Half of new jobs are created by the state

Radiantsoul

chucky wrote: »

it's growing in certain areas

it's the same issue when the coal mines, steel factories, ship yards and cotton mills where closed down - people only had specific skills and where not "agile" enough or had the desired social mobility to move onto other jobs.

it's been there since the 80s

I don't know. I am sure there must have been a similiar issue when Britain industralised. Probably a large number of unproductive workers were left in the agricultural sector. Certainly in the third world much of agricultural labour is unproductive as family based work "in the fields" absorbs the unemployed. The isn't really any data on the economic data era so it is hard to know. But there was a rise in anti-vagrancy laws and poorhouses which are a response to a similiar issue.

Kohoutek

Radiantsoul wrote: »

I don't know. I am sure there must have been a similiar issue when Britain industralised. Probably a large number of unproductive workers were left in the agricultural sector. Certainly in the third world much of agricultural labour is unproductive as family based work "in the fields" absorbs the unemployed. The isn't really any data on the economic data era so it is hard to know. But there was a rise in anti-vagrancy laws and poorhouses which are a response to a similiar issue.

The difference between those times and now is we've shifted from a model where the family supports needy people (with limited external support such as charity and poor laws) to one where the state takes on all costs and responsibilities. We've almost moved from a perception of the workshy as idle, immoral layabouts to the current situation where a life of benefits is a lifestyle choice for millions.

I've never understood the idea of paying people to be economically unproductive and there's certainly no way we can afford it anymore. Start by making community service compulsory for those on long term benefits.

Radiantsoul

Kohoutek wrote: »

The difference between those times and now is we've shifted from a model where the family supports needy people (with limited external support such as charity and poor laws) to one where the state takes on all costs and responsibilities. We've almost moved from a perception of the workshy as idle, immoral layabouts to the current situation where a life of benefits is a lifestyle choice for millions.

I agree that the state has stepped in to a role that previously was one owned by the family. But the capitalist system requires far greater mobility of labour, and so this is perhaps necessary.
I am not sure that I quite agree that benefits represent a lifestyle choice, but certainly that is the perspective. I am not sure whether that represents the underlying reality and my guess is the answer is complex.

Kohoutek

Radiantsoul wrote: »

I agree that the state has stepped in to a role that previously was one owned by the family. But the capitalist system requires far greater mobility of labour, and so this is perhaps necessary.
I am not sure that I quite agree that benefits represent a lifestyle choice, but certainly that is the perspective. I am not sure whether that represents the underlying reality and my guess is the answer is complex.

Well both my parents work in legal aid and that's the impression they get. In a capitalist system, what benefit to the economy is there for paying people to do nothing? It's a bizzare policy from either a socialist or capitalist perspective.

Our jobseekers allowance is pretty ungenerous compared with other European countries, but once you get on the benefits ladder - housing benefit, council tax benefit, income support, child benefit - why both working? If you look at countries like Denmark and Sweden, their benefits systems are extensive, but they look after people who have lost their job and help them retrain, rather than encouraging people who have never had a job to be permanently unemployed.

Thrugelmir

Radiantsoul wrote: »

The Labour party were elected on a manifesto to expand the state and state provision of services so it is not a major surprise that state sponsored jobs have increased.

To an extent the financial sector provided huge revenues for the government but little in the way of employment(no-one in the city of London lives in West Midlands...) So the government took the revenue from finance and used it to expand the public sector.

Thats why a lot of Northern towns have between 30% to 50% of the populace employed in public services of some description.

Cuts in public sector expenditure will devastate some areas.

peterg1965

If you fancy a laugh, in fact it makes me sick, just look at the Guardian jobs website. Example:

Results Adviser in our Value for Money Department.

£43 - £52K salary!

I would say there would be more value for money if this post wasn't filled. It's an absolute joke the number of Public Sector non jobs!

Radiantsoul

peterg1965 wrote: »

If you fancy a laugh, in fact it makes me sick, just look at the Guardian jobs website. Example:

Results Adviser in our Value for Money Department.

£43 - £52K salary!

I would say there would be more value for money if this post wasn't filled. It's an absolute joke the number of Public Sector non jobs!

Strikes me as far enough though? All private sector companies of reasonable size have accountants. Effectively they are recruiting a management accountant to look at costs. If anything I feel the salary is slightly on the low side.

abaxas

Wookster wrote: »

The real problem is the huge swathe of poorly educated/ illiterate, low aspiring and genuinely unemployable people.

I would take offence at the 'low aspiring' bit. They do aspire to a better like by not working.

The issue is not that they dont work, it's that the system advantages them for not working. Ie they move up the social ladder by not working.

Something needs to be done.

Wookster

Radiantsoul wrote: »

Strikes me as far enough though? All private sector companies of reasonable size have accountants. Effectively they are recruiting a management accountant to look at costs. If anything I feel the salary is slightly on the low side.

On the low side? How do you figure that?

They aren't looking for even a qualified accountant - the based minimum is a degree. A newly qualified accountant can expect to earn in the region of £38 - £40k.

This is a perfect example of an overpaid state job.

Wookster

abaxas wrote: »

I would take offence at the 'low aspiring' bit. They do aspire to a better like by not working.

The issue is not that they dont work, it's that the system advantages them for not working. Ie they move up the social ladder by not working.

Something needs to be done.

Agree that something needs to be done but I think they don't aspire - no matter how much they can claim in benefits it doesn't compete with a good professional career.

The only thing about benefits is that it is the easy way out.