The Jobbridge Scandal

Permabear

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Cause that €50 wouldn't be doesn't on getting to and from work or other related expenses.

Mrs Garth Brooks

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Most of that 50 euros would go on travel expenses for the week. Forget about saving it.

norrie rugger

I was offered an internship far enough away that fuel alone would cost more than 50 euro

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Mrs Garth Brooks

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

If it was that easy.

Many people also has no option but to use a bus.

Where I live, its 30 minutes on a bus from a rural area to town, where most of the work is going. Its €50 for a weekly bus ticket.

Just because you'll walk 15 miles to do a jobbridge, there's people who wont.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

KyussBishop

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

See guys, it's what I said earlier - the disingenuousness isn't merely a (lame) attempt at 'intelligent trolling', or a genuine belief in the argument being made (the opposite), it's contempt - for those whose interests he's arguing against (workers/interns/unemployed - using 'fallacies of composition' to claim he's arguing in their interests), and to other posters (who he knows are aware, that he doesn't even believe his own arguments):

KyussBishop wrote: »

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.

osarusan

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I hear she lives outside town, and has to cross over a bridge under which trolls live.

chopper6

HardLuckWoman wrote: »

Just because you'll walk 15 miles to do a jobbridge, there's people who wont.

Well if they wont they should be cut off...

KyussBishop

osarusan wrote: »

I hear she lives outside town, and has to cross over a bridge under which trolls live.

Heh - the thing is though, it's not even trolling - it's soapboxing; he directly tries to push the views, he himself does not believe (in a way which displays contempt for those whose interests he argues against, and for the people he argues with).

It would be far less discreditable, if it was merely just trolling - and it's well worth seeing the distinction, because it's not something that gets exposed often online.

osarusan

KyussBishop wrote: »

Heh - the thing is though, it's not even trolling - it's soapboxing; he directly tries to push the views, he himself does not believe (in a way which displays contempt for those whose interests he argues against, and for the people he argues with).

It would be far less discreditable, if it was merely just trolling - and it's well worth seeing the distinction, because it's not something that gets exposed often online.

Boredom mostly I'd say.

chopper6

chopper6 wrote: »

Well if they wont they should be cut off...

Hard to believe that not everyone would be enthusiastic to walk 15 minutes to their job that pays under minimum wage and involced stacking shelves or washing plates. Most people if presented with a good, worthwhile internship would have no problem walking 15 minutes a day but sadly most internships are just taking advantage of people.

Penny Tration

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

How am I contradicting myself? In my experience, they don't care what internship you do, once you do one. They make you apply for unsuitable ones. Showing, again, a lack of care.

Well, considering a vast chunk of the currently listed internships are geographically unsuitable already, the vast majority are unsuitable to him. If i were unemployed, there are one or two I could apply for.

Artful_Badger

green_screen wrote: »

How am I contradicting myself? In my experience, they don't care what internship you do, once you do one. They make you apply for unsuitable ones. Showing, again, a lack of care.

Well, considering a vast chunk of the currently listed internships are geographically unsuitable already, the vast majority are unsuitable to him. If i were unemployed, there are one or two I could apply for.

Thats because once it gets past the "Great idea" stage it becomes a numbers game. The government are only interested in being able to wheel out "X amount off the live register, well done us" in the media. And those working in the welfare office only want to tick the boxes they are supposed to tick.

Beyond that they couldnt give a shít whether people are being helped or not.

KyussBishop

osarusan wrote: »

Boredom mostly I'd say.

Not if you look at his background; he is an ardent advocate of Libertarian views, is (or was at some stage anyway) a member of Cato - a Libertarian think-tank/propaganda-institute funded by the Koch brothers (he has even personally met one of them I think) - and (recalling from past posts) either said or implied, that his views about Austrian economics, made him aware of the housing bubble crash that was coming, and that he made a significant amount of money through the property bubble that way (think about that: deliberately exploiting a property bubble he knew would go bust, where other people get saddled with the debts - about as unethical as you can get).

His posts in the thread, also imply he is either retired or semi-retired now (which the above likely contributed to), and he (in the disingenuousness of his arguments) is displaying contempt for workers/interns/unemployed and other posters - put all of the pieces together, and it looks a lot less like trolling/boredom - more like soapboxing, among more.

iPringle

KyussBishop wrote: »

(think about that: deliberately exploiting a property bubble he knew would go bust, where other people get saddled with the debts - about as unethical as you can get).

Ah now! It hardly matters what position you take in the market! If you invested in a positive way then your profits are also largely funded by the debt of others. It's not his fault that the government assumed the banks' debt. If he took a short position on Anglo for example, he benefited from a counter-party on the other side equally motivated by greed but whose research was inferior. I don't think making moral judgements about shorting or equivalent trading gets us anywhere.

KyussBishop

iPringle wrote: »

Ah now! It hardly matters what position you take in the market! If you invested in a positive way then your profits are also largely funded by the debt of others. It's not his fault that the government assumed the banks' debt. If he took a short position on Anglo for example, he benefited from a counter-party on the other side equally motivated by greed but whose research was inferior. I don't think making moral judgements about shorting or equivalent trading gets us anywhere.

Well, that's not comparing like with like though - but anyway, the point I'm making is that the arguments he is soapboxing with, happen to align precisely with his own personal interests, at the expense of the rest of societies interests (a society partly made up of people, workers/interns/unemployed, which he indirectly displays a lot of contempt for, in this thread - through consciously using various 'fallacies of composition', among more, to pretend he is actually arguing in their interests) - and he has past precedent of acting in exactly that manner, and of directly being a member of a propaganda organization (Cato) which puts out exactly that kind of soapboxing (arguments which they directly know are wrong/fallacious), in order to achieve political/financial benefit.

So, people might be generous, and say that the way he makes arguments he doesn't seem believe himself, is just trolling - but what I'm pointing out, is that there is very good reason to be a lot more cynical than that, to see that it is not actually trolling at all, but a very particular type of soapboxing (and a type of soapboxing that displays a very notable amount of contempt).

iPringle

KyussBishop wrote: »

Well, that's not comparing like with like though - but anyway, the point I'm making is that the arguments he is soapboxing with, happen to align precisely with his own personal interests, at the expense of the rest of societies interests (a society partly made up of people, workers/interns/unemployed, which he indirectly displays a lot of contempt for, in this thread - through consciously using various 'fallacies of composition', among more, to pretend he is actually arguing in their interests) - and he has past precedent of acting in exactly that manner, and of directly being a member of a propaganda organization (Cato) which puts out exactly that kind of soapboxing (arguments which they directly know are wrong/fallacious), in order to achieve political/financial benefit.

So, people might be generous, and say that the way he makes arguments he doesn't seem believe himself, is just trolling - but what I'm pointing out, is that there is very good reason to be a lot more cynical than that, to see that it is not actually trolling at all, but a very particular type of soapboxing (and a type of soapboxing that displays a very notable amount of contempt).

It's perfectly conceivable that he doesn't agree with your fallacy of composition argument. In a sense, it's something of a 'zero-sum-game' view of the world. Just because there are x amount of jobs available at this second doesn't mean there's a fixed amount of employment in the system generally. To pick one of your arguments, that an increase of skills via Job bridge only increases those persons' ability to get existing jobs. The counter-argument is that an increased skills base (let's take languages for an example) will have the effect of attracting investment from multi-national sales companies, thus increasing inward investment.

I'm also not wild about the idea that because he's in favour of job-bridge or perhaps a little coarse in expression when it comes to the attitude of some people, that he's somehow anti-poor or anti-unemployed. I've no idea what he thinks on these matters but I would be a pretty free market guy myself and I genuinely believe that removing existing social protections would ultimately be a good thing for the poor; that it is the only thing that will make people stop being poor; the only thing that will effectively break the inter-generational cycle of poverty which is created by government dependency. I don't think this should in anyway impugn my character.

KyussBishop

iPringle wrote: »

It's perfectly conceivable that he doesn't agree with your fallacy of composition argument. In a sense, it's something of a 'zero-sum-game' view of the world. Just because there are x amount of jobs available at this second doesn't mean there's a fixed amount of employment in the system generally. To pick one of your arguments, that an increase of skills via Job bridge only increases those persons' ability to get existing jobs. The counter-argument is that an increased skills base (let's take languages for an example) will have the effect of attracting investment from multi-national sales companies, thus increasing inward investment.

I'm also not wild about the idea that because he's in favour of job-bridge or perhaps a little coarse in expression when it comes to the attitude of some people, that he's somehow anti-poor or anti-unemployed. I've no idea what he thinks on these matters but I would be a pretty free market guy myself and I genuinely believe that removing existing social protections would ultimately be a good thing for the poor; that it is the only thing that will make people stop being poor; the only thing that will effectively break the inter-generational cycle of poverty which is created by government dependency. I don't think this should in anyway impugn my character.

I didn't argue that there is a fixed amount of employment though - just that there are not enough jobs for all of the unemployed; I actually specifically acknowledged that Job Bridge can help people develop skills in areas there is a skills shortage (thus allowing the creation of new jobs), but there are no stats to quantify this at all, and it is still fair to say that Job Bridge is not a solution to unemployment.

It may be that the increase in skills in a particular area would increase investment, but: Stats need to be presented to show this, and this hasn't been shown.
I actually agree with Job Bridge where it provides useful skills.

It's not him being pro-JobBridge which implies he is anti-poor or anti-unemployed, it is that he seems to be deliberately disingenuous in his arguments, to the point that posters can see he doesn't even believe many of his own arguments - and that what he promotes, in favour of helping workers/interns/unemployed (arguments he doesn't seem to really believe), often seems to utilize a variety of 'fallacies of composition', that (in the real world) flip those policies around into an attack on workers/interns/unemployed - and this just-so-happens to align with the interests of business/finance, and his own personal interests in that field (particularly the interests of the propaganda institute he is/was a member of, and their funders).


Your views there, on unemployment, don't impugn your character - you don't display the disingenuousness of PermaBear that would imply you don't believe your own arguments - and you actually counterargue instead of just asserting your views

What you argue in favour of though, will increase unemployment: The unemployed would not even receive welfare payments, and this would reduce their spending, which would reduce aggregate demand, and then reduce business profits, which would lead to layoffs - i.e. increased unemployment.

PopePalpatine

chopper6 wrote: »

Well if they wont they should be cut off...

If someone won't walk 15 miles to work for their Jobbridge, they deserve to be cut off?!

There's people who've obeyed "How To Train Up A Child" with more empathy than you.

Backstreet Moyes

PopePalpatine wrote: »

If someone won't walk 15 miles to work for their Jobbridge, they deserve to be cut off?!

There's people who've obeyed "How To Train Up A Child" with more empathy than you.

I would never wish somebody to lose a job but i come close with some people. Most in safe jobs have no idea what it is like when out of work these days. They would soon change their tune if they were unemployed and have a different opinion on the unemployed desperately looking for work.

Iwasfrozen

I would like the idea of job bridge in theory but Jesus Christ lads asking for experience to apply for a job bridge programme should be illegal!

Forest Demon

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I would like the idea of job bridge in theory but Jesus Christ lads asking for experience to apply for a job bridge programme should be illegal!

You are right. Its like putting a suggestion in a suggestion box looking for a suggestion box.

Ann Landers

SUPERVALU strikes again!

http://ie.indeed.com/viewjob?jk=981aff97fa60e2a7&q=junior&l=Dublin&tk=18lglj9su16r20d6&from=web

Delicatessen Assistant
Supervalu Rowlagh - Clondalkin, County Dublin
The intern will gain practical experience in a deli in a busy supermarket. They will learn how to interact with customers. They will learn and receive coaching in hygiene best practices. The intern will receive formal/informal training in the following ; HACCP compliance, customer service and food preparation. On completion the intern will have attained skills in customer interaction from a service point of view. The intern will be able to cook food safely and prepare salads in a compliant way.

Skills Requirements

The right candidate that will be given the internship will be a motivated person who is craving the opportunity to gain a real understanding of working in a deli in a busy supermarket. You will be polite, presentable and hard working. You will be honest and possess a genuine desire to work for the organisation.

Please Note:
This is an Internship. An allowance of €50 per week will be paid in addition to your current Social Welfare payment.See eligibility criteria above.

Department

Delicatessen

Mentor

The Organisation will assign a mentor to support you during the Internship.

Duration

9 Months

Number of Positions

1

Contract Type

Other

Days, Hours & Start Date

Days per week: To be Advised
Hours per day: Not specified
Hours per week: 39

Start Date: TBC

Experience Required:
No Experience Required

Education Requirements:
Junior Certificate -
or equivalent

Please send your Curriculum Vitae by Email to ; traininghanleyrowlagh@supervalu.ie and mark Deli Intern.

Holsten

Report it.

Send off a mail to Supervalu, would they be happy with this? Doubtful.

shruikan2553

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

If some can do it why cant the others? Why are there any 18-24 in the country?

chopper6

Holsten wrote: »

Report it.

Send off a mail to Supervalu, would they be happy with this? Doubtful.

Why not? Is it not them looking for the intern?

Iwasfrozen

chopper6 wrote: »

Why not? Is it not them looking for the intern?

No it's a franchise.

darkpagandeath

To those suggesting that it’s easy to work abroad. They are forgetting several important issue. Take Australia

1. Cost of Visa
2. Cost of Passport
3. Cost of Flight
4. Having secured a job already (You cant just move to Aus with no money or job)

And the biggest issue, You have to have thousands in savings even if you have a job to prove you can support yourself. Same with most other none EU countries you cannot simply travel to a country and say I'm looking for a job. Unless for example you have €50,000 in the bank to support yourself in the mean time while you look. Even then it’s pretty hard to move over without a job.

So please tell me how one does this at 18-24 on €100 a week. And on the company paying for you to move unless your working in say R&D they will not fund this as your not that important to the company.

Hello_MrFox

Can someone partake in Jobsbridge as part of the work experience for a degree?