Next time you hear...

[BillyStubbsTears]

...some right wing t**t complaining that those on the dole for a long time are idle scroungers.

Have a read of this and think how to reply to them.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/05/16/the-terrible-luck-of-long-term-unemployment/

Basically, the figures here are showing that those who were laid off in the good times got back to work quickly. And those who were laid off when the Mother of All Recessions hit have struggled to find jobs. Because there are no f**king jobs.

So it's not about being a scrounger. It's about being very prepared to work, and finding work if there is work to find.

But if there's no work because of the recession and the flatlining that we've had since, you can't find work.

Not opinions. Factual data.


To be fair, this is American data, but we are pretty much in step with the Yanks. Especially when it comes to right wingerers complaining that those on the dole are idle scroungers.

[IC1967]

As an avowed right winger, I don't think everyone on the dole is an idle scrounger, as don't many of my colleagues. You are wrong to label all right wingers this way.

However there are undoubtedly many 'scroungers' out there who prefer to live off benefits. This is a fact. It is also a fact that there are many on benefits who would prefer to work. However a lot of these people are a bit too fussy about the work they are prepared to do. Many also refuse to create a job for themselves by going self employed.

Even in the deepest of recessions there are jobs out there. Unfortunately our lavish benefits system allows 'scroungers' to refuse this work because they are better off on benefits. I can understand this mentality as we all want as much money in our pockets as possible and if the government are going to make life easy for us then why wouldn't we take them up on their kind offer?

You need to explain why we have had so much immigration from the EU if there weren't any jobs to be had. These people haven't come to claim benefits, they've come to work. Why would they have done this if there were no jobs?

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

I wish I could show you some of the applications I've seen for jobs that aren't easy to fill. Then tell me there aren't scroungers not looking for a job. The applications from those who are just ticking the dole box are obvious - it's pathetic.

In fairness though I hope they keep pushing up the wages for fairly simple jobs to quite good levels. It means I can quit my time consuming job for one with no responsibilities!

[BillyStubbsTears]

BFYP

I wasn't saying that on-one on the dole is work-shy. I was saying that demonising those on the dole long-term is an easy cop-out. The facts from that study are unarguable. Go have a look at the graphs. They show that if you lost your job pre-recession, for the most part, you got back to work quickly. But if you lost your job in 2008/09/10/11, you were much more likely to stay on the dole for a long time. . It defies belief that a large percentage of the workforce suddenly got bone idle and decided to to spend their lives watching daytime TV just at the time that the recession hit.

Those are American figures, but the ones here would be very similar. One of the most despicable things that has happened in politics over the past half decade has been the demonisation of those who have been unlucky enough to bear the brunt of the recession. People lost their jobs through no fault of their own, then were castigated by politicians for being out of work. They were accused of being the ones living the life of Reilly while the rest of us set our alarm clocks and got up in the morning. Yes some do, but the numbers have always been small. The huge increase in people on the dole for a long time over the last 5-6 years is simply explained - there have been 8-10 people looking for every 1 job.

[IC1967]

The huge increase in people on the dole for a long time over the last 5-6 years is simply explained - there have been 8-10 people looking for every 1 job.

I notice you ignore my points as you can't answer them. No surprise there.

If your above statement was correct, there would be far more people on the dole. You are patently incorrect. For example lets say there are 9 people chasing every job. There are currently 628,000 job vacancies in the UK. Let's ignore the EU jobs market as most 'scroungers' won't entertain relocating within the UK never mind relocating to a country in the EU.

So a simple sum discredits your claim:

9 x 628,00 = 5.7 million.

So according to you, our unemployment rate is 5.7 million. The last time I checked it was actually 2.2 million.

Now if we hadn't had so much immigration under Labour (more than half a million Poles on their own) the unemployment rate would be much lower and the chances for 'scroungers' finding work would be much easier.   

[BillyStubbsTears]

Mick

For most of the period 2008-2012, the job vacancy figures were around 450,000 and the unemployment figures were around 2.6million. So, OK, about 5-6 times. Apologies for my lack of perfect precision in a top of the head calculation. It doesn't in any way change the argument. In a usually functioning economy, the ratio of unemployed to jobs vacancies is around 2. The point is that we've had several years of there being a very low number of job vacancies compared to the number of unemployed.

And you accuse me of pedantry.
 

[IC1967]

You make yourself look dafter each time you post. Stating that there were on average 9 people chasing every job to justify your claims was way off the mark. Accusing me of being a pedant when I point this out is laughable. You're the one that is always banging on about justifying facts and statements. You then make them up off the top of your head. Unbelievable.

You then selectively use dates to backtrack on your misleading claim. Why are you only using stats from 2008-2012 and not up to 2014? I'll tell you why. It's because the more up to date figures  weaken your argument further.

Let me update you. There are currently 3.5 people chasing every job not 8-10 (lets call it 4). Getting on for a third of what you were claiming. A significant difference if you don't mind me saying. So anyone out of work should on average find a job after 4 applications.

I accept that its harder for the long term unemployed. It would be reasonable to say it was twice as hard for these people. So I would expect someone in this category to find work on average after 8 applications. Now correct me if I am wrong, but it shouldn't be too hard to apply for 8 jobs.

Now, what have you got to say about the mass immigration we had under Labour that has made it much harder for 'scroungers' to find a job? Incidentally you do know that unemployment actually started rising under Labour in 2005 don't you? You do know that unemployment is always higher when Labour leaves office than it is at the start of their reign?

[BillyStubbsTears]

Mick

Before you make yourself into an even bigger idiot, have a look at what the current ratio of job vacancies to unemployed is, and compare it to what it is usually like. Also, have a look at the long term unemployed numbers, and how they have changed  over the past decade. Then stop and think about the point that the thread was about in the first place, instead of doing your usual egotistical thing of assuming it is about your opinions.

[IC1967]

Before you make yourself into an even bigger idiot

, have a look at what the current ratio of job vacancies to unemployed is, and compare it to what it is usually like. Also, have a look at the long term unemployed numbers, and how they have changed  over the past decade. Then stop and think about the point that the thread was about in the first place, instead of doing your usual egotistical thing of assuming it is about your opinions.

That's the best laugh I've had for ages. You're the one that looks like a complete idiot. If you read my previous post you'd see I've answered your first question. There are currently 4 people chasing every job. This figure has gone down as the economy has recovered. It would be even lower if Labour hadn't let in so many immigrants and created rising unemployment in 2005 after flatlining for the previous 4 years.

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

I'm not sure the us and UK markets in terms of labour track quite that closely 5these days but having not done work on it maybe they do.

No a similar vein milliband today on his minimum wage increase didn't quantify it and won't for some time.  Why won't he state what it is?

Firstly, half announcing policy is just plain annoying.

Secondly, how as a finance guy can I look to quantify future risk to the business, price future contracts etc when I don't know what I might be forced to pay the labour base at?  It's poor form that, if he knows he should state it.

Cynic in me says he's looking for a popular headline but surely he is just appeasing his core vote, nothing more than that?  One thing is for sure though if ed does get that policy through it again pushes up the cost of services etc, how's he funding that then?

[IC1967]

The daft thing is that if Labour hadn't allowed 4 million immigrants into the country during their time in office we would have full employment.

[jucyberry]

People are being forced to apply for jobs where they have no qualifications or experience every day. Not because they are ticking boxes but because to not do so means being sanctioned.

Most people aren't impossibly picky  but they know they will have no hope of even getting a reply let alone an interview.

The other side of the coin to forcing people into jobs they aren't suitable for is I would expect to see a rise in complaints in nursing homes as people with no compassion or empathy are forced under pain of sanction to take jobs they at best feel resentful in.

We have all seen enough terrible reports to know it's already happening.

[BillyStubbsTears]

The daft thing is that if Labour hadn't allowed 4 million immigrants into the country during their time in office we would have full employment.

You are embarrassing yourself once again Mick. You clearly know nothing of the effect of immigration on economic performance. Study after study after study have shown that the effect is net positive. Saying (as 1-dimensional UKIP-style analysis does) that reducing immigration would result in a better jobs market for "indigenous" people (whatever they are)  is simply wrong - it would have reduced the overall net level of economic performance and we would not now have full employment.

[wilts rover]

Before you make yourself into an even bigger idiot

, have a look at what the current ratio of job vacancies to unemployed is, and compare it to what it is usually like. Also, have a look at the long term unemployed numbers, and how they have changed  over the past decade. Then stop and think about the point that the thread was about in the first place, instead of doing your usual egotistical thing of assuming it is about your opinions.

That's the best laugh I've had for ages. You're the one that looks like a complete idiot. If you read my previous post you'd see I've answered your first question. There are currently 4 people chasing every job. This figure has gone down as the economy has recovered. It would be even lower if Labour hadn't let in so many immigrants and created rising unemployment in 2005 after flatlining for the previous 4 years.

Are there, every job?

Here is a link to a well known job site advertising jobs in the DN area. Many jobs on it require qualifications and/or experience in the role. They have for the most part single figure applications. There is one job advertised for warehouse packers, how many applicants has that had in 3 days? I will give you a clue, its more than 4.
http://www.reed.co.uk/jobs/dn1?sortby=DisplayDate

[IC1967]

Immigration can be good for the country. You are naive in the extreme if you don't also think it can be bad. 4 million immigrants is far too many in such a short period of time. Where do you draw the line? It appears you don't. You should join the LibDems as they are also head in the sand merchants.

The massive influx of Poles which started in 2004 was followed by a sustained rise in unemployment. Public services have also been feeling the strain. We are a densely populated island and cannot cope with such mass immigration. During Labour's time in office an immigrant arrived once every minute. We haven't had such a massive influx since the time of the Vikings.

The economy would be doing much better if we had controlled immigration and made the 'scroungers' take any job available instead of allowing them to be so picky.

[IC1967]

Are there, every job?

Here is a link to a well known job site advertising jobs in the DN area. Many jobs on it require qualifications and/or experience in the role. They have for the most part single figure applications. There is one job advertised for warehouse packers, how many applicants has that had in 3 days? I will give you a clue, its more than 4.
http://www.reed.co.uk/jobs/dn1?sortby=DisplayDate

I'd be grateful if you could redo your post in coherent English as I'm sure no-one has got a clue what you are going on about.

[IC1967]

You need to explain why we have had so much immigration from the EU if there weren't any jobs to be had. These people haven't come to claim benefits, they've come to work. Why would they have done this if there were no jobs?

Still waiting.

[IC1967]

...some right wing t**t complaining that those on the dole for a long time are idle scroungers.

Have a read of this and think how to reply to them.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/05/16/the-terrible-luck-of-long-term-unemployment/

Basically, the figures here are showing that those who were laid off in the good times got back to work quickly. And those who were laid off when the Mother of All Recessions hit have struggled to find jobs. Because there are no f***ing jobs.

So it's not about being a scrounger. It's about being very prepared to work, and finding work if there is work to find.

But if there's no work because of the recession and the flatlining that we've had since, you can't find work.

Not opinions. Factual data.


To be fair, this is American data, but we are pretty much in step with the Yanks. Especially when it comes to right wingerers complaining that those on the dole are idle scroungers.

Factual data? Don't make me laugh. The last time I looked, there were 628,000 jobs available. Even in the worst of the recession there were always hundreds of thousands of jobs available.

[Iberian Red]

Before you make yourself into an even bigger idiot

, have a look at what the current ratio of job vacancies to unemployed is, and compare it to what it is usually like. Also, have a look at the long term unemployed numbers, and how they have changed  over the past decade. Then stop and think about the point that the thread was about in the first place, instead of doing your usual egotistical thing of assuming it is about your opinions.

That's the best laugh I've had for ages.

If that is the case, you need to get your sticky fingers off the keyboard and get a hobby.

[Iberian Red]

I'm not sure the us and UK markets in terms of labour track quite that closely 5these days but having not done work on it maybe they do.

No a similar vein milliband today on his minimum wage increase didn't quantify it and won't for some time.  Why won't he state what it is?

Firstly, half announcing policy is just plain annoying.

Secondly, how as a finance guy can I look to quantify future risk to the business, price future contracts etc when I don't know what I might be forced to pay the labour base at?  It's poor form that, if he knows he should state it.

Cynic in me says he's looking for a popular headline but surely he is just appeasing his core vote, nothing more than that?  One thing is for sure though if ed does get that policy through it again pushes up the cost of services etc, how's he funding that then?

If you punctuated your arguement it might read a little better.As it stands your C.V. has gone in the bin with the other scroungers.

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

Well that's pretty tricky on an android phone sometimes.

But you know I'm happy with my decent paid job and level of qualifications since you asked.

Oh and it's spelt argument aswell, just saying!

[IC1967]

If you punctuated your arguement it might read a little better.As it stands your C.V. has gone in the bin with the other scroungers.

You need to leave a space after a full stop as well.

[IC1967]

Still waiting.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Even in the worst of the recession there were always hundreds of thousands of jobs available.

Here we go again. Back to Schiller and the idiocy that the Gods themselves contend with in vain.

Mick, the term "there were no jobs" is a figure of speech. Of course there were jobs available. And the jobs were taken and SOME peoe came off the dole queue. But others joined it just as fast. Because THERE WERE NOT ENOUGH JOBS TO SATISFY DEMAND.

Is that clear enough for you. Or does Mikipedia have a different definition of what happens when there are pushing 3million people looking for jobs and only 450,000 vacancies, which is what happened between 2008-12?

[IC1967]

I'm a bit confused. In your first post you say there are no jobs that's why people are on the dole long term (present tense). In your latest post you say there were no jobs and you seem to be using the dates 2008-2012 (past tense). So do you now think there are jobs and wish to amend your first post? Do you think there are now jobs from 2013 - 2014? You also now admit there were on average 450,000 vacancies during this period not none as you first asserted.

I'm also a bit confused as to why you still haven't answered my question about immigrants. So I'll ask it again. If there were/are no jobs then why have millions of immigrants come to the UK and found work? Why this year have we had the biggest influx of workers from the EU since records began if there are no jobs? Why is there a record number of people in work?

Please answer my questions for a change or just admit you went off on a loony left wing rant that was not based on facts and your abject apology will be immediately accepted.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Mick

As ever, a discussion ends up being all about you and what you define it to be once you enter it. Egotistical, childlike self-obsession.

The discussion about immigration is irrelevant to the original post, so we'll park that one. Whatever the immigration numbers are, the facts (facts Mick - I can sense you breaking out in a cold sweat again) are that job vacancy numbers collapsed in the recession and stayed low until very recently due to the unprecedented lack of a recover.



At the same time, the number of long term unemployed exploded.


The link is obvious and undeniable. The number of long term unemployed rose and stayed high because the number of job vacancies collapsed.

Yes there has been a welcome increase in the number of job vacancies recently, as the long-delayed recovery finally arrived 3 years late. I assume that we'll see the long term unemployment rate start to fall over the next year or two and that will be very welcome. Once of the very worst things that you can do to the long term economic well-being of a country is to have a lot of people economically inactive for a long time. We've done that and we will reap the consequences for a generation.

Now, the point of the original post was that during the last few years, we have seen a concerted effort by this Government to brand the long term unemployed as feckless, idle scroungers who enjoy life on the dole at our expense. It is medacity of the worst kind, willingly accepted by the gullible or heartless.

 

[IC1967]

As usual you ignore my questions. Now lets look at a few facts (something you seem to be very careless with lately). I'll use your graphs. The number of job vacancies fell to its lowest level while Labour were in power. Longterm unemployment began rising under Labour during the so called boom times. By the time they left office it had roughly trebled  from about 850,000 million at its lowest to around 2.5 million at its highest. The Tories managed to slow down the rise (despite cutting lots of public sector jobs) and it peaked at around 2.8 million and is now falling rapidly. So it is Labour that the long term unemployed have got to thank for their predicament.

Unbelievably you say immigration has got nothing to do with it. Of course it has. Labour allowed millions in and they all found jobs. They found jobs that could have been done by the long term unemployed. Had the long term unemployed found some of these jobs there would not have been a long term unemployment problem. You say 'The number of long term unemployed rose and stayed high because the number of job vacancies collapsed.' Wrong. The number of long term unemployed rose and stayed high because of Labour's mismanagement of the economy and the huge numbers of immigrants that were allowed in to take the available jobs.

You seem incapable of understanding basic maths. Its very simple. Lets say there were 2.8 million long term unemployed. Lets say that Labour allowed in 3 million immigrants (4 million is a more accurate figure when you add in all the illegal immigrants). So if you subtract 2.8 million from 3 million you get a deficit of 200,00. So we could have solved the long term unemployment problem and still required 200,000 immigrants to take up the other available jobs! And you've got the bare faced cheek to say that immigration is irrelevant in this debate. Unbelievable and ridiculous.

Now lets get one thing straight. I do have a lot of sympathy for the unemployed, especially the long term unemployed, as do nearly all my right wing friends. Its easy to spiral into lethargy and depression if you don't get back into work quickly with all the social consequences this entails. Labour should hang their heads in shame. However, there are jobs out there and all means must be used to get these people back into work. Sometimes the removal of cushy benefits is what is needed to jolt these people back into life.

Now, I'd be grateful if you could provide evidence for your claim that during the last few years, we have seen a concerted effort by this Government to brand the long term unemployed as feckless, idle scroungers who enjoy life on the dole at our expense. If you don't, we'll all just assume that it is just another one of your unsubstantiated leftie rants. While you're at it I'd also be grateful if you could answer some of my earlier questions. Thanking you in anticipation of your cooperation.

[Savvy]

I'm not sure the us and UK markets in terms of labour track quite that closely 5these days but having not done work on it maybe they do.

No a similar vein milliband today on his minimum wage increase didn't quantify it and won't for some time.  Why won't he state what it is?

Firstly, half announcing policy is just plain annoying.

Secondly, how as a finance guy can I look to quantify future risk to the business, price future contracts etc when I don't know what I might be forced to pay the labour base at?  It's poor form that, if he knows he should state it.

Cynic in me says he's looking for a popular headline but surely he is just appeasing his core vote, nothing more than that?  One thing is for sure though if ed does get that policy through it again pushes up the cost of services etc, how's he funding that then?

In the words of the Virgin Mary......come again!

[IC1967]

Still waiting (as usual).

[BobG]

Billy, do you think Mick had a lobotomy when he was younger?

I really cannot think of any other reason that would explain the willful stupidity, blindness and impermeability he displays so crassly and so regularly.

BobG