£1bn fund to tackle youth Unemployment Good idea or bad?

drc

ruggedtoast wrote: »

We have actually had some young people in our office through various Nu-Lab schemes. A few under the unemployed graduate route, and some under the long term unemployed 20 something. Unfortunately they have been pretty dreadful, lacking even basic skills (the Cambridge Politics grad with a first, was the worst for lacking any ability to do anything practical), and often having a pretty poor attitude.

He probably thought he was above working in an office.

ruggedtoast

No, he was eager enough. He just couldn't do anything without messing it up. Even operating a photocopier or stapling things together in order. I'm not sure how he got through his degree without realising you are meant to staple papers together through the corner, not in the middle.

Maybe it was all an elaborate plutocratic joke.

worldtraveller

It's basically another Government knee-jerk reaction, based on some overpaid, non-job, PR persons latest wheeze! Our youth unemployment in the UK is around, or slightly below the average rate for the rest of Europe.

Now, if they got rid of the minimum wage, that would maybe help a lot more!

paulmapp8306

IronWolf wrote: »

It's better than paying them benefits, which will stop when they get one of these jobs.

The fact is that in hard times like this young people can't get jobs over older people with experience, so I think this is a good idea to help young people. but it will need to be done carefully to stop employers taking advantage of it.

Agreed - however it just means your paying the benefits to the older peopl instead - who generally attract higher benefits as they tend to have families. Older people tend to be more usefull which is why they get the jobs over the young.

What Im saying, isnt that they dont need help - they do, but that this isbnt the way to do it. It wont change the unemployment figures it will just !!!! the demographic to the older ones - who are being told they have to work longer from a pension POV.

What needs to be done is for the younger ones to gain experience and become usefull by CREATING JOBs for them rather than subsidising the existing jobs. Id rather the government created half the number of jobs there going to subsidise - pay all the wages, and get these people trained to actually do something (rather than know something thats normally irrelevant to life). Once they have done this they can compete on a level for the real jobs.

What the government is actually doing, is encouraging descrimination against anyone over 24.

ruggedtoast

I wish they'd just split it evenly around the country. Then everyone could have £16.

I'd get a takeaway.

Spark

This is the most stupid thing to do when in high unemployment. Combined this with the fact that from 6 April 2012, employers will have 2 years to dismiss an employee without reasons, and you will have most youngsters going in and out of jobs on a regular basis in no time, while the over 24's will languish as they will be deemed "too old" to work.

Employers will always take advantage of those kind of schemes, I know my boss is always on for it. At the moment, even skilled people are applying for low end jobs if positions in their field are not available.
There aren't enough jobs for everyone, and people of all ages are desperate to find a job.
You can help young people by getting them into training and apprenticeships, which will give them enough experience and will improve their confidence enough to find a proper job at the end of it.
Sometimes I wonder if this government is not in for destroying this country once and for all. That or they are just so incompetent that they should get the sack asap.

Going4TheDream

I think you all think pretty much how I thought when I read it. Plus hearing more today it seems that the 'funding' for these 6 month 'jobs' and 8 week training courses is looking likely to come from the freezing of tax credits, so again the people who are likely to need money the most will likely be put under more financial pressure.

I'm sure we could spend a billion pounds more effectively

dtsazza

IronWolf wrote: »

It's better than paying them benefits, which will stop when they get one of these jobs.

I've noticed an interesting pattern - that often a jobs-/training-related scheme will be proposed, which people generally correctly denounce as an ineffectual waste of money (e.g. this, EMA, subsidised but rubbish apprentice schemes).

And then someone (also correctly) points out that despite the "waste" of money, it's actually a net gain as it stops those involved being able to claim the dole.

It seems impossible to conclude anything other than that paying people money for doing nothing completely distorts the values in the system, and creates perverse incentives to create other wasteful schemes rather than to use resources and people productively.

i.e. It's broken.

OptionARMAGEDDON

Step in the right direction. Better than spending a fortune on disableds to have free cars or for mothers of 5 to have an easy life.

OptionARMAGEDDON

Perhaps we could use the silly sort of money blown on the nhs, treatment for obesity and lung cancer through primary smoking for example, to get youngsters into work that cant get a job through no fault of their own.