I am unemployed, so lets get that bit out of the way to start with.

Yes the government should be offering help to the unemployed.

I am not convinced the new Work Program (WP) does that. It, in effect, doubles the cost of each unemployed person to the taxpayer while providing no real access to jobs because the bottom line is with well over three million unemployed (real figure, not adjusted figure) and only around 600,000 vacancies in the economy there simply aren't enough jobs to go round.

Instead of shifting taxpayer money to the private pockets of companies who lobby extensively for the WP contracts why not invest that money in more apprenticeships, adult apprenticeships and lower taxes for small and medium companies so as to enable them to create more employment.

All The Best

Quoted from "Redneck29"

the bottom line is with well over three million unemployed (real figure, not adjusted figure) and only around 600,000 vacancies in the economy there simply aren't enough jobs to go round.

All The Best

It would seem that the ROOT of this problem is...... where did all of the jobs go? Did those companies shift them to other countries? If so, why? Why are other companies not stepping in to fill the gap?

Are they being too regulated such as to make the cost of doing business too high?
Are they being too taxed such as to make the cost of doing business too high?

You can not tell me that it is better to have an uneducated workforce simply because they are cheaper. You do NOT get innovation through a lack of education. You will get your best productivity from the educated and your best future capability from the same. So if it is not the skills / education of the workforce ............. WHY are the jobs leaving?

Quoted from "canky"

Quoted from "pbk.Mystik"

WHY are the jobs leaving?

One reason for jobs going is improved education and development in places like India and China, there is a highly educated & skilled workforce who can be employed at a fraction of the cost of the average European or American

What is the tax incentive policies of those countries. Remember to look into specifics like not just corporate taxes but also payroll taxes and whether the employer then has to worry about worker's comp insurance and any other governmental regulations that are levied on companies. Then take a look at the countries' trade policies and taxes on trade. Corporations do HUGE trade studies before making massive moves like this and payroll alone is not the primary decision makers in all cases.

Quoted from "pbk.Mystik"

You can not tell me that it is better to have an uneducated workforce simply because they are cheaper. You do NOT get innovation through a lack of education. You will get your best productivity from the educated and your best future capability from the same. So if it is not the skills / education of the workforce ............. WHY are the jobs leaving?

The private sector obsession with higher profit margins and greater dividends is the short answer.

As long as companies are run with short-term (2-5 years) profitability as their main reason for existence there will always be a race to the bottom in terms of investment, wages, and running costs.

Have you noticed how when the Japanese ran their businesses with the long view in mind they were always showing small to medium profits and reinvesting and had a reputation for supreme quality.

The moment they adopted a more Western view of capitalism they had huge profits but saw quality drop with Toyota (IIRC) seeing more recalls in the last 5 years than they had in the previous 50.

Short term profiteering is the root cause of most economic problems these days.

All The Best

Quoted from "Redneck29"

Quoted from "pbk.Mystik"

You can not tell me that it is better to have an uneducated workforce simply because they are cheaper. You do NOT get innovation through a lack of education. You will get your best productivity from the educated and your best future capability from the same. So if it is not the skills / education of the workforce ............. WHY are the jobs leaving?

The private sector obsession with higher profit margins and greater dividends is the short answer.

As long as companies are run with short-term (2-5 years) profitability as their main reason for existence there will always be a race to the bottom in terms of investment, wages, and running costs.

Have you noticed how when the Japanese ran their businesses with the long view in mind they were always showing small to medium profits and reinvesting and had a reputation for supreme quality.

The moment they adopted a more Western view of capitalism they had huge profits but saw quality drop with Toyota (IIRC) seeing more recalls in the last 5 years than they had in the previous 50.

Short term profiteering is the root cause of most economic problems these days.

All The Best

THAT is the beauty of free market capitalism. Those companies that choose that model will be driven out of business IN THE LONG RUN. They may be profitable for a few years but they will EVENTUALLY lose market share. The way K-Mart did to Wal-Mart when Sam Walton was around. The way that Wal-Mart is now losing share to Target. Eventually Target will go cheap like Wal-Mart and be replaced by higher quality too.

JMHO

Quoted from "pbk.Mystik"

THAT is the beauty of free market capitalism. Those companies that choose that model will be driven out of business IN THE LONG RUN.

And in the short to medium term the man in the street consumer, as always, gets the shitty end of the stick.

Capitalism on its own doesn't work, because it can't work; as an ideal it, like communism, is riddled with systemic and fatal flaws.

The creation of monopolies is inherent to the capitalist system.
Monopolies prevent choice.
Without choice the basic principle of capitalism - the holy "market force" - doesn't exist.

It is a fundamentally flawed ideology.

It is high time we moved on from it in the same way most of us have moved on from communism.

All The Best

Quoted from "Redneck29"

Quoted from "pbk.Mystik"

THAT is the beauty of free market capitalism. Those companies that choose that model will be driven out of business IN THE LONG RUN.

And in the short to medium term the man in the street consumer, as always, gets the shitty end of the stick.

Capitalism on its own doesn't work, because it can't work; as an ideal it, like communism, is riddled with systemic and fatal flaws.

The creation of monopolies is inherent to the capitalist system.
Monopolies prevent choice.
Without choice the basic principle of capitalism - the holy "market force" - doesn't exist.

It is a fundamentally flawed ideology.

It is high time we moved on from it in the same way most of us have moved on from communism.

All The Best

You left out of that equation the need for regulation of commerce which is inherent within the laws of most every land. Free market capitalism works COMPLETELY, however, there is a need for LIMITED GOVERNMENT to regulate and provide an environment where competition can thrive without regulating to the point of driving competition out because of costly regulatory requirements (which is what is happening in the west today). The problem isn't the FMC model it is the the OBESELY LARGE OVERLY REGULATORY GOVERNMENT. They have gone from simply making sure the market is fair to giving favor to corporations and companies that are their cronies. Hence, my statement that CRONY Capitalism is a failed model.

Your idea hints that the government itself needs to provide the competitive alternative and in my way of thinking........ they can't even balance their own budget why would I trust them with industry?

JMHO

Care to point to one, just one, nation anywhere on earth where FMC has actually led to a better deal for the consumer with higher quality service, declining prices and greater choice?

BTW: In the strictest sense of the meaning once you start adding regulation to ensure competition then FMC ceases to be FMC. In its original guise there was to be no regulation of the markets at all in FMC, and "market forces" were to be the only guiding force.

All The Best

Quoted from "canky"

After what seems a long time, there's been some activity in the A shout into the silence and darkness thread, where I brought up some topics for discussion. one of the topics I mentioned was Welfare Reform in the UK.

To expand the subject further, what are your feelings about welfare payments in general, we are in a recession - do you think the unemployed or disabled should get some help, after all they are coming out of your taxes?

On a personal note, I am in full time employment but am becoming progressively disabled and cannot walk more than 200m.

In the UK I qualify for the mobility section of the Disabled Living Allowance, which is non means tested and is a monthly payment to assist in my transportation needs .

Because everybody is feeling the pinch these days, our caring ConDem government feel they have the public backing to seriously reduce these payments, both unemployment & disability/incapacity.

What is it like with your government?
Do you have welfare?
Should you have welfare?

That's enough for starters, let's have a good old fashioned OT debate

Personally i think its disgusting, the way in which the government is trying to cut back and reduce the national deficit is wrong, mainly because they are cowards. I just hope it keeps getting defeated in the house of lords.

Quoted from "canky"

Nice to hear from you Demon.

I agree with you, it is disgusting, the govt has attempted an anonymous spin, "benefit claimants are lazy/cheats", this is proved wrong time after time.

I don't want to see this bill repeatedly defeated in the Lords, it should just be dropped.

Good to hear from you too Canky, I hope your keeping your chin up and things are going well for you mate.

The only reason this has become an issue politically is because of the city of London. The estimates of people receiving £25,000 per year in benefits only happens in London, no where else, and of those £25,000 annual benefits, the claimant will only see a fraction of those, things such as council tax, housing benefits (especially when the claimant is living in council accommodation) artificially inflates these numbers, these are figures where no money is actually paid its purely number shifting on some silly spreadsheet.

But you'd expect this kind of thing from a Eton educated toff who's never had to really do an honest days work in his life. Being a politician isn't work, its talking crap and making sure you serve your own best interests.

The problem doesn't lie with people claiming benefits, people claim benefits because of the social inequality in modern Britain. While someone working 45+ hours per week can take home less than £18,000 per year (that's around £1,200 per month) a politically appointed glorified civil servant can earn £1.2 million per annum for a major UK bank while at the same time be given a £1million annual bonus by the major share holders of said organisation (namely the government).

A more equal distribution of wealth would do nothing but good for the country as a whole, would lower crime rates, make people actually want to work, and make the country more prosperous in the process. No body needs £1 million per year salary, no one needs £250,000 per year salary, for that matter no one needs £100,000 per year salary. the sweet spot is approximately £50,000 per annum, anything more and there's no real perceivable benefit to a persons well being or standard of life.

Quoted from "Redneck29"

Care to point to one, just one, nation anywhere on earth where FMC has actually led to a better deal for the consumer with higher quality service, declining prices and greater choice?

Sure. The USA, that was easy. Wal-Mart (under Sam Walton) is a prime example of that. Sam found a MUCH more efficient way to get high quality American made products to people. His business savvy led to the unbridled growth of the company. Regulation was in place that guaranteed that K-Mart or Zayre's couldn't force Wal-Mart not to get started. Thereby giving them a chance and FREEDOM to open their business under their own model that actually ended up being the death nail in the coffin of Zayre's because they couldn't compete with the prices that Sam Walton was able to offer. You see Zayre wanted a higher profit per item and Sam wanted a smaller profit on more items. This allowed him to take market share from Zayre's while keeping the quality the same or even higher in many cases. Since the regulations are there keeping Wal-Mart from stopping other start ups, there are companies like Target that have sprung up offering better quality clothing at around the same price that Wal-Mart is currently selling their cheap garbage clothing for.

I could go on and on about how it has allowed me to start my own software company and how it forces me to keep my own prices reasonable because there is always another company out there who wants the business enough to under-bid me but I have a feeling that no matter how many examples I give you'll be of the same opinion still.

Quoted from "Redneck29"

BTW: In the strictest sense of the meaning once you start adding regulation to ensure competition then FMC ceases to be FMC. In its original guise there was to be no regulation of the markets at all in FMC, and "market forces" were to be the only guiding force.

You surmise that FMC doesn't allow for there to be ANY regulation at all.... What ever gave you that idea? That is in NO business book that I have EVER read. That seems like the biased opinion of someone who simply doesn't like the term FMC.

The fact is that the FMC system has ALWAYS relied on some form of regulation and that ANY form of market system is reliant upon SOME form of regulation. As an example, I pose the question, "What good is a contract if there is no enforcement mechanism?"

One could postulate that a contract has nothing what-so-ever to do with FMC but that would be fallacious at best. When I purchase the service of someone to paint my entire house and pay them a sum of money to do it, they are then obliged to do so even if they 'under-bid' the project. After all I based my decision on the best price possible. If the company decides to take off with my money then I have the power to take them to court (even if it is small claims court). The same could be said of ANY business transaction. There has also ALWAYS been tax regulation on the businesses and their profits due to the business requiring infrastructure to support the business. This point has been amplified with the boom in technology. However, many companies, like Disney, take the burden of infrastructure on themselves so that they do not have to rely on tax money to do their development.

All regulation is SUPPOSED to do is to provide the ENVIRONMENT for the FMC not to micro-manage the businesses. That would be the equivalent of state run businesses which is more in line with fascism or socialism.

The lack of regulation of ANY kind leads to anarchy...... always has, always will. I have noticed that the left is trying to force the definition of FMC into that category more and more using the crash in 2008 as evidence that capitalism failed. However, what TRULY FAILED was the regulatory function that the Congress was supposed to do. They were too busy being bought by Wall Street and the large corporations that the only thing they did to rectify the situation was to steal money from tax payers to give to their corporate cronies. Therefore it was NOT THE MARKET BUT THE GOVERNMENT that determined the winners and losers. Those who had ties to those in power won and those that didn't failed, pure and simple.

CRONY CAPITALISM is an abject failure NOT FMC.

JMHO

Quoted from "canky"

What is it like with your government?
Do you have welfare?
Should you have welfare?

1.) Yes the USA government has welfare.

2.) My family was on welfare like some 6-8 years ago when my dad was laid-off, but we worked our way out of it. Something everybody on welfare should work towards.

3.) Welfare is there for a reason. To help those who are unfortunate get back on their feet. Welfare per family should be a temporary thing and not permanent. As well as those who need help with unemployment until they can get a new job and those with disabilities but aren't lazy, using the disability excuse (unless you really are that disabled.) People should learn to save money in cases as such, where the unexpected happens so if that person does get laid-off, then they have enough money in their account for several months or more with the supplimented help of unemployment checks. IMO, if it takes you any longer than a couple months to find another job then you're not trying hard enough.

Quoted from "JustAZN [No]"

1.) Yes the USA government has welfare.

Agreed and FAR too over-abused.

Quoted from "JustAZN [No]"

2.) My family was on welfare like some 6-8 years ago when my dad was laid-off, but we worked our way out of it. Something everybody on welfare should work towards.

Having been in that same situation, I TOTALLY understand your feelings on. However, nothing irritated me more than walking into one of those offices because I was in dire straights and seeing some guy with gold teeth getting out of his cadillac with spinning rims and custom paint talking on his I-Phone while his GIRLFRIEND got benefits for THEIR children. That part sickens me because it ENCOURAGES people to not get married because his income will cause them to 'lose their benefits'.

Quoted from "JustAZN [No]"

3.) Welfare is there for a reason. To help those who are unfortunate get back on their feet. Welfare per family should be a temporary thing and not permanent. As well as those who need help with unemployment until they can get a new job and those with disabilities but aren't lazy, using the disability excuse (unless you really are that disabled.) People should learn to save money in cases as such, where the unexpected happens so if that person does get laid-off, then they have enough money in their account for several months or more with the supplimented help of unemployment checks. IMO, if it takes you any longer than a couple months to find another job then you're not trying hard enough.

I have also seen this personally. I had a friend who used to be a pilot but ended up getting Lupus and lost his 'medical'. This caused him to no longer be a pilot. He then applied for disability which he got 3-5 years later and has lived on it from the time he was 38 (circa 1990) until now. He claims he can't work because of his illness, however, I have a friend at work that has the same disease and she seems to be just fine and my other friend's symptoms were less severe than hers. He just decided that if he couldn't pilot then he wouldn't work. I even tried to talk him into using his knowledge to teach ground simulations or classroom instruction. He said no because then he would lose his 'benefits'.

F'in irritating.

JMHO

Yea...it irratates the hell out of me as well when people just take these handouts when there's other people in far more dire need of them. You'd think people would respect themselves and their being and work hard, but I suppose it's just easier to collect a check for being poor.