecdote, from what I can tell it's still largely cash-based and unregulated.

I think someone's taking your mate for a ride myself.

That is the problem though once it gets to HR with 250 applicants its easy to shred the non NVQ, it makes the job easier.

I agree he is being done over, NVQ is a joke, and yes it is an anecdote. Just to make you eyes roll, I too will be put on an NVQ upon starting.

[ParticleMan]

Its not even two days worth of work.

Six hours a day in each of two shifts, for five days a week.

Apologies for not being clear...

... but yes, three people to cover two shifts, because accidents happen and folk tend to want time off.

[hilltop]

I have heard that it is not easy for a single unemployed person to move into rented accommodation in a new location. Is this so?

How do they arrange deposits, utilities etc?

How quickly can they get Housing Benefit while they look for work?

Do they have to be homeless before they get a chance of HA property?

Just how easy is it to be geographically work mobile?

[libspero]

Am I the only person wondering if this will lead to ghost towns in the North East and further over crowding in the SE?

I'm all in favour of helping people relocate for better job prospects, but not sure how it's going to pan out in practice

[Wayo]

I have heard that it is not easy for a single unemployed person to move into rented accommodation in a new location. Is this so?

How do they arrange deposits, utilities etc?

How quickly can they get Housing Benefit while they look for work?

Do they have to be homeless before they get a chance of HA property?

Just how easy is it to be geographically work mobile?

Polly Toynbee of all people was talking on the BBC about all of this and making a lot of sense...

She said IDS looked as though he had stumbled across this problem for the first time. It has existed for as long as the welfare state and its solution has evaded politicians red and blue.

Where there are jobs, there are no houses. There is no housing shortage and we are knocking down houses where there are no jobs. Rents where there are jobs are so high people on low wgares cannot afford them. Cutting housing benefits will mean more claimants concentrated where there are a fewer jobs and lower rents and not the other way round.

You could say bounce people from Easington up the list in London, but the London boroughs have chronic housing shortages already, and giving priority to economic migrants might not go down too well!

Of course it doesn't address the problem of all the welfare claimants in inner London (clearly not a mobility problem).

[Injin]

Six hours a day in each of two shifts, for five days a week.

Apologies for not being clear...

... but yes, three people to cover two shifts, because accidents happen and folk tend to want time off.

Leisure time has a value....

[Si1]

I am sure people on this forum are partially misunderstanding this, the intention is that if you live in a council estate - anywhere - and therefore are trapped by your council house provision so even if you are offered a job opportunty you cannot move as you would lose out if you leave your council house - then instead they are allowing you to move from one council house to another in the area you are moving to

they think this presents council tennants more chance to better themselves thru work.

the telegraph story says this, quoted from IDS:

The proposed scheme would allow them to go to the top of the housing list in another area rather than lose their right to a home if they moved

“We have over the years, not us personally but successive governments, created one of the most static workforces in the western world,” Mr Duncan Smith said. “In Britain now we have workforces that are locked to areas and the result of that is we have over five-and-a-half million people of working age who simply don’t do a job.

“Often they are trapped in estates where there is no work near there and – because they have a lifetime tenure of that house – to go to work from east London to west London, or Bristol, or whatever is too much of a risk because if you up sticks and go you will have lost your right to your house.

“The local council is going to tell you that you don’t have a right to a house there, the housing association is not going to give you one.

“We have to look at how we get that portability, so that people can be more flexible, can look for work, can take the risk to do it.”

It is understood that the Coalition is looking at ways to provide incentives for workers to move to areas where there are jobs, rather than compelling them to move.

[Si1]

Polly Toynbee of all people was talking on the BBC about all of this and making a lot of sense...

She said IDS looked as though he had stumbled across this problem for the first time. It has existed for as long as the welfare state and its solution has evaded politicians red and blue.

yep - but this is also why Blair told Frank Field to 'think the unthinkable' 13 years ago - before FF was pushed out by Gordon Brown for not being traditional socialist big government enough. And Frank Field works for IDS now, as does John Hutton (both labour men) and Lord Freud who worked as an advisor to the previosu labour government also.

There has been a pretty straight transfer of welfare staff from the previous govt to the current one - all blairites. Conservative socialism moving over to social conservatism. Only without Brown throwing a spanner in.

Edited June 27, 2010 by Si1

[Britney's Piers]

WHERE are they going to go for all these jobs? No point saying the SE because there is just as much unemployment here, and the population density is starting to cause problems, with the water and other services.

The "economic zones" idea sound good, but they would have to be allowed to only employ British jobseekers, not European migrants, otherwise it's a fruitless solution.

[alexw]

Six hours a day in each of two shifts, for five days a week.

Apologies for not being clear...

... but yes, three people to cover two shifts, because accidents happen and folk tend to want time off.

So basically they want three workers to each work 20h per week when the vast majority of workers need/want full time work to make ends meet. Nor do the times (presumably 6-12 & 12-6) fit for the segment that does want part-time work - married women with children. So it should not be surprising at all they can't find workers.

And as for why they want part-timers, your reasoning 'accidents & time off' is extremely bogus and not believeable. This is almost certainly due to it being cheaper overall to employ part-timers, i.e. no holiday pay, no lunch break (if you work over 6 hours your entitled to a 20 min restbreak), etc, etc.

[Si1]

WHERE are they going to go for all these jobs?

that's not the point - the point is not to trap people by their council housing. If one area - let's say Glasgow, randomly off the back of, say, a booming Irish economy - suddenly takes off, say, (or whatever other city might see a boom, Aberdeen off a new oil find, Norwich off agriculture, you name them) then someone in Leicester in a council house who fancies applying for one of the burgeoning jobs there can apply and not be trapped by their dependency. Maybe they are recruiting ancilliary jobs off the back of said expanding local economies - bus driver, whatever, same deal.

This is NOT about central planning or moving everyone to the SE per se, it is about opportunity. Mind sets need to alter.

Edited June 27, 2010 by Si1

[miko]

I have heard that it is not easy for a single unemployed person to move into rented accommodation in a new location. Is this so?

Just how easy is it to be geographically work mobile?

It's not easy , it is very difficult see my post 61 on page 5

[Si1]

It's not easy , it is very difficult see my post 61 on page 5

but that post was irrelevant to the discussion - I suspect the Daily Mail article did not help, but the point of what IDS said is that they hope to go towards breaking down this barrier

[Vaevictus]

People from low cost economies like Poland can manage to scrape together the money to pack up their shit and move the UK to search for work. They are even moving to a country that doesn't speak their tongue ffs.I have no sympathy for someone in some shitty part of scotland or wales that can't be arsed to get on their bike.The thing is, there are not many people that wouldnt get on their bike if benefits werent so good!Live in a run down area in the middle of nowhere? Got no money for the train ticket to Capitol City or wherever? Go without Sky, Fags, Lottery and booze for 1 month then you will able to get a return ticket anywhere in the UK for a job interview.

[Si1]

People from low cost economies like Poland can manage to scrape together the money to pack up their shit and move the UK to search for work. They are even moving to a country that doesn't speak their tongue ffs.I have no sympathy for someone in some shitty part of scotland or wales that can't be arsed to get on their bike.The thing is, there are not many people that wouldnt get on their bike if benefits werent so good!Live in a run down area in the middle of nowhere? Got no money for the train ticket to Capitol City or wherever? Go without Sky, Fags, Lottery and booze for 1 month then you will able to get a return ticket anywhere in the UK for a job interview.

yep somebody gets the basis of discussion

I happen to disagree with you in that I think we always need a social security system, so this kind of inbalance will always possibly be there