The Jobbridge Scandal

Xios

Deleted User wrote: »

Seems to be a lot of people who think that those without a job, especially the young should emigrate. Can I asks where these people think the money to emigrate will come from. If you're under 25 and getting €100 a week I can't see many being able to afford flights and have enough money to cover the cost if the days, maybe weeks it takes to find a job.

Of all my friends that actually Emigrated, they all had jobs here in Ireland. Shop keeper, electrician, car salesman, manager of a dominoes etc. Even then saving the money to emigrate was a massive challenge whilst still maintaining some semblence of a social life. Unless you have help from relatives, you're stuck in the mud.

KyussBishop

SeanSouth wrote: »

Ireland as a country has never been able to support all its population in employment. It wasn't possible in the 1840s. It wasn't possible in the 1940s or 1950s. It wasn't possible in the 1980s. It wasn't possible in the 1990s and its still not possible. Some of the younger contributors here seem to think that unemployment and emigration is something new and something to be angry about. Well get over it. Take responsibility for your own situation. Take responsibility for finding yourself a job or make a plan for emigration, as you wish. You need to see past this entitlement disease. Nobody owes you a living. Nobody is responsible for handing you a job on a plate. Young people sitting around on the dole, complaining about every initiative sent their way are absolute losers in my view.

If you don't have a job. If you're young and well educated, well, get off your ass do what millions of Irish people have done before you.
Go off and find a job abroad. Come back when you have gained some experience and skills and you'll be welcomed with open arms.
If you don't have any money, send a text to your rich Uncle Mick in Foxrock and I'm sure he'll fix you with a loan.

For Pete's sake stop all this moaning and groaning about Jobbridge and get on with it. If you don't like Jobbridge, try something else.

SeanSouth wrote: »

No You're wrong. More can go. A lot more can go. They just need to get off their butts.

Those who want to stay need to use their intelligence, resources and education to either find a job or create a job.

If more energy was used in realising that Jobbridge is a tool that can be used
to secure employment in organisations, everyone would be better off.

As other posters have pointed out. Interns have been hired by multinationals with positive outcomes in cases where those interns have applied themselves seriously in the workplace and came under notice for their performance.

Those losers who keep on mouthing on about slavery blah blah blah will still be sitting on the dole in ten years time. YOU WILL BE LEFT BEHIND. Take responsibility for yourself and concentrate on that

And again - which you'd have seen if you even just read back one page - multiple fallacies 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.
"In a worldwide economic downturn, people can get a job, they just need to emigrate"|In a worldwide downturn, similar to above, there are not enough jobs available, not everybody will be employed, no matter how many emigrate.
"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).

There are not enough jobs, for all of the unemployed - not here, not in the rest of the world; not while there is a worldwide economic downturn.

ivytwine

Deleted User wrote: »

Seems to be a lot of people who think that those without a job, especially the young should emigrate. Can I asks where these people think the money to emigrate will come from. If you're under 25 and getting €100 a week I can't see many being able to afford flights and have enough money to cover the cost if the days, maybe weeks it takes to find a job.

Uncle Mick in Foxrock of course :rolleyes:

ABajaninCork

ivytwine wrote: »

Uncle Mick in Foxrock of course :rolleyes:

Sh1t! Why didn't I think of Uncle Mick? Better give him a knock then...

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

topcatcbr

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Ah. F off.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Tony EH

SeanSouth wrote: »

You don't expect me to read through all the rubbish that written on this thread do you ? One or two of those super negative contributions is as much as I can stomach at one time, I'm afraid

Then you shouldn't expect anyone on the thread to even remotely take you seriously.

Penny Tration

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

See, that's the thing.

If jobbridge gave people experience in fields they have no experience in, or something relevant to their degree, or even gave someone who has never had a job some experience in ANYTHING, I'd approve of it. That would be a great system.

The problem I have is that the social welfare don't give a fcuk what internship you do, once you do one.

I mentioned earlier in this thread, my oh hasn't even been unemployed for more than 2 months. He is college educated, and also has 15 years of work experience, some in his field of study, lots in management roles. They tried to make him apply for office and shop internships. Those will be of absolutely no use to him, but they insisted on it.

When I was unemployed, same story. College educated, 10 years of work behind me, they wanted me to do internships with offices and shops - things I already have loads of experience in (ffs, I've been in retail management for four years, I know how to work in a shop!), rather than let me wait and find something that would actually be useful to me.

In theory it's great. In reality, not so much.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Penny Tration

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

That may be the goal (which I think is a great goal, btw), but let's face it - in a hell of a lot of cases, that's now how it's playing out. Which is a shame, because the intended objective for jb was great.

Absolutely, nobody can restrict what he applies for (or what I apply for, should I lose my job). But how much faith can one be expected to put into a system where the staff ask for a copy of your cv, and then tell you (not ask) to apply for completely unsuitable positions? If they can't even be arsed to source suitable internships (when they're hauling people in to make them apply), what does that say about the system itself?

As it stands, he's been looking at internships, to broaden his experience (while also applying for jobs). Each suitable one (by suitable, I mean something he is inexperienced in, or something related to his degree) requires 'experience.' That, afaik, goes completely against the ethos of jb.

There are quite simply too many flaws in the system, too many greedy employers just wanting free labour (I'm aware there are lots of genuine ones, too) and too many ads that go against the rules but are deemed acceptable anyway.

Valmont

Deleted User wrote: »

Seems to be a lot of people who think that those without a job, especially the young should emigrate. Can I asks where these people think the money to emigrate will come from. If you're under 25 and getting €100 a week I can't see many being able to afford flights and have enough money to cover the cost if the days, maybe weeks it takes to find a job.

It would make you wonder how all those Irish emigrated during the famine and they didn't have social welfare payments back then.

cloudatlas

120 Navy and Army jobs to go ouch.
www.thejournal.ie/defence-forces-compulsory-redundancies-1402651-Apr2014/

Tony EH

Valmont wrote: »

It would make you wonder how all those Irish emigrated during the famine and they didn't have social welfare payments back then.

Is it moron day on boards today?

fkn ell. :rolleyes:

Artful_Badger

Valmont wrote: »

It would make you wonder how all those Irish emigrated during the famine and they didn't have social welfare payments back then.

People will put up with a lot when its literally a choice between life and death. Boarding a coffin ship and landing in a foreign country with nothing but the clothes on your back isn't really an option for the current unemployed is it ?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ABajaninCork

MOST of the internships on offer will be unsuitable for geographical, physical, or incompatibility reasons...

Permabear

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

How many of that 35,000 were taking a year off college, travelling around on mom and dads expense, etc. getting the money together to start again is hard, I've one brother who emigrated to the Uas a few years back and it wasn't a case of just hopping on a plan. It took months of saving and planning b

Valmont wrote: »

It would make you wonder how all those Irish emigrated during the famine and they didn't have social welfare payments back then.

That's relevant to what were discussing. I wonder how many of those who got on boats to the US ended up spending years working off their debt.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Yet again you don't bother to read what's written there. I never even suggested that all 35,000 were college students.

I know that bout of my class of 32 or so 3 people took a year out to travel. If that occurre across all courses then the figure would be rather high and account for some of the 35,000.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ivytwine

Valmont wrote: »

It would make you wonder how all those Irish emigrated during the famine and they didn't have social welfare payments back then.

Do you know something, Wikipedia is a great ould resource betimes.

Families did not migrate en masse but younger members of families did. So much so that emigration almost became a rite of passage, as evidenced by the data that show that, unlike similar emigration throughout world history, women emigrated just as often, just as early, and in the same numbers as men. The emigrant started a new life in a new land, sent remittances "[reaching] £1,404,000 by 1851"[95] back to his/her family in Ireland which, in turn, allowed another member of the family to emigrate.

So the entire family saved to send Patsy, the youngest son, to Amerikay. Patsy would send the fare back to Bridie. And so on.

If you can't see the difference between that and today, God help us all. Take Oz- strict visa laws, a couple of grand for the airfare, getting a job before you go (because you'd be mad to go without one). Hardly the same as going to America (if you got there- mortality was 30% on some ships) and hanging around Ellis Island til someone gave you a job.

Also, as you are such a fan of exporting the Irish abroad, it may interest you to note that there are more people hoping to emigrate than foreign countries are willing to take.

Artful_Badger

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

And your argument seems to be that since people are emigrating then everyone should be able to afford to emigrate.

My neighbour emigrated. He sold his car, borrowed money from the family and headed off to Australia. I dont have a car, my family has no money to lend me and I'm pretty sure there are others in my situation. Tell me then where I and others like me get the money to emigrate seeing as its so affordable and everyone should be able to do it ?

ivytwine

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

It is if you're hoping to go to the golden lands of Australia and Canada it is. I do know people who did au-pairing, waitressing etc in France, Germany etc. I'd do that if I was on the dole now but not everyone is able to do that.

Also Permabear, not everyone has a Mummy and Daddy willing or able to bankroll them through life.

Permabear

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I was merely say that not all those who emigrate do so for work. Simple as, not denying that people leave to find a better life. You have a habit of quoting figures and then refusing to consider that not every one of them is the same.

One of my brothers is travelling around Asia on a 3 month back packing trip atm. I take it that you'd consider him to have emigrated rather than on a holiday.

I don't think I know many 15-18 year olds who are emigrating. If anything I'd imagine that the number is tiny.

My problem with your argument is that you seem to think emigrating is simple and convenient. It's not, it's expensive and sadly most people between 18 and 24 who are on the dile will find it difficult. Saving up enough to emigrate while you get just €100 a week means that many if those who want to leave can't. Sure if you're living at home with no bills it can be done but most people forced to move home contribute to the running of the house

Just because so many leave does not mean that everyone can. Many of those who emigrate leave jobs behind. How many qualified professionals are leaving on a weekly basis. Their emigration is a lot easier than some 23 year old lad on the dole who gets €100 a week a d out of it needs to pay tent, but food and pay bills. Not going to be a whole lot left over to save is there

KyussBishop

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Again, 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.
"In a worldwide economic downturn, people can get a job, they just need to emigrate"|In a worldwide downturn, similar to above, there are not enough jobs available, not everybody will be employed, no matter how many emigrate.
"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).

He doesn't need to build an argument, as to why emigration is not a solution to unemployment, because that argument has already been debunked dozens of times thus far.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

KyussBishop

Artful_Badger wrote: »

People will put up with a lot when its literally a choice between life and death. Boarding a coffin ship and landing in a foreign country with nothing but the clothes on your back isn't really an option for the current unemployed is it ?

To be honest, I wouldn't even take his argument seriously, as I doubt he even believes it himself - it's not even an attempt at 'intelligent trolling' either; between him and Permabear, the obvious disingenuousness (so obvious, it's like other posters are meant to know, that the two don't even believe many of their own arguments - nearly like the arguments are deliberately designed to insult other posters intelligence - yet he will still try to push it as a serious argument), it's more like contempt than trolling.

It's not just different points of view, these posters really don't give a toss about actually debating, even when they know what they're posting is fallacious/wrong - just about pushing a particular point of view regardless of logic/evidence that counters that view, and displaying haughty contempt towards:
1: Their ideological targets, those whose lot in society they want to worsen, while using disingenuous 'fallacies of composition' to claim they want to help them (workers/interns/unemployed).
2: Posters on the forum (through reusing the same disingenuous/discredited arguments, that even they don't seem to believe, again and again and not even hiding it - simply not caring if people see it).
3: In particular, people who get in the way of their soapboxing.


A very successful way to counter them, is to first:
1: Respond to their arguments and break down all of the fallacies in meticulous detail.
2: Spot the repeating patterns/fallacies in their arguments (usually, it involves them 100% ignoring past arguments, and bringing up the same discredited arguments), and make a point of highlighting these as prominently as possible.
3: When these same patterns/fallacies have been repeated enough, to make it clear that they are 100% aware of the faults in their arguments, and how dishonest/disingenuous this is - highlight this as clearly and in as much detail as you can to other posters.

By doing this, you hand them all the rope they need to hang themselves, because by repeating the same patterns/fallacies that all other posters are now aware of, they just discredit themselves and expose their own contempt of other posters.

ivytwine

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

You're mad to blame Irish for all our problems. As I said earlier in the thread, if Irish was taught properly it would help us learn other languages. The long-debunked British Empire way of teaching languages (debunked back in WWII as I learned in TEFL) is the reason why we have issues learning French and German.

The people I know went over with hardly any French or German. That's not for everyone- it takes a strong character to do something like that.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.