The Jobbridge Scandal

Iwasfrozen

KyussBishop wrote: »

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.

I don't have much faith in regulation. No matter how water tight the government thinks the rules are the nature of the business means there is always a way to get around them.

Besides public support of regulation fluctuates according to the business eye. At exactly the same time regulation is most important (during the boom) is exactly the point when public support for it is at its lowest.

KyussBishop

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I don't have much faith in regulation. No matter how water tight the government thinks the rules are the nature of the business means there is always a way to get around them.

Besides public support of regulation fluctuates according to the business eye. At exactly the same time regulation is most important (during the boom) is exactly the point when public support for it is at its lowest.

It's not really a problem with getting around regulations, more a problem with the backlash against regulations starting around the late-70's in the US (and the exportation of such policies worldwide), which led to widespread removal of banking regulations.

Banking regulations that kept the industry in check, were in place for a good many decades in the US in the post-war years, before they started getting repealed and asset/property bubbles started rising again - notably with the Savings & Loans crisis in the US.

So it's not a 'war of attrition', with new regulations being defeated by clever banking institutions, it's regulatory capture and political influence undermining regulation, i.e. changing the 'rules of the game' in their favour.


Still though, I'm not necessarily opposed to removing the power to create money from banks - however: Unless somebody creates money, the money supply stays static and you may slip into deflation, and have trouble dealing with debt levels (as interest will still accrue on debt, making the Debt:Money ratio grow unsustainably, to 10x, 40x, 100x etc. over time, unless someone creates money) - so you'd need government to step in with creating money so you might not know the full extent of what you advocate, if you say banks should lose the power to create money

Tony EH

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The more you comment, the less credibility you show.

Your contribution to this thread has been spent **** on about how people should get out and work for peanuts, because it's "better than doing nothing" or that they contribute nothing to society, ad nauseum...

...and here's you with piss poor contribution of a few months a year.

You're a joke lad. How the can expect to be taken seriously.

iPringle

Tony EH wrote: »

The more you comment, the less credibility you show.

Your contribution to this thread has been spent **** on about how people should get out and work for peanuts, because it's "better than doing nothing" or that they contribute nothing to society, ad nauseum...

...and here's you with piss poor contribution of a few months a year.

You're a joke lad. How the can expect to be taken seriously.

Contribution to what? He's not asking anything in return for his lifestyle. He's saying that he's made enough money not to have to work full time and obviously that he doesn't have to draw the dole. That doesn't disentitle him from having an opinion does it?

Ann Landers

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Looking at your posting history, you've also recevied some nice little inheritances that have greatly helped your financial position. You certainly didn't study or work for them. Most people will not have this happen to them.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ressem

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I guess that you've gone through the Indicon report.
One of the recommendations is

Recommendation 3: Consideration should be given to adjusting the
duration of internships
.
Consideration should be given to providing an option to employers to extend the period of internship for up to 12-15 months, with the payment of the social welfare and any top-up for the additional time beyond nine
months being made by the employer and not the State.

with the justification that having a full years experience looks better on the applicant's CV.

If we're going to justify this on the basis of questionable psychology...
I believe that the employer should have to pay gradually increasing contributions beyond 3 months or so, including even token increases to the candidate, to contribute to the candidates sense of progress.

But when a scheme exists that puts people back into the workforce, and gets 61 percent of them back into paid employment five months after completion, all we hear is this quasi-Marxist whinging about capitalist exploitation.

The report claims a deadweight of 59.1%, the percentage of interns, adjusted for age and education that would have been employed anyways.

About 50% of host organisations responded that their primary motivation was in trying out potential employees.
In the case of finance internship posts this appeared to be the case with a high rate of conversion to employment.

There are quality host companies. A number had intern schemes in existence before jobsbridge.
There are abusers, but only 4 were ruled out of the scheme at the time of the report.

Did you notice the Indicon Table 4.18 case study which had 3 interns + the CEO as the entire workforce of the firm, carrying out localisation work?

I think we can all agree that Job Bridge is a waste of time.

The sooner they privatise the prison systems, outlaw poverty and unemployment, the sooner we can all make more money.

Obviously we can't be putting the elderly or those with disabilities in prison, so we can just put them down and then sell their bodies to zoos for meat or even medical institutions.

Then no one gets an extra fifty quid and the rest of us can make a fortune from the forced labour output in the prisons.

Actually, prison has a very negative connotation, might be best to call them Employment Centres.

Gongoozler

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

There are many many people unemployed who have worked hard and or studied for years.

You really come off as condescending.

shruikan2553

In regards to the hotels not being able to fill jobs earlier, they would be able to if they didnt require someone to have 2 years experiences before handing in a CV. Not even jobsbridge can help you there.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

tomwaterford

shruikan2553 wrote: »

In regards to the hotels not being able to fill jobs earlier, they would be able to if they didnt require someone to have 2 years experiences before handing in a CV. Not even jobsbridge can help you there.

agh yes....that's just an excuse so as they can go to government and say....''emm we cant get anyone...so agh we'll use jobbridge''

Call Me Jimmy

Offically they are not who JobBridge aims to target, but with my recent computer science degree and an interview edit: 'career advise meeting' pending next week, we will see how they handle me at least.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Ann Landers

shruikan2553 wrote: »

In regards to the hotels not being able to fill jobs earlier, they would be able to if they didnt require someone to have 2 years experiences before handing in a CV. Not even jobsbridge can help you there.

Yup, true. I've applied for a fair few hotel jobs the few months, I had loads of customer service and hospitality experience. Never heard from any of them.

Xenji

My sister worked in a local hotel about 2 years ago, the bar staff, receptionists and managers were all Irish, but the waitressing, housekeeping and kitchen staff were all Eastern European, except for a handful local students in on the weekends.

KyussBishop

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

And the fallacy of composition again:

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).

Permabear also knows full well, that posters have been complaining about interns being put into unskilled roles, where they don't have any useful skills to learn - he just likes to selectively ignore things, wherever it enables him to completely make-up arguments for trying to frame the debate.


Many people have twigged the disingenuous nature of his arguments thus far, and that since he doesn't even bother to hide that, that he doesn't even himself believe many of the arguments he is making - the pattern is this:
Advocate policies that harm the unemployed and labour/workers in general, and package them in an argument that feigns an intention to help the unemployed (often utilizing one of many 'fallacies of composition' to try and sell this).

Read between the lines though, and see that the actual results of the policies he advocates, help business directly (in the form of large subsidies from the state, and a general attack on workers wages and their working/living standards) and also indirectly helps finance (the industry he works with, so a natural conflict of interest), without providing any of the 'fallacy of composition'-based benefit to workers - it's basically just the neoliberal template of advocating slashing of wages and declining standards for workers, while promoting favourable treatment for business/finance.

Iwasfrozen

KyussBishop wrote: »

It's not really a problem with getting around regulations, more a problem with the backlash against regulations starting around the late-70's in the US (and the exportation of such policies worldwide), which led to widespread removal of banking regulations.

Banking regulations that kept the industry in check, were in place for a good many decades in the US in the post-war years, before they started getting repealed and asset/property bubbles started rising again - notably with the Savings & Loans crisis in the US.

So it's not a 'war of attrition', with new regulations being defeated by clever banking institutions, it's regulatory capture and political influence undermining regulation, i.e. changing the 'rules of the game' in their favour.


Still though, I'm not necessarily opposed to removing the power to create money from banks - however: Unless somebody creates money, the money supply stays static and you may slip into deflation, and have trouble dealing with debt levels (as interest will still accrue on debt, making the Debt:Money ratio grow unsustainably, to 10x, 40x, 100x etc. over time, unless someone creates money) - so you'd need government to step in with creating money so you might not know the full extent of what you advocate, if you say banks should lose the power to create money

The government can't be trusted to take enough money out of the economy. Not when it's in their interest not to.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

KyussBishop

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The government can't be trusted to take enough money out ofcthe economy. Not when it's in their interest not to.

There are two ways though: Through government or through banks, and if you remove the power to create money from banks (which also means money can't be removed from circulation as loans are repaid), then who will take the money out of the economy?

Iwasfrozen

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

It's an interesting subject.

Ha, Bitcoin? Hardly. That's one hell of a bubble destined to burst and I for one am glad I won't have any money invested in that game when it does.

KyussBishop wrote: »

There are two ways though: Through government or through banks, and if you remove the power to create money from banks (which also means money can't be removed from circulation as loans are repaid), then who will take the money out of the economy?

Banks it is then.

KyussBishop

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Heh - a Bitcoin enthusiast who thinks Bitcoin will usurp fiat money, accusing someone of supporting 'monetary quackery' - unironically.

I suppose the Bank of England are a bunch of quacks so, in supporting the view that banks create money.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Iwasfrozen

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

If that was true Bitcoin would be illegal.

chopper6

HardLuckWoman wrote: »

Menial jobbridge jobs are beneath me and for alot more people. Its pure slavery.

Who exactly do you think you are?

No job is beneath anybody when they havnt got one.

You're quite happy to let the state fund you while you wait for a job relative to your "studies" to drop into your lap?

In the meantime you're happy to look down on others who are working because you think the job is "slavery".


There seriously,honestly should be no dole for people like you...no concept of the real world at all.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

KyussBishop

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Except people still have to pay taxes, and governments ability to force people to pay taxes only in the currency the government issues, is what grounds demand for that currency and makes it dominant in an economy.

Bitcoin is only as good as the economic activity that does business with that currency - and governments are fast banning it.

Virtually nobody works to earn Bitcoin, so ironically, its success depends entirely upon its convertibility to/from fiat currency (which is what people first earn money in, in order to buy Bitcoins).


Electronic currency is certainly the future, but pretty unlikely to be in the form of decentralized cryptocurrencies - they're not much good for anything other than black market activity and rife speculation (which makes the currency so volatile that it becomes useless for everyday transactions and savings).

Iwasfrozen

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Russia is one country. If the government, any government thought for a second Bitcoin was a challenge to flat currency they would ban it in a heartbeat.

shruikan2553

chopper6 wrote: »

Who exactly do you think you are?

No job is beneath anybody when they havnt got one.

You're quite happy to let the state fund you while you wait for a job relative to your "studies" to drop into your lap?

In the meantime you're happy to look down on others who are working because you think the job is "slavery".


There seriously,honestly should be no dole for people like you...no concept of the real world at all.

You do know that the state funds people on jobsbridge too right?

SCOOP 64

the_syco wrote: »

You do realise this is why many people want the walfare rates slashed, yes?

I think its more begrudging really, if the dole was cut in half, but people working still paid the same taxes, this would be exceptable to the worker as long as the unemployed are seen to suffer more.