EUBanana Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 Where there are 10 unemployed for every job opening, 9 must fail. This is true no matter how skilled, no matter how thrusting those unemployed are. We can say "Fight for it", yet the situation does not change. A game of musical chairs never has enough chairs, someone must fail. Not really, that means that the chance of getting a job, per application, is 10%. Not bad really. You forget the time aspect, new jobs are being made available all the time. If you're looking for a job it's unlikely you'll get the first job you apply for. There's no evidence for structural unemployment on the scale you suggest. From my personal evidence if you're prepared to work retail or behind a bar or something like that there's loads of work. Pay is terrible and the conditions worse, but there you go. Loads of Brits have these jobs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winkie Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 No they won't. Human Rights. Have any of the people where the landlord gets £2,000 a week via the benefits system been moved on? There was one guy who was supposed to be moving out of his Maida Vale £2,000 per week rental on the TV, I guess he is still there or pictures of his kids sleeping in a cardboard box would be all over the BBC. I agree with you that the landlords have been taking the piss....they know that in the past taxpayers will/have been footing the bill because the state have encouraged a high density London population and at the same time not providing the homes, health, jobs, and services that most people in a developed world require....they hoped these people would provide it themselves and pay their taxes to cover for it, self sustaining, maintaining majority....... I know of people that work very hard and have had to move out to the towns on the outskirts of London to enable them to purchase a home for their family and commute in on the diabolical, slow, long winded, overcrowded, expensive, unreliable so called train service, that takes up an extra two hours a day....valued time they could have been spending with their families....I am not in favour of kicking non working, sick or disabled people out of the homes they have lived in all their lives, but I am not in favour of opportunist landlords reaping the benefits out of others disadvantage.....If the tenant has to pay it is only fair the landlord pays also. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gf3 Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 Citizens income ends the injustice you rightly allude to. End HB, child related benefits and council housing, we need to get back to looking to ourselves for our sustenance. I would love a Citizens income I would give up my job tomorrow if it was enough for me to live on. giving someone else the chance of a £25,000 a year job (£30,000+ with overtime) working this Sunday overtime 05.45 start Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thod Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 (edited) Not really, that means that the chance of getting a job, per application, is 10%. Not bad really. You forget the time aspect, new jobs are being made available all the time. If you're looking for a job it's unlikely you'll get the first job you apply for. There's no evidence for structural unemployment on the scale you suggest. From my personal evidence if you're prepared to work retail or behind a bar or something like that there's loads of work. Pay is terrible and the conditions worse, but there you go. Loads of Brits have these jobs. Not at all, you have a 10% chance of getting that job, yet once that job is gone, there is an even greater number looking per available job since the other 9 are added to the total. The only way 10 people can get jobs is if there are 10 openings. Everything else is just playing with numbers (which I am very good at btw) The argument is the same as you see with housing. First time buyers are finding it hard to buy, thus give them subsidies to allow them to buy. This does not get more people housed, it simply displaces the problem elsewhere and ups house prices. There are still exactly the same number of houses and exactly the same number of seekers. All that has been achieved is to favor one group (the subsidised) over others. New jobs are indeed added all the time, yet they are also destroyed all the time too. It is the difference between these two that creates unemployment. I suggest that the twin forces of automation and outsourcing are destroying jobs at a far higher rate than innovation is creating new ones. When the new ones do appear, they cannot find staff simply because they are so new that nobody is trained to do them. Should you lose your job, you cannot take a new one in the upcoming field of synthetic biology because you have not the years of training needed. So there is an opening for an 'antique violin restorer'. A pretty obscure talent. It is not reasonable for you to have skills in all such areas, just on the off-chance. You can apply, yet you will not get the job because you have never restored any violins. What is more, nobody will let you work on such a valuable piece until you have worked on lesser instruments. There is a shortage of brain surgeons, yet you cannot simply start work as one. There are 3 million of work, many more on other benefits, many more in part-time work or useless education schemes, many who have given up and live of the spouses income. There is not even close to enough openings. Edited January 21, 2012 by thod Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winkie Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 Not at all, you have a 10% chance of getting that job, yet once that job is gone, there is an even greater number looking per available job since the other 9 are added to the total. The only way 10 people can get jobs is if there are 10 openings. Everything else is just playing with numbers (which I am very good at btw) The argument is the same as you see with housing. First time buyers are finding it hard to buy, thus give them subsidies to allow them to buy. This does not get more people housed, it simply displaces the problem elsewhere and ups house prices. There are still exactly the same number of houses and exactly the same number of seekers. All that has been achieved is to favor one group (the subsidised) over others. New jobs are indeed added all the time, yet they are also destroyed all the time too. It is the difference between these two that creates unemployment. I suggest that the twin forces of automation and outsourcing are destroying jobs at a far higher rate than innovation is creating new ones. When the new ones do appear, they cannot find staff simply because they are so new that nobody is trained to do them. Should you lose your job, you cannot take a new one in the upcoming field of synthetic biology because you have not the years of training needed. So there is an opening for an 'antique violin restorer'. A pretty obscure talent. It is not reasonable for you to have skills in all such areas, just on the off-chance. You can apply, yet you will not get the job because you have never restored any violins. What is more, nobody will let you work on such a valuable piece until you have worked on lesser instruments. There is a shortage of brain surgeons, yet you cannot simply start work as one. There are 3 million of work, many more on other benefits, many more in part-time work or useless education schemes, many who have given up and live of the spouses income. There is not even close to enough openings. Lots of truthful reality spoken there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crash2006 Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 Simple they will have to leave London. I am not going to feel guilty about some one who gets more in benefits after tax than I earn before tax. So if you lose your job and need help are you also supposed to leave? then what you are put in an area with others that are unemployed making it more difficult to get a job. THINK MAN THINK. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gf3 Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 So if you lose your job and need help are you also supposed to leave? then what you are put in an area with others that are unemployed making it more difficult to get a job. THINK MAN THINK. So are you saying it is reasonable for someone to get more in benefits than the average worker earns? If you are earning so much money that a take home pay of over £2000 a month doesn't seem like a lot of money then you shouldn't find it hard to save some rainy day money for the short time your between jobs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lurker07 Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 So if you lose your job and need help are you also supposed to leave? then what you are put in an area with others that are unemployed making it more difficult to get a job. THINK MAN THINK. I think the point is that help should be temporary. Paying a family £000's of pounds every month for years is not sustainable. Especially when they do not have the skills to earn the same amount privately. THINK. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rw42 Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 I think a rule about how far you should be expected to move would be reasonable too - i'm living on the outskirts of london and making a 1 hour commute every day to get the right combination of affordable/nice accomodation. I don't think it's reasonable to expect to stay in say kensington just because the work you can get is in london.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winkie Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 I think the point is that help should be temporary. Paying a family £000's of pounds every month for years is not sustainable. Especially when they do not have the skills to earn the same amount privately. THINK. Just saying....someone who has been renting for a very long time in an area they were brought up in when rents were low and they could afford to pay....now sees the rents increasing two or three times the rate that their wages have gone up and find themselves falling on hard times....getting on in life, not so employable as before, maybe has some health issues, is told leave your home and hand it over to some whipper snapper with a salubrious city job plus bonus who comes in from a totally different area....the balance is this, some people need a kick up the rear end to get them doing more for themselves, this I agree with, there are quite a few like it...this is a wake up call for some....90% will I hope be forced into action to doing more for themselves......but lets give them a chance before we think we can put our foot on their doorstep or pull the rug from beneath their feet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EUBanana Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 *snip* Well, possibly, but that doesn't seem to be my experience per se, at least in the area of minimum wage jobs. There's huge staff turnover in a lot of those, unsurprisingly. The problem is that a minimum wage job is a horrible life of poverty. And this is a comparatively recent (since 2000 or so) thing, too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pindar Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 Housing benefit should be treat separately, and council housing built, we should not be housing people at great expensive in the private sector. We can build plenty of affordable housing on state land. We needn't be paying £400 a week to house people and enrich landlords. +1 Not to mention the 1 million+ empty houses scattered across the land. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkins Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 So if you lose your job and need help are you also supposed to leave? then what you are put in an area with others that are unemployed making it more difficult to get a job. THINK MAN THINK. This is not the problem. There are many long term unemployed living on very expensive housing benefit in London zones 1-3. They are not out every day looking for work. There are many employed people who would love to live close to their jobs in central London, but can't afford to because of this situation. How does this make any sense? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gf3 Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 Just saying....someone who has been renting for a very long time in an area they were brought up in when rents were low and they could afford to pay....now sees the rents increasing two or three times the rate that their wages have gone up and find themselves falling on hard times....getting on in life, not so employable as before, maybe has some health issues, is told leave your home and hand it over to some whipper snapper with a salubrious city job plus bonus who comes in from a totally different area....the balance is this, some people need a kick up the rear end to get them doing more for themselves, this I agree with, there are quite a few like it...this is a wake up call for some....90% will I hope be forced into action to doing more for themselves......but lets give them a chance before we think we can put our foot on their doorstep or pull the rug from beneath their feet. I under stand what you are saying but I've heard of similar story's in chocolate box little village when the children grow up they have to move away from the village they grew up in because of all the outsiders moving in. How ever in a few years the outsiders children will have the same problem. we don't want a caste system like they have in India giving certain people special rights He who has the money chooses where they want to live is probably the best system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winkie Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 This is not the problem. There are many long term unemployed living on very expensive housing benefit in London zones 1-3. They are not out every day looking for work. There are many employed people who would love to live close to their jobs in central London, but can't afford to because of this situation. How does this make any sense? Not as simple as that.....lets extradite the poor, the weak, the unemployable from their homes and put them into an area where they know nobody, a place where nobody wants to live.......if some people want to push others out they either have got to give them a chance to work so help pay their way, to make up the shortfall, or move them locally to other accommodation or move them out of the area to better accommodation that they are in agreement with.......landlords will lose out, because they will no longer have a regular,steady and guaranteed income, they will have to spend money updating and upgrading their accommodation to fit in with what paying workers expect as a minimum, the income may well become erratic and not so forthcoming and service expectations so much higher....all at a time when incomes and bonuses are falling.....happy days. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkins Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 lets extradite the poor, the weak, the unemployable from their homes and put them into an area where they know nobody, a place where nobody wants to live....... This is exactly the situation faced by young workers like me and my siblings. We go where the work is, we live where we can afford to, and when the landlord says move we have no choice. I am not interested in paying taxes so that people who don't work can have a better housing situation than I do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winkie Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 I under stand what you are saying but I've heard of similar story's in chocolate box little village when the children grow up they have to move away from the village they grew up in because of all the outsiders moving in. How ever in a few years the outsiders children will have the same problem. we don't want a caste system like they have in India giving certain people special rights He who has the money chooses where they want to live is probably the best system. Why should money make anyone better or more worthy than anyone else....it is the person that counts not their bank balance and how they acquired it, by inheritance, the school they went to, fathers name, breeding or anything else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Russe11 Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 yes in london i think rent on a 2 bed is going to cost you 1k as an average pcm. food and utilities should be the same as everywhere else transport i have no idea about - possibly out of london you will rely more on a car which is going to be expensive. I take 2 of these 1k per month places off your hands tomorrow, assuming i'm allowed to sublet? please reply when I can have the keys, thanks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gf3 Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 Not as simple as that.....lets extradite the poor, the weak, the unemployable from their homes and put them into an area where they know nobody, a place where nobody wants to live.......if some people want to push others out they either have got to give them a chance to work so help pay their way, to make up the shortfall, or move them locally to other accommodation or move them out of the area to better accommodation that they are in agreement with.......landlords will lose out, because they will no longer have a regular,steady and guaranteed income, they will have to spend money updating and upgrading their accommodation to fit in with what paying workers expect as a minimum, the income may well become erratic and not so forthcoming and service expectations so much higher....all at a time when incomes and bonuses are falling.....happy days. I'm sorry but beggars can't be choosers. what you are saying is it's alright for the hard working to live in places where no body wants to live but people on benefit mustn't be forced to live there how can this make any sense? Maybe the hard working don't know any better and are used to it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winkie Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 This is exactly the situation faced by young workers like me and my siblings. We go where the work is, we live where we can afford to, and when the landlord says move we have no choice. I am not interested in paying taxes so that people who don't work can have a better housing situation than I do. Believe me some of the council estates and the like are not places most would want to live....they may be near a good area, close to the centre of London but most would not wish to bring a family up in them or send their children to the school near them....the rents have been disproportionately enlarged not because what they are but because of where they are....it's all been the landlords money gathering illusion subsidised by you and I. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkins Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 Believe me some of the council estates and the like are not places most would want to live.... Why not let us decide that for ourselves? I've lived in rough parts of south London for years, I'd rather live in a rough part of south London which was half the distance from work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winkie Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 Why not let us decide that for ourselves? I've lived in rough parts of south London for years, I'd rather live in a rough part of south London which was half the distance from work. No one is stopping you deciding for yourself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkins Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 No one is stopping you deciding for yourself. Weekly rents pushed up into four figures by government subsidy have made deciding unnecessary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gf3 Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 (edited) Why should money make anyone better or more worthy than anyone else....it is the person that counts not their bank balance and how they acquired it, by inheritance, the school they went to, fathers name, breeding or anything else. The reason money come into it is because there is no fairer system. How else are you going to determine who lives where? unless you give different birth rights to different people like the India caste system. So people that are born in a slum have to stay in the slum doesn't matter how hard they work or how rich and successful they become. Edited January 21, 2012 by gf3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winkie Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 The reason money come into it is because there is no fairer system. How else are you going to determine who lives where? unless you give different berth rights to different people like the India caste system. So people that are born in a slum have to stay in the slum doesn't matter how hard they work or how rich and successful they become. ...successful people get to where they want to be by working with humility and integrity, working in an honest and fair way, looking out for those that are below them as well as those above them, not walking over those who they know to be vulnerable wishing to take advantage of them, to take what they have got. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.