ECHR: Poor white boys get "a worse start in life".

ancapailldorcha

I thought about posting this in the sexism or the men's rights thread but I think that it might be thread worthy in and of itself. A report from the European Human Rights Commission has found that:

BBC Newsbeat wrote:

If you're white, male and poor enough to qualify for a free meal at school then you face the toughest challenge when starting out in life.

That's what the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has said in "the most comprehensive review ever carried out on progress towards greater equality in Britain".

The suggestion is because white male poor pupils do worse at school their chances of getting good jobs is reduced.

The EHRC, an organisation set up to get rid of discrimination, defines anyone who qualifies for a free school meal as poor.

The world is changing and it seems like these young boys are simply being left behind. Other demographics have activists fighting their behalf and politics as a whole is fairly unrepresentative of the population it is meant to serve. Regarding the white working class as a whole, Guardian columnist Owen Jones has written a modern but heavily flawed primer on the subject. Here is a link to the ECHR website.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/34667100/poor-white-boys-get-a-worse-start-in-life-says-equality-report

Qualitymark

Yes; lack of apprenticeships, degrading of traditional skills, countries that mandate taking the cheapest tender (ie from Bulgaria) for government contracts rather than using local firms by preference as France does - the semi-skilled and skilled work for young lads is disappearing.

RDM_83 again

Going to frame this in terms of the UK but they are caught in the awkward position where they are not represented by any of the political wings, the center Right (conservatives) doesn't want anything to do with them as they do not represent their traditional voter base.
The New Left doesn't want anything to do with them because of they aren't an upworthy group, the New Old Left represented by Corybin appears not to want to represent them as they are positive towards policies such as migration which will have a negative effect on them(yes provably statistically).

More subtly its ok to be openly negative towards them as a group in a way that you can't normally, its ok for me to say in polite company that I would avoid a group of young white youths its not ok for me to say that about a group of black youths (this is in a London context in Dublin I wouldn't do this as there isn't the same issue with street crime and minorities probably due to better integration/ being 1st generation communities/lack of the same drugs problem within those communities)

I know its always trotted out by the "nasties" but the response to the child sex abuse scandals in the former industrial towns in the England show how as a demographic (not just males) the white working class in England isn't considered a group its worth getting worked up over. Yes there was an eventual response (after years of it being highlighted including by MP's) but it was on a equivalent scale to what happened in Ireland decades ago and became a major national issue.

ancapailldorcha

However, as you've said this is a demographic without any sort of lobbying group. The three main parties in the UK carried on as usual while UKIP gained a lot of serious support. Unsurprisingly, nobody bothered standing up for poor white males a lot of whom voted for UKIP. The other alternative, the Greens obsessed about winning a gender quota war and generally epitomised the political beliefs of the Guardian.

I'd prefer to leave immigration aside as there are multiple topics on this running in the various Politics forums here and it will only derail the thread.

The point I alluded to and you've outright mentioned is that this is a demographic that has been completely neglected for decades and it's a pattern which sadly looks set to continue as Corbyn (who I wanted to become Labour leaer) continues to capitulate to the radical leftist elements of his party.

Qualitymark

This is the demographic that made the Citizen Army…

silverharp

one of the fundamental problems is that a boy in this situation is probably being raised by a single mother with little social capital who is immune to social criticism. the only pragmatic thing I could think off is that these kids leave traditional education and enter the workforce part time when they are 13 or 14 so that they get used to having a bit of structure in their lives and learn some responsibility. This could be combined with a mixture of mentoring and education in some kind of training centre.
tweaking welfare and giving additional educational supports etc. doesnt do much if the home environment is crap.

Qualitymark

Oh, that's right, blame the mammy.

silverharp

Qualitymark wrote: »

Oh, that's right, blame the mammy.

this is an abstract from a US report , do you see anything fundamentally wrong with its conclusions?

https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=167327

The Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency reports that the most reliable indicator of violent crime in a community is the proportion of fatherless families. Fathers typically offer economic stability, a role model for boys, greater household security, and reduced stress for mothers. This is especially true for families with adolescent boys, the most crime-prone cohort. Children from single-parent families are more prone than children from two-parent families to use drugs, be gang members, be expelled from school, be committed to reform institutions, and become juvenile murderers. Single parenthood inevitably reduces the amount of time a child has in interaction with someone who is attentive to the child's needs, including the provision of moral guidance and discipline. According to a 1993 Metropolitan Life Survey, "Violence in America's Public Schools," 71 percent of teachers and 90 percent of law enforcement officials state that the lack of parental supervision at home is a major factor that contributes to the violence in schools. Sixty-one percent of elementary students and 76 percent of secondary children agree with this assessment.

efb

silverharp wrote: »

this is an abstract from a US report , do you see anything fundamentally wrong with its conclusions?

https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=167327

Is it causation or correlation???

Poor Single parent family structures fare barely. Affluent single parent families don't have the same disparity.

Pawwed Rig

This is the demographic that was traditionally (in a UK context) disposed off as canon fodder in an argument between royal cousins or in an Irish context worked on a small holding of land tring to scrape a living or was sent for adoption for being 'illegitimate'. Not surprising then that they have fallen through the cracks in modern times.

silverharp

efb wrote: »

Is it causation or correlation???

Poor Single parent family structures fare barely. Affluent single parent families don't have the same disparity.

Indeed which is why I said with "little social capital" .

OldRio

'probably being raised by a single mother'

Some for sure but 'probably' is a wee bit of a guess. As for an American study?
The UK and the USA and us are different cultures.

Qualitymark

silverharp wrote: »

this is an abstract from a US report , do you see anything fundamentally wrong with its conclusions?

https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=167327

I see it as opinion rather than conclusions.

The given wisdom among social workers has generally been that the most stabilising factor for boys is grandmothers living nearby and involved in their upbringing. However, if you want to blame uninvolved and irresponsible fathers, that's fine by me.

silverharp

Qualitymark wrote: »

I see it as opinion rather than conclusions.

The given wisdom among social workers has generally been that the most stabilising factor for boys is grandmothers living nearby and involved in their upbringing. However, if you want to blame uninvolved and irresponsible fathers, that's fine by me.

possibly, the more family structure the better. The point is at this stage can the cycle be broken? in less well to do areas for fathers to be good fathers they need to have a trade or career. And for mothers to be good mothers they need to find good fathers and be able to tell them apart from the irresponsible types.

Henry9

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

However, as you've said this is a demographic without any sort of lobbying group. The three main parties in the UK carried on as usual while UKIP gained a lot of serious support. Unsurprisingly, nobody bothered standing up for poor white males a lot of whom voted for UKIP.

As if to prove the point, you only have to raise some potential contributors and there will be those who pick up the cudgels, accusing you of 'demonizing' single mothers.

Edmund Walsh in Limerick did some research a few years ago, apparently growing up on sink estates where nobody works and your single mother is on benefits is not conducive to positive life outcomes.
What was the response at the time? 'Stigmatizing single mothers..... blah blah blah...'

It's hardly surprising they are falling through the cracks. The education system has been rejigged to be stacked against them. There's a constant narrative in the media that men are the root of all evil and that girls are 'better than boys' at everything.
The old industries where you could leave school and make a living are nearly all gone.
The lower level service jobs pay terrible money, are completely insecure, and there's a long line of immigrants willing to do them at a cheaper rate in order to get their foot on the ladder.

Any young man without a proper education is fcuked in my opinion.

Qualitymark

silverharp wrote: »

possibly, the more family structure the better. The point is at this stage can the cycle be broken? in less well to do areas for fathers to be good fathers they need to have a trade or career. And for mothers to be good mothers they need to find good fathers and be able to tell them apart from the irresponsible types.

First point true.

Second point, well, it is a universally recognised truth that women will link up with a man in relation to his potential as a provider more than any other factor, when they're looking for a long-term mate.

However, I'm inclined to think that this one study isn't necessarily the fount of all wisdom on the subject.

silverharp

Qualitymark wrote: »

First point true.

Second point, well, it is a universally recognised truth that women will link up with a man in relation to his potential as a provider more than any other factor, when they're looking for a long-term mate.

However, I'm inclined to think that this one study isn't necessarily the fount of all wisdom on the subject.

I wouldnt have thought there is anything controversial in saying there is a link between chaotic family structures and future outcomes of kids? Whatever way you want to analyse it a teenage mother having kids is a disaster for everyone.
In the context of "poor white boys" what is the contrast? lets say its a "poor muslim boy" relatively speaking the muslim boy grows up with a good family structure and Im guessing some expectation that they make something of themselves before they get married
The poor white mother to be has a problem as her total pool of potential partners are all in the same boat and she cant tell the good ones from the ones that will likely not stick around etc. In the UK 3 out of 100 births are teenage ones, this is going to be the core problem group going forward.
So one can be a fatalist and write off these groups or at least see if the cycle can be broken. the rational approach is to educate everyone of course so that a 16 year old girl doesnt see pregnancy as a career move and the State as their "marriage" partner. But also to not neglect boys in particular as by turning them into useful individuals it gives their female peers ways of selecting suitable mates.

Qualitymark

silverharp wrote: »

I wouldnt have thought there is anything controversial in saying there is a link between chaotic family structures and future outcomes of kids? Whatever way you want to analyse it a teenage mother having kids is a disaster for everyone.

Most single mothers are not teenage mothers. Most single mothers have un-chaotic family lives and are kind, supportive and responsible parents.

Certainly there is a link with chaotic family structure and the outcome of kids' lives. What are you doing about it?

tritium

But but, the patriarchy. ...........


Hardly surprising that a group that has well known social problems but receives nothing but official derision as a 'problem' fare poorly. This is a group offered few of the social safety nets available to other demographics because it wouldn't play with the overarching social message being pumped out that white men are privliged.

Even on boards I've heard issues that affect them dismissed because 'they can get an apprenticeship' or 'their fault for being laddish' While we're busy telling young girls they're being held back from STEM and politics we're telling this demographic they're scum who'll never amount to anything, who should be content to learn a basic trade and muddle along without ambition.

Pointing to their social structure and how lack of a father's influence may compound the problem is nice but not very helpful given the range of other social issues this demographic face. Its not as simple as not having a fathers influence when so many other adverse factors are associated with single parent families, including poverty, social exclusion and lack of educational opportunity. Ultimately its an aspect they can't influence and indeed are blameless for. You wouldn't in this day and age get away with telling any other group that the circumstances of their birth justified the biases they faced but somehow young men are fair game

Not so different to the treating like cannon fodder in the past really.....

Lemming

tritium wrote: »

Its not as simple as not having a fathers influence when so many other adverse factors are associated with single parent families, including poverty, social exclusion and lack of educational opportunity. Ultimately its an aspect they can't influence and indeed are blameless for. You wouldn't in this day and age get away with telling any other group that the circumstances of their birth justified the biases they faced but somehow young men are fair game

Not so different to the treating like cannon fodder in the past really.....

I'm reminded of a comment that Andy McNab wrote in his book reflecting on his upbringing, joining the British Army and his eventual acceptance into the SAS. In it, he talks about first enlisting and having such poor academic skills that he - among with a classful of others - were taught the required standard of basic writing, maths, etc. that the army expected of them.

On his first day, the instructor simply said to them that "Out there, they say you can't read or write. I say you simply never learned to read or write." Subtle point, but well made regards how society views so many young folk from disadvantaged backgrounds and simply writes them off without ever having given them a chance.

tritium

Lemming wrote: »

I'm reminded of a comment that Andy McNab wrote in his book reflecting on his upbringing, joining the British Army and his eventual acceptance into the SAS. In it, he talks about first enlisting and having such poor academic skills that he - among with a classful of others - were taught the required standard of basic writing, maths, etc. that the army expected of them.

On his first day, the instructor simply said to them that "Out there, they say you can't read or write. I say you simply never learned to read or write." Subtle point, but well made regards how society views so many young folk from disadvantaged backgrounds and simply writes them off without ever having given them a chance.

As an interesting side point, it illustrates how for many young men from poor backgrounds joining the armed forces was the only way to get ahead. Its also one of the reasons why there's so little interest in addressing the issue, since the current crucible of first world standards of social justice also happens to need a ready supply of exactly this resource. Which in no way excuses the lack of interest from groups who claim to give a damn about addressing inequality etc

Cannon fodder indeed......

Sleepy

I've posted about this at length before but, realistically, what can any government do to help provide meaningful employment to the poorly skilled in a global world?

Labour intensive manufacturing and agriculture are consigned to our history books in the developed world so unless you have the motivation and ability to obtain a degree, you haven't a chance in the modern workplace. Even with a degree, many young men and women find it difficult to get a job that can sustain them. Add a family into the mix and it becomes extremely difficult to pay your way in life without at least one parent having a job that earns substantially more than the average industrial wage.

In our global economy we can't compete with the developing world in manufacturing and any attempts to impose higher minimum wages just encourage businesses to automate further or outsource the work to those developing nations where labour is cheap and health and safety regulations are few. McDonalds new touch-screen order taking machines being a good example of the former.

The laws of supply and demand will soon erode the earning power of tradesmen as apprenticeships are pretty much the only career option for so many of our young men at the moment.

Sleepy

Sleepy wrote: »

I've posted about this at length before but, realistically, what can any government do to help provide meaningful employment to the poorly skilled in a global world?

Labour intensive manufacturing and agriculture are consigned to our history books in the developed world so unless you have the motivation and ability to obtain a degree, you haven't a chance in the modern workplace. Even with a degree, many young men and women find it difficult to get a job that can sustain them. Add a family into the mix and it becomes extremely difficult to pay your way in life without at least one parent having a job that earns substantially more than the average industrial wage.

In our global economy we can't compete with the developing world in manufacturing and any attempts to impose higher minimum wages just encourage businesses to automate further or outsource the work to those developing nations where labour is cheap and health and safety regulations are few. McDonalds new touch-screen order taking machines being a good example of the former.

The laws of supply and demand will soon erode the earning power of tradesmen as apprenticeships are pretty much the only career option for so many of our young men at the moment.

Basic minimum income ideas seem to finally be gaining ground and they would allow for smaller businesses on a wider scale. That'll include self-employed handymen, men with ven, labourers, all that kind of stuff.

Qualitymark

We've gone screwy about minding "the taxpayer" and "the shareholders" rather than minding each other. In France, government contracts virtually never go outside the country. In Ireland, the printing industry was ruined by government sending work to cheap printers in Eastern Europe - throwing skilled men on the dole - and the whole inner-cities textile industry was priced out years ago by vulture chain stores. And the tax and welfare regime is scarcely friendly to "the self-employed" - ie plumbers, carpenters, electricians, handymen, mechanics, seamstresses…

If we are to have a strong and self-reliant working class we need to give them work and honour.

Sleepy

Buttonftw - While I think it's an improvement over our current social welfare system, I'm still not fond of the idea of relatively large sections of society living off of the efforts of others.

I don't have the answer myself. The old ideals of having people simply working shorter hours to ensure there's work for everyone I can't see working unless it's rigidly enforced and falls down on the fact that a large section of our society can't be educated to the level required to work within the labour intensive industries we are able to compete in at a global level that generate enough value to maintain our living standards.

While one could argue that a tax base more focused on unearned wealth (i.e. inheritance taxes, capital gains etc.) could help reduce the disincentive to work that a societal model based off of redistribution of wealth encourages, such arguments unsurprisingly meet very strong opposition from very powerful sections of society.

Pawwed Rig

I think it needs to get to a point that those on benefits support the people working. For example you rarely see independent windows cleaners/gardeners about anymore. I would love not to have to do mine. Even getting a cleaner is nearly impossible yet 30-40% of my wages every week goes to those that can't find work?
I would be an advocate for work for benefits.

Sleepy

Sleepy wrote: »

Buttonftw - While I think it's an improvement over our current social welfare system, I'm still not fond of the idea of relatively large sections of society living off of the efforts of others.

I don't have the answer myself. The old ideals of having people simply working shorter hours to ensure there's work for everyone I can't see working unless it's rigidly enforced and falls down on the fact that a large section of our society can't be educated to the level required to work within the labour intensive industries we are able to compete in at a global level that generate enough value to maintain our living standards.

While one could argue that a tax base more focused on unearned wealth (i.e. inheritance taxes, capital gains etc.) could help reduce the disincentive to work that a societal model based off of redistribution of wealth encourages, such arguments unsurprisingly meet very strong opposition from very powerful sections of society.

Meh, we have more than enough to go around, including work if we want. The idea of "competing" with low-wage economies is a fabrication in many if not most cases. However assuming it's valid, high-paid jobs will remain high-paid jobs with people working til they lose their hair for a chance at them. Low-paid jobs providing tangible goods and services locally (woo) will be more viable than they currently are.

Pawwed Rig

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

I think it needs to get to a point that those on benefits support the people working. For example you rarely see independent windows cleaners/gardeners about anymore. I would love not to have to do mine. Even getting a cleaner is nearly impossible yet 30-40% of my wages every week goes to those that can't find work?
I would be an advocate for work for benefits.

Basic minimum income would address that. Seasonal work would also be more viable, yay tourism etc.
I'd love to know where you're getting 30-40% from btw.

Pawwed Rig

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I'd love to know where you're getting 30-40% from btw.

It is the effective tax rate in Ireland for those of us on modest income.

Sleepy

Deleted User wrote: »

Meh, we have more than enough to go around, including work if we want. The idea of "competing" with low-wage economies is a fabrication in many if not most cases. However assuming it's valid, high-paid jobs will remain high-paid jobs with people working til they lose their hair for a chance at them. Low-paid jobs providing tangible goods and services locally (woo) will be more viable than they currently are.

When we have an unemployment rate of just under 10% (with more than have of it long-term) that's a 7 year low, I think you couldn't be more wrong about us having enough work to go around, never mind work that can be done by those without modern skillsets.

Low-paid jobs might provide goods and services locally but by their very nature, they're low-paid and we're not exactly a low-cost country to live in. And realistically, how many window cleaners, hairdressers, dog-walkers etc. can those currently working in decent employment support?

Pawwed Rig

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

It is the effective tax rate in Ireland for those of us on modest income.

And government spending only goes on dole payments?

Sleepy wrote: »

When we have an unemployment rate of just under 10% (with more than have of it long-term) that's a 7 year low, I think you couldn't be more wrong about us having enough work to go around, never mind work that can be done by those without modern skillsets.

Low-paid jobs might provide goods and services locally but by their very nature, they're low-paid and we're not exactly a low-cost country to live in. And realistically, how many window cleaners, hairdressers, dog-walkers etc. can those currently working in decent employment support?

Did you just ignore the basic minimum income bit? There's no panacea but it'd be better than the trap many are stuck in now.

KomradeBishop

Deleted User wrote: »

Basic minimum income ideas seem to finally be gaining ground and they would allow for smaller businesses on a wider scale. That'll include self-employed handymen, men with ven, labourers, all that kind of stuff.

Hmm...interesting to see economic ideas becoming central to resolving social inequality in a thread like this, good that people are finally seeing a lack of a job (and thus liveable income), as itself one of the most massive social injustices there is.

The idea of a Basic Income is actually kind of a trap though: All that has to be done, to transform it into an indirect subsidy to businesses, is for businesses to just cut wages after the introduction of the Basic Income.

It's odd the way people can get behind the idea of giving people free money, but can't get behind the idea of actually paying them to do work, by making work for them with a government Job Guarantee program - there's loads that can be done with 'public works' type projects.

I can't understand why the Job Guarantee is so controversial, but people seem much more ready to accept the Basic Income idea.

Pawwed Rig

The main reason I would oppose something like this is that it would not work the way the article outlines. It would end up with the workers becoming unionised and getting included as state workers in wage agreements thereby again bloating the public service.

KomradeBishop

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

The main reason I would oppose something like this is that it would not work the way the article outlines. It would end up with the workers becoming unionised and getting included as state workers in wage agreements thereby again bloating the public service.

That's inherently the opposite of what the program is though - it's explicitly a temporary employment program - the program is also explicitly set so that it only pays the minimum wage.

I've never come across that criticism of it before really. Really odd the way people support free money for people - even though that is a trap which will become a massive business subsidy, by eroding wages - but not actual jobs.

Pawwed Rig

Well there is no programme and how it works in theory and how it would be implemented in an Irish context would be 2 different animals. In theory it sounds fine but I can think of 20 reasons why it wouldn't work and not too many how it would.

Fukuyama

We could go on for pages about Universal Basic Income. In theory it's a good idea. The same way Social Welfare is a good idea. No man/woman left behind, equal playing field etc...

But look what social welfare has done to Ireland and the UK over the past 50 years. Huge segments of the population have emerged that demand society does something for them first, before they'll do anything for it. And please, I'm not bashing people on the dole. We all know who I'm talking about and the kind of attitudes they have.

I used to be quite left wing on these issues. But a few years out of college and I've swung right. I'm still in favour of a "hand up" methodology. But not hand OUTS, which is what a basic income scheme would be perceived as.

This White/Black/Equality nonsense is reaching critical mass, I think. It's at a point where everyone is starting to examine the cause and effect of generation issues and realising they're not to blame.

To give an (anecdotal) story:

I worked in an offlicence in Summerhill 5/6 years ago. Childrens allowance day was mental. We couldn't get the cash from the till to the safe quick enough. In the days leading up to it we'd often have people in asking for drink and they'd pay us "when their money comes in" on Thursday etc...

They view it as their money. Like a wage. An earned wage. And they are entitled to it. However, their mindset is that they own that money, it's theirs and it's an unquestionable right which cannot be judged or scrutinized by anyone even the idiot worker who sees PAYE, PRSI and PAYE demolish his or her wages every month.

I cant debate the philosophical difference between earned money and received money, and when it becomes the latter or the former. I just know that I can tell you where every cent I have came from. There's something in THAT which makes me respect my money and my work ethic, even if I do have sod all.

KomradeBishop

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Well there is no programme and how it works in theory and how it would be implemented in an Irish context would be 2 different animals. In theory it sounds fine but I can think of 20 reasons why it wouldn't work and not too many how it would.

Do the 20 reasons all include things that aren't actually possible, with the program implemented as per the article? Such as the things you listed in the previous post?

People throw out all sorts of things to dismiss the idea, when it's already covered in the article - and then when that happens, people usually fall into acting perpetually unconvinced - i.e. the things they state as a problem, which are impossible with the way the program is implemented, they still don't let go of, and keep presenting as a problem.


It's one of those unfortunate topics, that just seems to create a mental block for so many people - a bit like when pre-2014, I would state how banks actually create money from nothing when they make loans (it doesn't come from savings):
Virtually nobody accepted that, and no explanation (no matter how well put) could change peoples view - then the Bank of England released their report backing it, and now nobody can contest it and it's accepted.

I mean, the article on the Job Guarantee even lists existing programs which already operate in a very similar fashion, but it still gets presented like it's not been tried in any form - it even addresses nearly all the concerns people can bring up, but those concerns keep popping back up in whack-a-mole fashion (you rebut all of the concerns, and then they just keep getting repeated in different order again and again).

It's really hard to crack past that kind of mental block.

KomradeBishop

Fukuyama wrote: »

We could go on for pages about Universal Basic Income. In theory it's a good idea. The same way Social Welfare is a good idea. No man/woman left behind, equal playing field etc...

But look what social welfare has done to Ireland and the UK over the past 50 years. Huge segments of the population have emerged that demand society does something for them first, before they'll do anything for it. And please, I'm not bashing people on the dole. We all know who I'm talking about and the kind of attitudes they have.

I used to be quite left wing on these issues. But a few years out of college and I've swung right. I'm still in favour of a "hand up" methodology. But not hand OUTS, which is what a basic income scheme would be perceived as.
...

See, the Job Guarantee should be very appealing to people with this kind of a view about welfare, as it means that everyone capable of work, can have a job made available for them - so there would be no such thing anymore, as handouts, everyone would work for their money.

You'd still have some welfare schemes for those who can't fit into the Job Guarantee program, but just imagine how much easier it will be to identify and punish actual scroungers, once they have no excuse left for not having a job.

Bizarrely though, I have found that a large number of the posters with the anti-welfare "my money going to fund scroungers" view, actually seem to support the Basic Income idea for some reason - despite it being subject to the exact same arguments.

silverharp

I wouldnt trust anything that guarantees income. You need market signals to point people in the right direction. I remember there was a whiny piece in the Irish Times a few weeks back by a DCU communications graduate who couldnt have a job. she had done all the "right things " apparently and wanted her reward. erm no, you picked a fluffy degree during a recession and should have known better.

Fukuyama

KomradeBishop wrote: »

See, the Job Guarantee should be very appealing to people with this kind of a view about welfare, as it means that everyone capable of work, can have a job made available for them - so there would be no such thing anymore, as handouts, everyone would work for their money.

You'd still have some welfare schemes for those who can't fit into the Job Guarantee program, but just imagine how much easier it will be to identify and punish actual scroungers, once they have no excuse left for not having a job.

Bizarrely though, I have found that a large number of the posters with the anti-welfare "my money going to fund scroungers" view, actually seem to support the Basic Income idea for some reason - despite it being subject to the exact same arguments.

How would a Job Guarantee scheme actually guarantee jobs? Nationalised works are gone since the 1950s. And government interference in the private sector is almost always a disaster and stops innovation long-term.

I'm sure we could draft ANY system and make it work. I'm not knocking yours entirely. But in a broader societal term, the cradle-to-grave "we'll always look after you no matter what" is creating a section of society who are entitled and always want more for less. Perhaps clichéd but true.

Life is tough. And I wouldn't be far off the "poor and white" demographic, particularly when I was a child. Anything I ever got as a handout I didn't appreciate. Anything I earned (and I have from a young age) I valued to no end.

Job Guarantees would also create a two tier economy of bargain basement workers and skilled workers who deserve to be paid considerably more.

Not to mention the fact that many long-term dole recipients, sadly, are incapable of employment and would struggle finding work let alone keeping a steady job.

My distain for socialised programs doesn't come from some irrational fear or hatred of socialised systems. I believe many systems SHOULD be socialized (education, healthcare, policing etc...). It comes from seeing my peers take whats given to them and not appreciate it. Eg. A free college place which I took and appreciated. Others wasted three years and dropped out.

It just creates bottom feeders and encourages them for their whole life.

Apologies for the rambling. I have strong feelings on this but I'm no economic or social science expert, I'll admit.

KomradeBishop

The idea that there are no jobs needing doing, is just a lack of imagination really. Ireland needs huge amount of infrastructure development for starters, that'd be one big area of work.

Forget giving everyone a job for the moment, and instead think of how many people can be employed, in public works that we know need to be done anyway - that alone would make a huge dent in the unemployment figures.

Fukuyama wrote:

And government interference in the private sector is almost always a disaster and stops innovation long-term.

The private sector is not using these unemployed workers. If the private sector doesn't want them, they are free to be employed elsewhere.

Fukuyama wrote:

Job Guarantees would also create a two tier economy of bargain basement workers and skilled workers who deserve to be paid considerably more.

The Job Guarantee - by its very design - actually reflates the private economy, and gradually pushes all workers in the JG back into the private economy, until there is a full economic recovery; so the workers will inherently have to provide skills valuable to private industry.

Long-term dole recipients are perfectly capable of employment. Almost anyone not nearing retirement age is capable of employment. A JG doesn't have to mean employment-only, it can incorporate building-skills/training.


In the end, the Job Guarantee actually solves all of the moral problems people present with the welfare state, 'handouts' and peoples 'sense of entitlement' and such - because people have to actually work to earn their money.

It's unfortunate that so many people have bought-in to 'government = bad' myths, that a lot of people just have a kneejerk reaction against the idea.

Sleepy

KomradeBishop, I'd generally be in favour of a "work for welfare" model whereby anyone on the dole for more than a reasonable time-frame in which to transition between two jobs (say 6 months or so) would be given the options of working for their dole (with reasonable concessions for time off to prepare for and attend interviews etc.) or being cut off.

I'm curious as to how you think any public employment scheme of this type would be accepted by the unions though since most of the works these people would be doing would be those currently done by the "low paid" public sector workers the PS unions are so vocal about protecting?

I suspect any such scheme being put in place in Ireland would lead to a massive increase in the numbers on Disability Benefit with "bad backs" or other conditions that are difficult to challenge medically.

KomradeBishop

Sleepy wrote: »

KomradeBishop, I'd generally be in favour of a "work for welfare" model whereby anyone on the dole for more than a reasonable time-frame in which to transition between two jobs (say 6 months or so) would be given the options of working for their dole (with reasonable concessions for time off to prepare for and attend interviews etc.) or being cut off.

I'm curious as to how you think any public employment scheme of this type would be accepted by the unions though since most of the works these people would be doing would be those currently done by the "low paid" public sector workers the PS unions are so vocal about protecting?

I suspect any such scheme being put in place in Ireland would lead to a massive increase in the numbers on Disability Benefit with "bad backs" or other conditions that are difficult to challenge medically.

The aim of the Job Guarantee, would be mainly temporary employment schemes, so that should avoid competing with the main Public Sector jobs.

One of the reasons all unions (both public and private) would likely support the Job Guarantee is: It completely eliminates all employers ability to threaten workers with unemployment, thus massively increasing worker bargaining power.

I mean, just think of that: You never have to worry again, for your entire life, about having a job - there will always be one available - and imagine the benefits in employment opportunities, and quality of life (including work satisfaction), when private employers have to actually compete for your labour, and provide work meeting the minimum standards that the Job Guarantee puts in place.

It can be used not only to set a minimum wage through the JG wage, but to set a minimum standard of work quality and worker satisfaction that needs to be provided, throughout the economy - anyone in a shít job that they are unhappy with, will always have another option.

If people can be convinced it will work, everyone will want it - except those among the business/banking/finance and wealthy communities, who prefer a high-unemployment economy (due to how much that tips societal/political/economic inequality in their favour).


You may get a rise in attempts to game disability allowance, but that's a lot harder to game than unemployment benefits are, when unemployment is high - so it'd still have a very big net-benefit in reducing welfare fraud overall.

Sleepy

Ah, so you'd envisage this as paying at the same level as our current minimum wage rather than current welfare rates? How exactly would this be funded?

I'm not sure how "temporary" such employment schemes would be: assuming people didn't rest on them long-term, the sort of projects that could be carried out with such transitional staff are going to be unskilled labour of the road sweeping, painting over graffiti, digging holes variety. As we currently employ Public Sector Workers in permanent, pensionable, positions to carry out such work for far more than minimum wage I really can't see how the Unions wouldn't (rightly IMO) be concerned that the transitional workforce would erode the need for these positions over time.

Like I said, I'm not entirely against the idea of work for welfare, however I think it'd be very difficult to put in place. Just look at the outrage towards Jobsbridge and imagine what would happen were you to not only expand it to the entire live register but entirely remove what little control there was in place to try and ensure the positions offered helped up-skill those taking them.

KomradeBishop

Wage-wise, it's not really any more difficult to fund than the Basic Income - easier in fact, since there will be less people in the Job Guarantee, than would go towards paying for a Basic Income.
However, right now neither this or the Basic Income can be funded - both plans are a no-go as long as the EU is in the state it's in.

A country like the UK though - or any other country with their own currency - can easily fund it though; the EU is just uniquely dysfunctional economically (it's more political dysfunction than economic though - the EU could fund anything it wants, but is in a political deadlock).

You don't need to restrict a Job Guarantee to unskilled work. We have had high unemployment for over 7 years now, that's loads of time to upskill workers.

Job Bridge is a private sector subsidy, based upon internships i.e. unpaid work (or rather, private sector work partially paid for by the state) - that's not anywhere near comparable to the Job Guarantee.


Unions - ICTU - in fact seem to support the idea of a Job Guarantee; I'm surprised actually, upon doing a quick Google I found this:

Joan Burton wants a job guarantee for everyone on dole

LABOUR Party deputy leader Joan Burton wants the Government to "guarantee" everyone on the dole a job, training or education from the State.
...

The minister will set out her views in a speech at a conference organised by the trade union umbrella group, ICTU, later today.

"A wider Job Guarantee would be for those of all ages who want to work but have not found jobs in the private sector.
...

"But it strikes me as the only practical way in which real full employment, which is the cornerstone of a decent society, can be achieved," she said.
...

Ms Burton believes that even when the country returns to full employment, this will still allow for a large level of unemployment as the definition of full employment assumes it's as much as the economy can bear.

The minister said a Job Guarantee would secure real full employment at every stage of the economic cycle "by making the State the employer of last resort, guaranteeing employment and training opportunities for unemployed people".

"Such a scheme would be flexible and attuned to the economic cycle. As the economy grows and experiences inflationary pressures, the numbers of people receiving a Job Guarantee would shrink.

"In other words, it would have a deflationary effect to counter inflationary pressures in the private sector," she said.

"By contrast, in a recession when large numbers of workers are laid off, deflation would be countered by the increased spending on hiring the unemployed – who would otherwise be on welfare – under a Job Guarantee," she said.

Ms Burton said the "fixed Job Guarantee wage" would serve as the effective basic living wage in the economy and stabilise demand.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/joan-burton-wants-a-job-guarantee-for-everyone-on-dole-30176171.html

Tbh I'm kind of stunned to read that actually. It's what I've been advocating for years, I didn't know it had any kind of traction within Irish politics.

Sleepy

Ah, so it's a total pipe dream reliant on money growing from trees or the global political climate shifting to a position where drastically raising corporation taxes wouldn't kill a small open economy? I see

KomradeBishop

Sleepy wrote: »

Ah, so it's a total pipe dream reliant on money growing from trees or the global political climate shifting to a position where drastically raising corporation taxes wouldn't kill a small open economy? I see

Don't pretend you're replying to me with that bollocks - in this thread I didn't argue for raising Corporate Taxes, or for 'money growing from trees' - you're just highlighting the knee-jerk extent you'll go to pan the idea, by completely making stuff up and trying to pin it on me.

As it is, the UK can afford to fund such a program tomorrow, as can most other non-Euro countries (bar perhaps Germany).

You don't actually know what you mean, with the 'money growing on trees' soundbite do you? All money is created from nothing - it's all as good as 'grown from trees' - the gold-standard and other commodity-based money, hasn't existed for the best part of a century you know...

Good example of how the knee-jerk rejection of this kind of concept, starts dipping into condescension extremely fast...

Sleepy

I'm well aware of how fractional reserve banking works thanks. Is your answer to how would this be paid for really as simplistic as to simply print the money to pay for it year after year?

On the (wild) assumption that wages would somehow keep pace with the inflation this would cause, it would in effect be a massive tax on wealth which would erode the value of the currency being printed.

KomradeBishop

Apparently you're not aware of how banks work, because it's not fractional reserve - the money is created from nothing.

Where on earth are you pulling 'printing money' from? I haven't stated anywhere on this thread, that that is how to fund this.

Just shows how silly and knee-jerk the scaremongering is surrounding the Job Guarantee - I didn't even advocate printing money to fund it - yet that just randomly gets brought into the topic and used to engage in hyperinflation scaremongering against it...


Again - we're not in the gold standard - your ideas about how the value of money is set, are about 100+ years out of date. We've seen trillions printed by the Fed and ECB, without a proportional change in the value of the currency - what sets the value is a lot more complicated than that.

If you're going to straw-man me as presenting an argument in this thread that I haven't, then at least get your facts straight about the straw-man...

The Joan Burton thing is waffle, there's already plenty of training and education available for the unemployed. I've got a degree and am doing a Higher Diploma thanks to it. 18 started in what I'm doing now, 11 are left after just over a month because it's not what they want. It's an area in high demand for workers but people with existing degrees won't change paths despite no demand for their existing field. What job can the government guarantee them when they're offering them a free 9 month course with an extremely high rate of employment afterwards in a well-paying sector that's only going to improve?

KomradeBishop

Deleted User wrote: »

The Joan Burton thing is waffle, there's already plenty of training and education available for the unemployed. I've got a degree and am doing a Higher Diploma thanks to it. 18 started in what I'm doing now, 11 are left after just over a month because it's not what they want. It's an area in high demand for workers but people with existing degrees won't change paths despite no demand for their existing field. What job can the government guarantee them when they're offering them a free 9 month course with an extremely high rate of employment afterwards in a well-paying sector that's only going to improve?

The Job Guarantee isn't guaranteeing private sector jobs, it's guaranteeing temporary jobs in a public-works type program, alongside training/upskilling programs to help for reintegration into the private sector.