Unemployment

[newwave]

I have read the threads on here tonight and many have stated that those on benefits who can work should work, I have no problem with that at all BUT as the Tory governments policies are destroying tens of thousands of jobs and because of them we have 2.54 million out of work combined with RECORD youth unemployment can I ask those who castigate those on benefits what jobs

2.54 million out of work 424, 000 vacancies, do the math.

Short-term higher unemployment is better than eternal debt (which in itself will lead to persistent unemployment - see Spain for an example).

LFN.

I doubt the unemployment levels will be short term, not with this governments policies AND that wasnt my question.

Please quantify "short term"

Any comparisons with the pigs is bullshit.

Short term unemployment???

You seriously think the private sector is going to mop up 2million people in the next three months?

There is undoubtedly structural unemployment in the economy at the moment so the daily mail calls to slash benenfits wouldn't solve the problem. Regarding the long term unemployed I again don't think that simply reducing the amount of benefits will succeed in getting them back to work. We need to get them more help in finding work and need to incentivise employers to take them on. I appreciate this is difficult with the fiscal situation we are in but I think just cutting benefits isn't the solution.

The jobs will come from private sector growth, fuelled by low personal and corporate taxes - but that requires hefty cuts in benefits and public services.

I personally think the OBR is too optimistic. I think unemployment will rise for at least 1 year more - and then start to fall. It probably won't fall very far though - as so many of the benefits-as-lifestyle-choice brigade just don't want to work. There will be big rises in employment, but the new jobs will go to immigrants.

Perhaps the benefit cuts will help reverse that trend - but I am not hopeful. Labour got benefit scroungers addicted to state largesse - and the withdrawal symptoms will not be pretty.

Still, at least IDS is trying - which is more than can be said for Labour. They got rid of Frank Field and James Purnell - the two people who had the guts to seriously think about how to tackle long-term benefit dependency.

I suspect any jobs created by the public sector will be minimum wage McJobs.

In a way the minimum wage was a mistake as now it seems to be becoming the maximum wage with a lot of employers, still it does more good than harm.

LFN, so are you saying "short term" is at least a year and maybe a lot longer.

"It probably wont fall very far" then how do benefit cuts reverse the trend when there are not enough jobs.

It probably won't fall very far though There will be big rises in employment, but the new jobs will go to immigrants.

Make your mind up its either one or the other

It is not true that if employment rises, unemployment must fall.

That is because immigrants can take the new jobs.

That is what I think will happen. After 2 or 3 years, there will be a small fall in unemployment, and a big rise in employment.

I really hope IDS can bring down the costs of social failure though.

I disagree with huddspur. If a benefit lifestyle is no longer sustainable, then people will have to seriously look for work. It is the relative difference between employment and benefits which has to be tackled to get the incentives on dependency right.

One way is to make employment more attractive - by increasing income tax thresholds at the lower end, for example. Another way is to make benefits less attractive, by cutting them.

The latter is far cheaper than the former.

LFN

I disagree with huddspur. If a benefit lifestyle is no longer sustainable, then people will have to seriously look for work. It is the relative difference between employment and benefits which has to be tackled to get the incentives on dependency right.

WHAT JOBS FGS even you admit "short term" is at least a year.

As for immigrants this is a red herring as non EU immigration for the unskilled is dropping fast with the new rules.

LFN the government should look to incentivise employment as much as it can be possible but the unemployed face two major challenges when looking for work. There are more people unemployed then job vacancies in the economy at the moment. Secondly people who are long term unemployed will struggle to find employment regardless of the economic circumstances which is why I think the Government needs to look at ways to incentivise employers to take them on. There are things that they can do to help themselves but I do think the state does need to act to help them.

OK just a few points

1. A lot of people seems to forget that there are people who are WORKING who also claim benefits

1. The 2.54 million is only those who are officially classed as out of work...........I'm on benefits right now (not working) - but I'm not included in that figure.

1. Many of those who are currently out of work and claiming benefits will still be getting benefits once they start working.

Any jobs are now p/t. Employers know that a p/t worker can be paid less, it's the norm. The jobs pages in local paper are now reduced to 1 (and half of that is recruitment agency ads!!). A local job of trolley pusher at ASDA had 250 applicants!! Yeah all the jobless are feckless scroungers!! My OH has never even had a reply from an employer to prove he applied..they say we will call/let you know be so-and-so date...then, nothing!! This is like it was in the 80's..you remember..the "get on your bike" era! There are simply not enough jobs. Forcing people to work when there are jobs is fine, degrading them by making them feel bad when there are none is NOT!!

I do agree that the government should do more to promote job creation.

It could start by ditching the 50p income tax rate. That tax hurts the poor more than any other.

It could start by ditching the 50p income tax rate. That tax hurts the poor more than any other.

eeerr, I doubt that someone on 200k paying an extra 5k a year will affect job creation and I dont suppose the said person was going to give the 5k to children in need or similiar.

The 50p tax rate is a fairly minor issue in the grand scheme of things. It brings in very little revenue but I think it should stay as although it is a fairly high rate of tax it serves a symbolic purpose as well as an economic one. Vince Cable was talking about this today and said that the government see it as a temporary rate whilst the country is in its current fiscal position.

Keeping away international entrepreneurs and successful businesspeople from the UK with 65% effective top rates of tax destroys hundreds of thousands of jobs.

The 50p tax rate may only lose the Treasury a billion or so directly (though it is a billion we cannot afford to lose). However, the amount it costs us indirectly is inestimable.

We cannot afford to play symbolic politics. We need to do what works to maximise revenue. That is, we need to scrap the 50p income tax rate.

newwave The way it affects them isn't through discretionary spending - you are right.

It is that they just don't bother to live, buy goods, and employ people in this country.

They are rich enough to live anywhere in the world. Why would they live in a country where the government takes 65% of their income?

Last time I heard Ian Duncan-Smith on the subject, he admitted that there weren't the jobs immediately available for people to walk into out of the job centres. However, the emphasis and purpose of welfare will be changing over the next two to three years so that when the jobs are available, people are expected to take them.

If you're already long-term unemployed, therefore, you're no worse off. If you're newly unemployed, you're entitled to help. If you're on a low income, you'll still have income topped up with tax credits. But as and when the recovery gets underway and the job situation improves, expectations will start to change. Under the Labour administration, by contrast, 2m new jobs were created but only 1m unemployed took up those jobs.... leaving 1.5m.

"The inactivity rate for those aged from 16 to 64 for the three months to January 2011 was 23.3 per cent, up 0.1 on the quarter. The number of economically inactive people aged from 16 to 64 increased by 43,000 over the quarter to reach 9.33 million. The number of people who were economically inactive because they were looking after the family or home increased by 36,000 on the quarter to reach 2.30 million."

Latest news from the Office for National Statistics. This includes the hidden unemployed who are not reported in the number claiming Jobseeker?s Allowance.

It seems the Tories love benefits claimants, they are 'encouraging' so many people onto them. They are also discouraging people from contributing to their society by sacking them from the public sector and 'encouraging' them to stay at home on the sofa on JSA.

One of the best ways to stimulate the economy would be to increase benefits and JSA payments. Why?

• Because this will direct money to those who have little, therefore they will spend the majority straight away.
• The money will be automatically targetted to those areas which have the highest rates of unemployment and are therefore most in need of economic stimulus.
• Increased sales will increase the demand for staff, and increase employment in those areas - again targetted to those areas most in need of employment prospects.

You have to be joking. Our welfare bill is ginormous as we speak, thanks to Labour handing out cash like water to their client vote.

There are two ways to make work more appealing compared to benefits. One is to make work pay more, by cutting taxes. The other is to cut benefits. Both are good, but the second is much cheaper, and the course I recommend because of the enormous structural deficit bequeathed to the nation by Labour.

LFN your argument is completely flawed - the flaws have already been pointed out by several posters. You seem to have completely lost the plot on several threads.

I would make all benefits (except for the disabled and carers) strictly time-limited, and far more conditional on what you have contributed in tax in the past.

So if you have been working 20 years and lose your job, you can have up to, say, 18 months on benefits.

If you have never worked in your life, all unemployment benefit should be limited to 2 months. There is no excuse for laybabouts not to get on your bike and look for work. If that means moving village, city, or country then so be it.

Same goes for housing benefit, tax credits, etc.