£1bn scheme will 'provide hope' to young jobless

Lith

Stuff like this makes me sick.. people think it really helps.. but it REALLY doesn't and where is £1bn coming from ?

Vincent_Buenisedes

getmore4less wrote: »

thats not what was said the point was that the transition to actual developing from playing would be too much hard work.

Another area the UK leads the world is advanced engineering, aerospace and the motor sport industry.

Again, those industries need equally high skilled employees which the scheme isn't aimed at, and those skills cost alot of money to aquire while this scheme is just a wage subsidy.
People are right to be sceptical about schemes ANY government announces, especially regarding the unemployed, as they usually are just rehashes of earlier schemes and end up just lining the pockets of the unscrupulous.
Infact, it would probably be better to give those youngsters the £1bn themselves and tell them to setup as a welfare to work provider, as they are the ones who will be having a steady stream of business from the government as they now administer

• The Work Programme,
• Community Action Programme,
• Work Placements,
• Families with multiple problems (through ESF though),
• The myriad of smaller schemes dotted around the country,
• and now the Youth Contract.

They sure are on to a nice little earner!

paddyrg

Ronaldo_Mconaldo wrote: »

We are world leading at producing computer games for one thing. Young people should know a lot about that, but playing on them all day and learning how to create and sell them might be too much like hard work.

Granted, most games writers also play games, but it is a huge and very valuable industry to this country. The budgets are akin to feature films, the profits (and hence taxes) often significantly higher. If playing games makes a few kids want to create their own, and get into that, it's good for us all ;-)

mattw7

This is nothing other than the government getting worried as the current jobless figures are only going to rise for the next 2-3 years minimum so therefore are wasting this money just to make their figures look a little bit better.

The reality is though these jobs just do not exist, hence why they are having to subsidise them in the first place. Once the 6 month contract period has passed the vast majority will be back on the dole, but at least they won't be classed as long term unemployed because of the magical 6 month figure would erase some of those statistics.

If people can't see that this is just a vote gaining policy then they seriously don't deserve the right to vote at all.

MoreOn

Vincent_Buenisedes wrote: »

Again, those industries need equally high skilled employees which the scheme isn't aimed at, and those skills cost alot of money to aquire while this scheme is just a wage subsidy.
People are right to be sceptical about schemes ANY government announces, especially regarding the unemployed, as they usually are just rehashes of earlier schemes and end up just lining the pockets of the unscrupulous.
Infact, it would probably be better to give those youngsters the £1bn themselves and tell them to setup as a welfare to work provider, as they are the ones who will be having a steady stream of business from the government as they now administer

• The Work Programme,
• Community Action Programme,
• Work Placements,
• Families with multiple problems (through ESF though),
• The myriad of smaller schemes dotted around the country,
• and now the Youth Contract.

They sure are on to a nice little earner!

Marx makes for interesting reading...

LadyMissA

mattw7 wrote: »

This is nothing other than the government getting worried as the current jobless figures are only going to rise for the next 2-3 years minimum so therefore are wasting this money just to make their figures look a little bit better.

The reality is though these jobs just do not exist, hence why they are having to subsidise them in the first place. Once the 6 month contract period has passed the vast majority will be back on the dole, but at least they won't be classed as long term unemployed because of the magical 6 month figure would erase some of those statistics.

If people can't see that this is just a vote gaining policy then they seriously don't deserve the right to vote at all.

Jobs do exsist but if there are people going for them who are already in employment most employers will favour them over the unemployed regardless of your situation like if you were made redundant.

There is no law to stop descrimination against the unemployed.

IF jobs do not exsist like you say paying an employer to take you on wont make it better. What work would you be doing in an office say if there wasn't any work for you to do in the first place. Just because the Gov are going to sub the employer doesn't mean they will take anyone on to do nothing all day.

mattw7

LadyMissA wrote: »

Jobs do exsist but if there are people going for them who are already in employment most employers will favour them over the unemployed regardless of your situation like if you were made redundant.

There is no law to stop descrimination against the unemployed.

IF jobs do not exsist like you say paying an employer to take you on wont make it better. What work would you be doing in an office say if there wasn't any work for you to do in the first place. Just because the Gov are going to sub the employer doesn't mean they will take anyone on to do nothing all day.

And therein lies the answer to the problem. Instead of the government rehashing old policies and doing things just to get voters onside, why not introduce a system whereby companies will get a subsidy to take on unemployed people, rather than just employing those already in a job.

With unemployment getting out of control companies need to help out the economy by employing solely those out of work and not cherry picking only the people they want. With so many people out of work surely they can hire people with just as, if not better, than just only looking at those in work. Its a two fold win, not only will it help to stimulate the economy by having more people in work but will also help motivate those out of work who are continually told you are only going to get a job if you're already in one!

Oldernotwiser

A six month work experience programme, on NMW, will introduce many young people to workplace discipline, help them acquire valuable skills and give them the opportunity to gain a reference. I can't see what's wrong with any of that.

globalds

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

A six month work experience programme, on NMW, will introduce many young people to workplace discipline, help them acquire valuable skills and give them the opportunity to gain a reference. I can't see what's wrong with any of that.

It does seem fairly inefficient though.

1 billion is a fair bit of cash.

160,000 is quite a few people but by no means anything but a fraction of the problem and 6 months is not very long.

Apprenticeships I would agree would be fantastic news.That would be the kind of response I would think German or Japanese politicians would be proposing.

This looks like a British kind of answer to the problem.....Unfortunately.

Do you know it would probably be as useful to teach any of them that wanted to drive ...At least they would have something to offer a future employer.

Oldernotwiser

globalds wrote: »

It does seem fairly inefficient though.

1 billion is a fair bit of cash.

160,000 is quite a few people but by no means anything but a fraction of the problem and 6 months is not very long.

Apprenticeships I would agree would be fantastic news.That would be the kind of response I would think German or Japanese politicians would be proposing.

This looks like a British kind of answer to the problem.....Unfortunately.

Do you know it would probably be as useful to teach any of them that wanted to drive ...At least they would have something to offer a future employer.

Apprenticeships would be fantastic but would cost far more.