Is this really unreasonable?

bristol_pilot

Jonbvn wrote: »

The same is true across the UK, if not the whole world.

Rubbish, new recruits to the police and fire service with no training or qualifications start on something like £27k. Trainee security guards in my company get £20k.

bristol_pilot

One can hardly expect people to make themselves worse off by working than they would be on benefits. What I do expect the governement to do is to reduce said benefits until it is worth people travelling to find work. They seem to have made a start on this.

dopester

WhiteHorse wrote: »

Is there not some confusion here?

On one occasion it was said that the unemployed should be prepared to travel to work, on another that they should be prepared to move house.

The first is reasonable, the second ludicrous.

Of course it's reasonable. Both those solutions are reasonable.

Major migrations, internal and external, are associated with economic depressions.

When opportunity is cut off in one direction, people will move in another. Where there is freedom to move, the process is practically as automatic as that which inclines plants towards sunshine. It is all part of the mechansim through which individuals actively seek happiness and societies maintain their balance.

Trade and business in many areas is under threat with the end of easy credit. You want jobs there, well go about making them. No one owes you a living or a job nor has a duty to see you flooded with supporting benefits.

Anyway I don't own a house - I can go rent wherever I might need to go in order to work. Homeowners in failing areas can carry on thinking their house is gonna keep magically trebling in value, when jobs are in short supply and the governemt is going to stop pouring in money to help failing areas.

Policy Exchange (conservative think tank) suggest we abandon many northern cities. Many towns and cities developed and stayed successful under a run of different set economic conditions, such as industrial, which aren't applicable today.

markharding557

The catch with travelling longer distances to work is this:the further the journey the higher pay rate is needed to make it viable

dopester

markharding557 wrote: »

The catch with travelling longer distances to work is this:the further the journey the higher pay rate is needed to make it viable

Remember stories from my Dad telling me how he slept in a barn for weeks whilst on contract as a younger man. The of course, I didn't see him for months at a time whilst he did contracts all over the UK, following the work. Then only a few weeks a year whilst he was on contract abroad. Yeah, it wasn't great for father son relationship, or indeed wife-husband relationship, but that was the cost to get money in. Man up and adapt all you expect it all easy. Corrupted by boom or what.

Here is some inspiration for you, to get you into the real world.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1184708/My-second-home-30-tent-330-mile-commuter-urges-MP-join-canvas.html

kabayiri

dopester wrote: »

Here is some inspiration for you, to get you into the real world.

Interesting..

I have recently managed to get work to agree to letting a relative of mine work with me, for "work experience" - ie for Free.

It's expected that he work solid hours and hard. However, he is not a young person, and he realises he needs to update his skills and experience. At the moment, he will have to pay his own transport and lunch costs, but I hope I can change that.

I think he has adopted a pragmatic attitude which reflects the challenges of austerity Britain.

I would do the same if needs be. I would use the fact that I can cope with lower/less income to steer work my way, knowing that my 'competitors' in the workplace may have mortgages to pay etc. In short, you do whatever it takes. I don't believe anyone owes you a living.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

dopester wrote: »

Policy Exchange (conservative think tank) suggest we abandon many northern cities. Many towns and cities developed and stayed successful under a run of different set economic conditions, such as industrial, which aren't applicable today.

There is little doubt that many Northern English cities are not particularly viable in the current state of affairs.

The country has become imbalanced, with most of the jobs and economic activity skewed towards the South. The problem, of course, is that there simply isn't enough room in the South to support the entire population.

It seems to me that really, there are only three choices.

1. Move the people from the North to the work in the South. But there isn't the housing or infrastructure in the South to support them.

2. Move some of the work from the South to the people in the North. But private sector companies and industries will (quite rightly, as they are not a charity) be reluctant to relocate without some tangible gain from doing so. Which in reality means incentivising them in some way.

3. Continue with the current state of affairs, where the economically productive society of the south effectively subsidises the unproductive society in the north. Which is unsustainable.

Incentivising private companies to move north will ultimately be an expensive proposition. However moving departments of state to the North would in most cases result in long term cost savings for government.

Perhaps the solution is not then, to abandon the cities of the North.

But rather for 100% of central government departments and functions to abandon the South.... And move North.

Previous governments have made half hearted attempts to do this, but it seems nobody has the courage to really implement radical reforms.

I'd suggest changing the capital city of the UK from London to Newcastle.

Draw a line across the country from Liverpool to Grimsby, and move everything the state pays for north of that line...... 100% of central government departments, quangos, the BBC, all of it.

Government saves a fortune with cheaper costs up north, private sector gets more space and less overcrowding down south, country is rebalanced, everyone's a winner.

PasturesNew

bristol_pilot wrote: »

Rubbish, new recruits to the police and fire service with no training or qualifications start on something like £27k. Trainee security guards in my company get £20k.

Not everybody could get those jobs though. Where they are available, there are other criteria that can't be met.

e.g. Until they dropped the height criteria I'd be too short for the police. Now I think there are age barriers. As for trainee security guards, round my way you have to pay to do the SSI course yourself, then try to get a job at one of the clubs, and as they have no jobs that's a no go-er too.

What do security guards do for this £20k? I've looked at night security jobs in the past, allbeit in about 1997, and at the time they were paying £3/hour, so I can't see how come they're now paying double NMW.

Edit: Just looked at the police, starting salary is more like £20k, not £27k - and it varies regionally. I do actually know somebody who was a fine upstanding and fit young person who actually wanted to get into the police about 8 years ago - and it took three long attempts, including having to go away for assessments etc before I think they even got a sniff of a 'maybe'. And, to do it, the training/training period was 100 miles away.

I also just checked recruitment for Devon & Cornwall Police: 0 vacancies - http://www.devon-cornwall.police.uk/JoinUs/Vacancies/Pages/Currentvacancies.aspx

chris_m

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

But rather for 100% of central government departments and functions to abandon the South.... And move North.

<Yes Prime Minister>

You could move junior ranks up north but not senior officers, their wives wouldn't stand for it for one thing. It'd be too far from Harrods.

</Yes Prime Minister>

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

chris_m wrote: »

<Yes Prime Minister>

You could move junior ranks up north but not senior officers, their wives wouldn't stand for it for one thing. It'd be too far from Harrods.

</Yes Prime Minister>

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Oh absolutely.

Far too many vested interests at work for anything that sensible to ever happen.