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

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.

Pawwed Rig

Any public works that are not performed by private companies are dealt with by existing public sector employees. I can only imagine the s**tstorm where public sector employees are displaced by those on the dole. There would be a massive walk out organised by unions.
Where private companies are displaced EU competition rules would kick in.
That is 2 of 20 reasons why it wouldn't work.
The third is the lack of competence in Ireland to impliment it effectively.
The fourth is that noone would show up for work on these schemes without significant incentive over and above what they were already on.
The fifth is getting those that do turn up to do a days work.
It might work for those motivated to work but there are already community employment schemes that accomodate those folk along with incentives in the private sector to hire longterm unemployed people (a scheme that I have yet to see availed of by a company).
The sixth is that these people do not vote for government parties in large numbers so the establishment really do not care about them.

Fukuyama

KomradeBishop wrote: »

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.


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


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.

All well and good on a theoretical level, perhaps.

Maybe I'm missing something but

(i) "Public Works" are no longer a 'don't forget your shovel if you want to go to work' affair. Road building would be perhaps the most simple form of public works. I assume we'd be recruiting the lads in high-vis and steel toes. All of these would need at a minimum safe-passes, driving licences and training (possibly licences) to use diggers and other machinery. Shovels and pick-axes may still be used in a small capacity but there are no dedicated shovelers or labourers who are totally unskilled.

Other forms of infrastructure such as electrical grid, water, sewage, transport etc.. are all heavy technology and engineering based. Most of the people constructing the new LUAS line would be electricians, electrical engineers, civil engineers etc. Not much use for labuorers and if they're there it's in very small numbers.

(ii) I do not believe everyone on the dole is capable of work. I'm from a working class area. I'm hesitant to write people off; in my experience a person might not be good in a traditional work environment but might excel on their own or in some other non-typical role. However, many (and not a negligible amount) are not just unwanting of work, but would be virtually unemployable. Low literacy rate, no technical skills, no qualifications on top of a bitter personality with zero work ethic. Even jobs which are necessary but low-skilled such as road sweeping would be outside the remit of these folk for numerous reasons, non of which are the fault of 'society' or the government.

(iii) Unskilled work has been all but replaced by technology. I was jogging in a local Dublin park the other day and noticed a council worker driving a tractor to cut the grass. I couldn't help but think that his job simply will not exist in 10 years time when self-driving John Deere lawnmowers are invented. They'll cost less than a human and likely do a better, more reliable job of cutting the grass themselves at 5am before we're all even having our morning coffee.

I'm afraid public works and guaranteed jobs won't work (in my view). Nothing SHOULD be guaranteed beyond access to education and healthcare. People have to make their own way in the world or they'll forever be reaching up for more more more.

Fukuyama

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?

Buttonftw - might I guess: IT Springboard course?

I'm on one myself at present. Loving it and am nonstop working at it. Been a hobby and a goal of mine for years. I was EXTREMELY impressed by how accessible it was to me (not in receipt of dole - thought I'd be rejected) and others. Very well put together scheme with not a hint of bureaucracy you'd expect.

But, alas, several of my classmates admit that they're doing it to fill time and have zero passion for IT. Others came in for a few weeks with extremely spotty attendance. Seven or eight stopped showing up. Another few seem to attend 25% of the time and are outraged that they've fallen behind . They place no value on their free course place and have little interest in the industry, something you need to study it effectively.

I'd be in favor of less places and a strict interview screening process.

KomradeBishop

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Any public works that are not performed by private companies are dealt with by existing public sector employees. I can only imagine the s**tstorm where public sector employees are displaced by those on the dole. There would be a massive walk out organised by unions.
Where private companies are displaced EU competition rules would kick in.
That is 2 of 20 reasons why it wouldn't work.
The third is the lack of competence in Ireland to impliment it effectively.
The fourth is that noone would show up for work on these schemes without significant incentive over and above what they were already on.
The fifth is getting those that do turn up to do a days work.
It might work for those motivated to work but there are already community employment schemes that accomodate those folk along with incentives in the private sector to hire longterm unemployed people (a scheme that I have yet to see availed of by a company).
The sixth is that these people do not vote for government parties in large numbers so the establishment really do not care about them.

Except: ICTU already appears to support the idea - so that goes against all of your claims regarding unions.

EU competition rules don't prevent any kind of public works programs.

The 3rd reason has a big Citation Needed tag on it, and is really stretching, the 4th is just a fairly random reason thrown at it (people get to go from dole, to having a job - of course they'll choose having a job over not...), the 5th is just a really weird extension of the "people on the dole are just lazy" argument, again needing a big citation needed tag, and the 6th - who are 'these people'? - the Job Guarantee affects every working person in the economy, even if they are not on it, through giving them assurance if they risk becoming unemployed, and thus greater bargaining power - who won't vote for that, once they see explanations clarifying all the smears thrown at the idea.

For those motivated to work: Well those programs that you cite, obviously aren't working at getting everybody back into work. It's been 7 years that we've had high unemployment; that's unacceptable.

You present a lot of assertions, very few actual arguments backing them.

It's promising in one way, that all the arguments against it are so weak and stretching, what's not promising, is that posters are desperate to throw every possible argument (and the kitchen+bathroom sink) at it - the idea is really triggering a big mental block in people.

KomradeBishop

Fukuyama wrote: »

All well and good on a theoretical level, perhaps.

Maybe I'm missing something but

(i) "Public Works" are no longer a 'don't forget your shovel if you want to go to work' affair. Road building would be perhaps the most simple form of public works. I assume we'd be recruiting the lads in high-vis and steel toes. All of these would need at a minimum safe-passes, driving licences and training (possibly licences) to use diggers and other machinery. Shovels and pick-axes may still be used in a small capacity but there are no dedicated shovelers or labourers who are totally unskilled.

Other forms of infrastructure such as electrical grid, water, sewage, transport etc.. are all heavy technology and engineering based. Most of the people constructing the new LUAS line would be electricians, electrical engineers, civil engineers etc. Not much use for labuorers and if they're there it's in very small numbers.

(ii) I do not believe everyone on the dole is capable of work. I'm from a working class area. I'm hesitant to write people off; in my experience a person might not be good in a traditional work environment but might excel on their own or in some other non-typical role. However, many (and not a negligible amount) are not just unwanting of work, but would be virtually unemployable. Low literacy rate, no technical skills, no qualifications on top of a bitter personality with zero work ethic. Even jobs which are necessary but low-skilled such as road sweeping would be outside the remit of these folk for numerous reasons, non of which are the fault of 'society' or the government.

(iii) Unskilled work has been all but replaced by technology. I was jogging in a local Dublin park the other day and noticed a council worker driving a tractor to cut the grass. I couldn't help but think that his job simply will not exist in 10 years time when self-driving John Deere lawnmowers are invented. They'll cost less than a human and likely do a better, more reliable job of cutting the grass themselves at 5am before we're all even having our morning coffee.

I'm afraid public works and guaranteed jobs won't work (in my view). Nothing SHOULD be guaranteed beyond access to education and healthcare. People have to make their own way in the world or they'll forever be reaching up for more more more.

It's already been put into practice in more limited forms - it's not just theory.

(i) We've had high-unemployment levels for 7 years, so that's plenty of time to include training/upskilling in any Job Guarantee program.

What can't you do, with the best part of a decade to plan and train people for it? (and arguably, we're going to continue having high unemployment up to and maybe well past a decade too)


(ii) Overall you're talking about a tiny tiny number of people here.
If anyone is just lazy, then the Job Guarantee gives you a near-perfect way to weed them out and cut them off, as they only get paid if they do work.
If they are too low skilled, they can be put into training programs.

If they have genuine developmental or mental health problems that make even training unsuitable to them, then that's not a concern of the Job Guarantee program - that would be more of a concern for disability treatment.

(iii) Doesn't have to be limited to unskilled work, as described above.


Until we can guarantee that the private sector will always provide full employment, all of the time - which is never going to happen - then there is no excuse for not having a Job Guarantee program, once it is shown to be fully practical.

It's simply inhuman and degrading, and such an enormous waste of potential, to have a society where so many people - for the best part of a decade - have to put up with being unemployed and unable to earn a dignified living and progress their lives.

If it's possible to guarantee everyone a job, while still maintaining a society of good standards - then there is just no excuse for not having it (arguably it will be an even more wealthy and high-standard society, after the Job Guarantee - we are just wasting human potential with unemployment, which can be used to build real material wealth).

Fukuyama

KomradeBishop wrote: »

It's already been put into practice in more limited forms - it's not just theory.

(i) We've had high-unemployment levels for 7 years, so that's plenty of time to include training/upskilling in any Job Guarantee program.

What can't you do, with the best part of a decade to plan and train people for it? (and arguably, we're going to continue having high unemployment up to and maybe well past a decade too)


(ii) Overall you're talking about a tiny tiny number of people here.
If anyone is just lazy, then the Job Guarantee gives you a near-perfect way to weed them out and cut them off, as they only get paid if they do work.
If they are too low skilled, they can be put into training programs.

If they have genuine developmental or mental health problems that make even training unsuitable to them, then that's not a concern of the Job Guarantee program - that would be more of a concern for disability treatment.

(iii) Doesn't have to be limited to unskilled work, as described above.


Until we can guarantee that the private sector will always provide full employment, all of the time - which is never going to happen - then there is no excuse for not having a Job Guarantee program, once it is shown to be fully practical.

It's simply inhuman and degrading, and such an enormous waste of potential, to have a society where so many people - for the best part of a decade - have to put up with being unemployed and unable to earn a dignified living and progress their lives.

If it's possible to guarantee everyone a job, while still maintaining a society of good standards - then there is just no excuse for not having it (arguably it will be an even more wealthy and high-standard society, after the Job Guarantee - we are just wasting human potential with unemployment, which can be used to build real material wealth).

I have just a semester of economics under my belt (which was a number of years ago now), along with semi-regular reading of FT, so I'm far from an expert. What I do know is the basics of an economy and the fact that economics is a social science, the study of people, and not a strict science. Obviously you're already aware of that as you're evidently very interested in economics from your posts.

Most economic problems come from greed. Capitalism, socialism etc... should all technically provide people with enough wealth, education, healthcare etc... even if they take different routes along the way. But it's the people that let any system down.

Jobs Guarantee, to me, exacerbates the growing entitlement in our society. Very few would be grateful of these jobs. I could go on for thousands of words but it'd all come back to this point.

To address your point on training these people:

As I said in a post above, I'm currently enrolled in a third-level IT course thanks to the government's Springboard initiative for IT programmes, open to ALL regardless of employment status. Unemployed or employed, you can go do a Higher Diploma ICT Conversion course. To do these you need to already hold a level 8 qualification or equivalent work experience. There are other (non-IT) course available where you do not AFAIK.

So far, what I have seen is disinterest and a lack of personal drive among a good portion of my fellow classmates (20-30%). All of these people have previously attained third-level degrees and have volunteered to go on Springboard. Their dole (if they're getting any) is not contingent on using the program.

They don't show up. They don't pay attention. They often joke about their low attendance. Many openly admit to having no intention of pursuing the mandatory work-placement at the end and have no interest in IT on a personal level. They miss assignment deadlines. Some have become 'facebook attendees' where they ask remedial questions on the class page instead of actually attending. Others have dropped off the map and appear once a week for a class or two, if even.

This is the result of free education (something I'm militantly in support of). A handout (which I'm taking). It is a handout, or perhaps a hand up if you're willing to actually try at it, as some other classmates are.

I'll say again that this was one of the smoothest application processes I've ever encountered. Excellent communication, simple ONLINE forms. No paperwork or bull****. Very quick. Easily accessible to anyone and everyone holding Irish citizenship. And that's the result - a mixed bag.

I can only imagine some form of forced (or coerced) education and up-skilling program aimed at those who fundamentally don't want to work in IT, engineering, infrastructure, a skilled trade or science discipline. Even getting these people into a safe-pass course (there's no shortage of safe pass holders anyways) would be a struggle.

You can lead a horse to water etc.. etc..

If these people do manage to graduate (by some miracle) they'll be useless in a workplace. Zero drive. Zero interest in continuous education (a necessity in today's skilled jobs market). Zero initiative.

I honestly believe we could create a Utopian society with excellent healthcare, rewarding jobs for all, free education etc... and we'd still have this issue.

Human beings are selfish. I'm not doing this course for the good of the nation - I'm doing it for ME. However, some people's selfishness are so at odds with society that no matter what system you create their interests will never align with society's.

KomradeBishop

People don't need to be grateful for any of the Job Guarantee jobs: The program itself actually helps boost the private sector, and thus move everybody out of the Job Guarantee program, and back into private employment, ungrateful people are not going to be remaining in the JG, putting in a slothful performance at their job, permanently - and they'll have some degree of choice as well, to find a work placement that's more likely to be personally fulfilling.

Plus - it's a far sight better than the Basic Income here too, which is just giving them free money.


Also: Why shouldn't people feel entitled to a job? (and I don't mean any job of their own choosing, of their own standards - I mean just a job, under dignified conditions)

If a program like this can be shown to be practical, then a job should be a human right. In fact, being provided with a job is a human right - and that includes providing for full employment - just not one that is enforced:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_work


As to the situation you describe, in that course:
What do you expect to change between now and a Job Guarantee, that will make peoples slothfulness worse in any way? If anything, the availability of jobs will be more likely to motivate people off that course, if they aren't finding it personally fulfilling - or to find a different course that is more personally fulfilling.

The Job Guarantee doesn't have to be forced/coerced either - you can actually keep unemployment payments alongside it, it just becomes a hell of a lot harder to justify being on unemployed payments (e.g. if you lost a job in your chosen work sector, and intend to stay in the private sector - just seeking another job in a brief transition period - this would justify unemployment payments) - the long-term recipients who are genuinely abusing the welfare system, will still be way easier to identify.


In the end, the number of people you're talking about here who are slothful or abusing the system, is going to be pretty small - so you're just focusing on edge-cases here; overall, you can credit the vast majority of people with wanting good fulfilling work, that they are willing to train/educate for and work hard at - you just need to make sure that this majority, gets their chance to fulfil their potential.

Fukuyama

KomradeBishop wrote: »

People don't need to be grateful for any of the Job Guarantee jobs: The program itself actually helps boost the private sector, and thus move everybody out of the Job Guarantee program, and back into private employment, ungrateful people are not going to be remaining in the JG, putting in a slothful performance at their job, permanently - and they'll have some degree of choice as well, to find a work placement that's more likely to be personally fulfilling.

Plus - it's a far sight better than the Basic Income here too, which is just giving them free money.


Also: Why shouldn't people feel entitled to a job? (and I don't mean any job of their own choosing, of their own standards - I mean just a job, under dignified conditions)

If a program like this can be shown to be practical, then a job should be a human right. In fact, being provided with a job is a human right - and that includes providing for full employment - just not one that is enforced:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_work


As to the situation you describe, in that course:
What do you expect to change between now and a Job Guarantee, that will make peoples slothfulness worse in any way? If anything, the availability of jobs will be more likely to motivate people off that course, if they aren't finding it personally fulfilling - or to find a different course that is more personally fulfilling.

The Job Guarantee doesn't have to be forced/coerced either - you can actually keep unemployment payments alongside it, it just becomes a hell of a lot harder to justify being on unemployed payments (e.g. if you lost a job in your chosen work sector, and intend to stay in the private sector - just seeking another job in a brief transition period - this would justify unemployment payments) - the long-term recipients who are genuinely abusing the welfare system, will still be way easier to identify.


In the end, the number of people you're talking about here who are slothful or abusing the system, is going to be pretty small - so you're just focusing on edge-cases here; overall, you can credit the vast majority of people with wanting good fulfilling work, that they are willing to train/educate for and work hard at - you just need to make sure that this majority, gets their chance to fulfil their potential.

You're playing fast and loose with that Human Rights declaration. It does not come close to saying "everyone is entitled to a job".

And feeling "entitled" to any position does not make for a good dynamic. Positions and jobs should be earned. Imagine how disposable and worthless a job would when you're 100% entitled to one, nevermind guaranteed.

An ungrateful employee is an unmotivated, and unmotivated employees are bad news. They're cancer in a work environment. Nobody wants to work with one. And if we're bringing "human rights" into this conversation I can only imagine the lengthy court cases and class actions which would spring up when a useless, bare-minimum employee gets the sack.

We can agree on one thing: the vast majority of people want to work. 90% employment, plus those in training who are actually there to learn as opposed to get a form stamped, are a testament to that. So Jobs Guarantee programme is of no use to these people. On my course, 75% of us are motivated by the fact that we love programming and the fact that 95% employment of last years graduates is a great signal. IT is a booming sector. The remainder have no interest in with programming or the near guarantee of a job. And they VOLUNTEERED to to the course. I imagine there would be a much larger contingent of these types if participation in these courses were mandatory. I'd also say that third level colleges would not partake in schemes no longer. These people have no business in an educational institution. They hold others back, if anything.

Some of the remaining 10% could be classified as transitional unemployed - career breaks, switching jobs etc...

The rest need to take advantage of a free reskilling programme (Ireland has LOADS and excellent access to education far exceeding most of Europe and definitely the US).

And some, perhaps as much as 1/3 of that 10% are useless. Training/education would be water off a ducks back. They'd be no use to an employer, public or private. And sadly, they're likely to confine themselves to the scrapheap due to their own laziness, personality or some other facet of their beings which cannot be helped. And, often the cheapest way to 'deal' with this problem is to keep these people on life support by making weekly dole payments and ensuring their basic human rights are met (free healthcare, fuel allowances, free/reduced housing etc...). It tastes bitter, particularly as a tax payer, but hey, I'd rather that than being forced to train one in.

ancapailldorcha

Guys, we have a forum for Politics. Please get back on topic.

Fukuyama

Fukuyama wrote: »

Buttonftw - might I guess: IT Springboard course?

I'm on one myself at present. Loving it and am nonstop working at it. Been a hobby and a goal of mine for years. I was EXTREMELY impressed by how accessible it was to me (not in receipt of dole - thought I'd be rejected) and others. Very well put together scheme with not a hint of bureaucracy you'd expect.

But, alas, several of my classmates admit that they're doing it to fill time and have zero passion for IT. Others came in for a few weeks with extremely spotty attendance. Seven or eight stopped showing up. Another few seem to attend 25% of the time and are outraged that they've fallen behind . They place no value on their free course place and have little interest in the industry, something you need to study it effectively.

I'd be in favor of less places and a strict interview screening process.

Guessing from your postings you're not doing it where I am but the pattern you described is identical. Incredible really how fickle people are. We were told very clearly what was expected of us but still people half-arsed around and wasted everyone's time.