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

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.