The Jobbridge Scandal

runawaybishop

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

A friend of mine has been told by an individual in FAS in Parnell St that she must take up an unpaid internship on the jobsbridge scheme or else her social welfare payments may stop.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=82755820

Nuts102 wrote: »

You obviously don't have much of a clue about it. People are now being forced into these internships. FAS recently started calling people in for interviews and asking what type of work they want. Then they send out your C.V. to these internships and you get warned if you don't attend the interview your payment will be cut.

I got offered a job that has no relevance to my finance degree that i want experience for. I got a letter this morning saying to let them know if i am still interested even though i was never interested FAS set the interview up. So what are my options i turn it down and i will get my money cut or i accept it and waste 9 months of my life getting experience in something that i have no interest in doing. It is fast turning into slave labour. I don't know what to do. To make it worse you have to work every saturday and some weeknights. So to rub it in my friends working 9-5 all week can relax get a nice wage and kick back and watch the football on a Saturday. I get nothing to go in on a Saturday and miss out playing football and watching football. The scheme is a joke.

Deleted User wrote: »

I know of a few people who've been told to take a jobsbridge or watch as their weekly payment is docked. Sane way that the DSP are forcing people onto courses. I'm doing a FAS course atm and there's a number of women in their early 60s doing it who were told by the DSP that if they didn't find a jobsbridge or take the course they would lose money.

You're allowed to leave a jobsbridge but you need to have valid reasons and I've heard that if you do leave one you're pretty much painting a target on your back and will have letters and phone calls on a weekly basis telling you that you need to find a course or a jobsbridge as otherwise you're losing money.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

runawaybishop

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The scheme is not responsible for 61% of employees returning to the workforce.

runawaybishop

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Its a long thread, don't worry - there are more examples to be edited in. The second one is a good one, do you not agree?

FactCheck

What's Marxist is the state paying the wages of private companies' employees.

Why on earth should my taxes go to paying my competitors' wage bills?

Daith

FactCheck wrote: »

What's Marxist is the state paying the wages of private companies' employees.

They're not employees. They're "interns"

osarusan

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Do you happen to recall from your perusal of the Indecon report what percent of companies said they would offered paid employment if there hadn't been an internship scheme?

Call Me Jimmy

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

*ahem* and luck

Iwasfrozen

FactCheck wrote: »

What's Marxist is the state paying the wages of private companies' employees.

Why on earth should my taxes go to paying my competitors' wage bills?

More corporatist than Marxist.

Historically it's when **** like this happens that social unrest begins to manifest in society.

Unless something is done to ensure people a respectable wage I fear the same may happen again.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

the_syco

topcatcbr wrote: »

No I mean bringing the country to its knees. I and many are now paying huge tax to fix that mess.

Again, due to complete lack of regulation. Look at Canada for an example of how regulation of the financial sector in the boom times helps make the bust time not so much doom and gloom.

iPringle wrote: »

That's the effect of government regulation and nothing that has been brought in since will change any of that.

Fixing the barn door after the horse has bolted won't change what has happened.

Tony EH wrote: »

Yeh, the financial sector.

I suppose I did stand on that turd :pac: I suppose I should have said that to blame the Financial Regulator, but looking at the FFail party, a lot of their self interests seemed to be linked to no financial regulation, thus what happened was only a matter of time.

runawaybishop wrote: »

A friend of mine has been told by an individual in FAS in Parnell St that she must take up an unpaid internship on the jobsbridge scheme or else her social welfare payments may stop.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=82755820

Had she applied for any jobsbridge before, and how long has she been on the dole? I ask as I know a few people on the dole, and haven't been brought in yet, but would like to know if there's a "time limit" on dole before you get ushered into a jobsbridge role.

Dyr

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2_klXoTLKw

aaand we're done

KyussBishop

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Fallacy of Composition - JobBridge does barely anything to solve unemployment:

KyussBishop wrote: »

The 'fallacy of composition':
Fallacy of Composition|Reality
"JobBridge reduces unemployment"|JobBridge helps some unemployed workers, compete against the rest of the unemployed, for the same number of jobs (with exceptions for skill-shortage roles - with no stats to quantify JobBridge's contribution here).
"Removing minimum wage boosts employment"|This can reduce wages/aggregate-demand/business-profits and then reduce employment
"Slashes wages can boost employment"|For the same reasons as above, can reduce employment.
"People can get a job, they just need to put more effort in and try harder, to retrain into skilled roles that are in demand"|There are not enough jobs available, not everybody will be employed, no matter how hard they all try or how much effort they collectively put in.
"Competing on exports (e.g. by slashing wages) can bring recovery"|If all of the world tries to import less and export more all at once (which a great many of our trading partners are, due to the economic crisis), they will all fail, and it will be a race-to-the-bottom in wages/living-standards.
"Cutting government spending and increasing taxes (austerity) can bring recovery"|Cutting government spending and increasing taxes, reduces aggregate demand, which harms employment and economic activity.
"A government budget surplus is good"|A budget surplus, without adequate exports to offset the money this removes from the private sector, can drain the private sector of money and cause an over-reliance on credit/debt (which can create an unsustainable debt bubble).

And again, also the 'anyone who talks about exploitation is a Marxist' nonsense.

People should read between the lines a little more on that one: Permabear is implicitly denying that anyone gets exploited by JobBridge program there.

Tony EH

the_syco wrote: »

I suppose I did stand on that turd :pac: I suppose I should have said that to blame the Financial Regulator, but looking at the FFail party, a lot of their self interests seemed to be linked to no financial regulation, thus what happened was only a matter of time.

Bingo.

With voices in the FS bleating on about regulation being "too tight" and a sympathetic ear being cupped by their cronies in FF, a breakdown was inevitable when the holes in the boat became too numerous.

Problem is, regulation is still too light.

iPringle

the_syco wrote: »

Again, due to complete lack of regulation. Look at Canada for an example of how regulation of the financial sector in the boom times helps make the bust time not so much doom and gloom.


Fixing the barn door after the horse has bolted won't change what has happened.

I'm saying what's been put in place to 'fix the barn door' doesn't address any of the core causes of the crisis.

We had many thousands of pages of financial regulation before the crisis and this has been added to. In relation to Canada, I believe that the regulatory regime was and is quite similar. Most countries regulatory regimes are based on the same Basel principles. The differences arise primarily due to (a) the interest rate environment; whether this is appropriate and (b) whether the government creates perverse incentives for investment in specific areas which creates an asset bubble. Increasing capital requirements from 8-12% isn't going to do much if the banks' collateral is overpriced 200%.

runawaybishop

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Actaully a valid reason is not defined but "this isn't relevant" isn't a valid reason.

This was the second example i was referring to

Nuts102 wrote: »

You obviously don't have much of a clue about it. People are now being forced into these internships. FAS recently started calling people in for interviews and asking what type of work they want. Then they send out your C.V. to these internships and you get warned if you don't attend the interview your payment will be cut.

I got offered a job that has no relevance to my finance degree that i want experience for. I got a letter this morning saying to let them know if i am still interested even though i was never interested FAS set the interview up. So what are my options i turn it down and i will get my money cut or i accept it and waste 9 months of my life getting experience in something that i have no interest in doing. It is fast turning into slave labour. I don't know what to do. To make it worse you have to work every saturday and some weeknights. So to rub it in my friends working 9-5 all week can relax get a nice wage and kick back and watch the football on a Saturday. I get nothing to go in on a Saturday and miss out playing football and watching football. The scheme is a joke.

Clearly being forced into it, clearly no relevance.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

KyussBishop

iPringle wrote: »

I'm saying what's been put in place to 'fix the barn door' doesn't address any of the core causes of the crisis.

We had many thousands of pages of financial regulation before the crisis and this has been added to. In relation to Canada, I believe that the regulatory regime was and is quite similar. Most countries regulatory regimes are based on the same Basel principles. The differences arise primarily due to (a) the interest rate environment; whether this is appropriate and (b) whether the government creates perverse incentives for investment in specific areas which creates an asset bubble. Increasing capital requirements from 8-12% isn't going to do much if the banks' collateral is overpriced 200%.

You're pointing out problems with inadequate regulation, so it doesn't make sense to then say, that there should be even less regulation - as that will make regulation even more inadequate.

If what you're saying, is that banks can not be adequately regulated, then that implies that there's nothing to stop them blowing up future bubbles - but there is: Remove the power of the banks to create money.

Not necessarily something I advocate, and it's a different topic so best not to get into it further - mainly just pointing out how the call to replace 'inadequate regulation' with 'even less regulation', doesn't make sense.

Iwasfrozen

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Yes because frankly working isn't everything. A person should have respectable wages and decent leisure time.

runawaybishop

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Thats a fairly selective bit you quoted.

no relevance to my finance degree that i want experience for.

^^ thats the important bit. Having to work on a Saturday is annoying but you;d do it for good experience.

Iwasfrozen

KyussBishop wrote: »

You're pointing out problems with inadequate regulation, so it doesn't make sense to then say, that there should be even less regulation - as that will make regulation even more inadequate.

If what you're saying, is that banks can not be adequately regulated, then that implies that there's nothing to stop them blowing up future bubbles - but there is: Remove the power of the banks to create money.

Not necessarily something I advocate, and it's a different topic so best not to get into it further - mainly just pointing out how the call to replace 'inadequate regulation' with 'even less regulation', doesn't make sense.

I thought you did advocate that?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

osarusan

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Did you manage to find that number yet?

Iwasfrozen

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Tell me about it...

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Tony EH

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Says the guy who works a few months a year!

:pac:

Fuckin hell

iPringle

KyussBishop wrote: »

You're pointing out problems with inadequate regulation, so it doesn't make sense to then say, that there should be even less regulation - as that will make regulation even more inadequate.

If what you're saying, is that banks can not be adequately regulated, then that implies that there's nothing to stop them blowing up future bubbles - but there is: Remove the power of the banks to create money.

Not necessarily something I advocate, and it's a different topic so best not to get into it further - mainly just pointing out how the call to replace 'inadequate regulation' with 'even less regulation', doesn't make sense.

I do happen to think that there should be extremely limited but tough regulation on banks.

Firstly, it is important to remove 'consumer protection' regulation as these provide some of the most perverse and damaging behavioural incentives. It is imperative that consumers have skin in the game.

The only effective regulations I would put in are as follows:
- Establish an untouchable seniority of creditors and limits at which those creditors are wiped out (including depositors);
- Having a trigger point where the banks are put into receivership / examinership so that they can still run effectively while creditors take deserved write downs; and
- Central Bank will have to be a source of liquidity to avoid bank runs and keep the bank operational. The CB would be the most prioritised creditor.

Regulators are incapable of managing risk in the financial sector as they are inherently reactive; while there is actually considerable talent in those organisations, they have no profit motive and so will always be chasing their tails. What we can do however, is impose responsibility within the system by ensuring that everyone has skin in the game and everyone is subject to losses at appropriate points.

KyussBishop

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I thought you did advocate that?

It's something I'm still forming my views on - I don't think it's strictly necessary, so long as they are properly regulated, and other policies I support regarding money creation, can co-incide with banks still having that power too.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.