George Osborne considering freeze on benefits to save £4.4bn

lvader

carolt wrote: »

If your wife is getting paid under the minimum wage, then she should sue her employer.

As for 'far more abuse', maybe she should try working in an inner-city school if she thinks it's so easy.

The minimum wage is £5.80, she gets more than that but less than the £7 you quoted.

The_White_Horse

thanks to labour, everyone deserves to go to university and get a first. it doesn't matter how thick you are. it is your right.

they want to close 50% of the universities, then fuind places for the remaining students who are actually intelligent and deserve higher education.

B.E.N

leveller2911 wrote: »

True, training is good, but it needs consolidation, and if the jobs aren't there, that won't happen.

My personal opinion, is that more University places should be funded. It will cost money, but will take 000s of under-25s out of unemployment (meaning that there will be less competition for jobs) and in 3 years time (once the economy is up and moving again - *hopefully*), we'll have a skilled, able, workforce.

Thats ok but there are far too many non degrees in subjects of no practical use whatsoever.Universities need to change too and stop being so much of a 3yr Jolly for many.

Obviously, to ensure this is the case, we will have to ensure these courses are of some practical use - science/vocational related courses, etc.

It's also important that emphasis is placed on vocational courses, but only ones that are of a similar duration (circa 3 years, Full Time) as it again helps to reduce the amount of competition in the Labour Market.

To their shame the last 2 previous Governments did very little on vocational courses, we have an abundance of higly educated people with little or no practical skills and common sense.In the Construction industry in particular has suffered from a decline in a skilled workforce over the last decade or more.

Indeed, I completely agree, hence the caveat: "courses that are of some practical use" - no point having a load of, Media Studies graduates for example, if we're going to need Scientists and Engineers to help long-term growth.

(Please note that I'm not getting into the whole "Media Studies"/"Mickey Mouse Degree" subject, just stating that the courses being funded need to be able those that can generate growth and be useful in industry, and, in media, work experience/apprenticeships tend to be the way in - a Degree in the subject is essentially useless for the purpose of getting in that particular industry).

I further agree that more emphasis needs to be put on apprenticeships, there is too much focus on University Education.

The only issue with apprenticeships, at this moment in time, is that they are 'work on the job', and if there may be issues placing people if the 'work' isn't there to do. The Government could fully fund these places, which would encourage employers to take them on, but then we risk putting people out of a Job, as someone will be essentially working for free.

MissMoneypenny

Generali wrote: »

So what to do about it?

Interesting watching Stephen Fry's "Who Do You Think you are". He had a relative who was at the church asking for handouts everyday. The amounts he was given were recorded, but also the children he had. He kept asking for money, while he just kept fathering more children.

Then they stopped payments from the churches and made people work for their handouts instead: the workhouse. The working age for children then was 12, so all the children over 12 and the parents went to the workhouse. It was designed to be harsh, to encourage people to get jobs to look after themselmes. A person in a job had a better life than in the workhouse. Fry's relative went in and out of the workhouse a couple of times, before finding a job.

It seems that once people were made to work in harsh conditions for their handouts (instead of just being given them for nothing) they decided jobs were better.

Shakethedisease

It didn't however, turn out to be quite as straightforward as they thought...

The original policy was that a workhouse should be a place of 'last resort', therefore conditions inside a workhouse should be less comfortable that a state of homeless destituion outside. Strict rules for admission were introduced and enforced nationwide, and those rules were intended to deter the idle and shiftless from seeking admission. But the result, in a mixed workhouse was that all classes of paupers suffered. Nobody could come up with an answer to the question of how to deter the idle without penalising the defenceless.

The 'work' aspect of the system rapidly became an acute and intractable problem. The sale of goods was not the primary purpose of the Poor Law Act, but to generate some income for the day to day running of the workhouse items and produce made by paupers were sometimes sold on the open market. This led to protests from employers in the private sector.

First that goods produced in the workhouses by cheap labour and sold in the market place would seriously undercut them ; secondly, that the resulting loss of business would affect their employees, who would have to accept reduced wages or even lose their jobs. This would be a dire outcome when, in most cases, they had families to support. On top of these difficulties there was the problem ( still alive and well in the twenty-first century ) that work cannot be created out of thin air.

( Shadows of the Workhouse -Jennifer Worth )

....Which is why we got rid of them in favour of the welfare state.

Loopgames

I really don't believe that there are no jobs..I believe that if you want to work you will find a way to work - NO MATTER WHAT.

There is always some work to do. People are either physically or mentally lazy. If people can afford NOT to work then it should be on their own money.

B.E.N

Loopgames wrote: »

I really don't believe that there are no jobs..I believe that if you want to work you will find a way to work - NO MATTER WHAT.

There is always some work to do. People are either physically or mentally lazy. If people can afford NOT to work then it should be on their own money.

We all know that there are jobs available, but the fact of the matter is that there are not enough of them to acheive full employment.

I'm currently employed and have been for the past two years.

Before that, shortly after leaving college, I had a spell of unemployment, for about 4 months (yes, it shocked me too), and during this time I was applying for *everything* going. It was quite an eye opener.

But what really annoyed me the most was the amount of times I - heard statements like: "there's always a McJob..", etc. The general inference being that unemployed people were either lazy or had ideas above their station.

The thing is that these idiotic comments are mainly spouted by those who have been working for 20+ years in the same company and really have no clue about how the modern labour market works.

Loopgames

B.E.N wrote: »

We all know that there are jobs available, but the fact of the matter is that there are not enough of them to acheive full employment.

I'm currently employed and have been for the past two years.

Before that, shortly after leaving college, I had a spell of unemployment, for about 4 months (yes, it shocked me too), and during this time I was applying for *everything* going. It was quite an eye opener.

But what really annoyed me the most was the amount of times I - heard statements like: "there's always a McJob..", etc. The general inference being that unemployed people were either lazy or had ideas above their station.

The thing is that these idiotic comments are mainly spouted by those who have been working for 20+ years in the same company and really have no clue about how the modern labour market works.

I'm not talking about conventional jobs..I'm saying that there is always work to do. Someone with a bit of imagination can offer their services as self employed if they wanted to.

Don't limit yourself to the slave world of conventional employment.

StevieJ

Interesting programme in on C4 re budget cuts for those who don't like the footy.

B.E.N

Loopgames wrote: »

I'm not talking about conventional jobs..I'm saying that there is always work to do. Someone with a bit of imagination can offer their services as self employed if they wanted to.

Don't limit yourself to the slave world of conventional employment.

If someone has creativity or a specialist skill, yes.

But, we still come back to the problem of Full Employment - can 2.47 million people (or however many it exactly is) *all* find a little niche to fill?