Re: Work for benefits : Tue Oct 01, 2013 6:36 pm  

Ajw71 wrote:

Osborne has won the argument on austerity and now his critics move on and have to find other sticks to beat him with. Too predictable.

Any "win" Gidiot has managed so far is similar to the gains made on the Somme in WW1. To be pushed back 1000 metres and then regain 10 is not a victory, it is a net loss of 990

Re: Work for benefits : Tue Oct 01, 2013 6:44 pm  

Ajw71 wrote:

Great. Real help to get these people back into work.

Can you answer the questions please?
If not we'll assume you can't.

Re: Work for benefits : Tue Oct 01, 2013 7:01 pm  

Over 20% of the total welfare bill goes on people in jobs So we're subsidising employers, not the workshy

Over 20% of the total welfare bill goes on people in jobs So we're subsidising employers, not the workshy

Re: Work for benefits : Tue Oct 01, 2013 8:15 pm  

cod'ead wrote: Over 20% of the total welfare bill goes on people in jobs So we're subsidising employers, not the workshy Not sure how tyou make that out? 1. That mean's c. 80% are not in work (ie c.4 times the number that you refer to); and 2. Presumably, people have taken jobs in a reasonably free market. If they could earn more elsewhere they are free to move jobs.

cod'ead wrote: Over 20% of the total welfare bill goes on people in jobs So we're subsidising employers, not the workshy Not sure how tyou make that out? 1. That mean's c. 80% are not in work (ie c.4 times the number that you refer to); and 2. Presumably, people have taken jobs in a reasonably free market. If they could earn more elsewhere they are free to move jobs.

Re: Work for benefits : Tue Oct 01, 2013 8:44 pm  

Dally wrote:

Not sure how tyou make that out?

1. That mean's c. 80% are not in work (ie c.4 times the number that you refer to); and
2. Presumably, people have taken jobs in a reasonably free market. If they could earn more elsewhere they are free to move jobs.

Did you not read the figures? 42.3% is spent on Pensions and only 2.57% is spent on out of work benefits. Pensions shouldn't be included in these figures but they are, to exaggerate the "welfare" bill, to make Outraged of Tunbridge Wells even more outraged!

Re: Work for benefits : Tue Oct 01, 2013 8:50 pm  

Hull White Star wrote:

Did you not read the figures? 42.3% is spent on Pensions and only 2.57% is spent on out of work benefits. Pensions shouldn't be included in these figures but they are, to exaggerate the "welfare" bill, to make Outraged of Tunbridge Wells even more outraged!

No I didn't! Apologies.

Re: Work for benefits : Wed Oct 02, 2013 8:35 am  

Ajw71 wrote:

... What constitutes 'not much growth' ... 0.7% since your statement.

0.7% certainly fits the description of "not much growth".
"Still 8% below what it was in 2008" fits the description too.
Especially after three years.

Q. How is he doing with the deficit?
A. 100% out on his prediction of how long it will take and so far the deficit is only reduced by 30%.

Q. How is he doing with debt?
A. Risen by 50% since he took over.

Ajw71 wrote:

Great. Real help to get these people back into work.

Solve the following mathematical problem (it's an easy one) ...
If a country has 2,500,000 people with no jobs and has 500,000 vacancies, how many of the those 2,500,000 people will get jobs?

Clue : How many times does 2,500,000 go into 500,000?
Another clue : Job Centres can't help people back into work that doesn't exist.

Re: Work for benefits : Wed Oct 02, 2013 11:17 am  

El Barbudo wrote:

0.7% certainly fits the description of "not much growth".
"Still 8% below what it was in 2008" fits the description too.
Especially after three years.

Q. How is he doing with the deficit?
A. 100% out on his prediction of how long it will take and so far the deficit is only reduced by 30%.

Q. How is he doing with debt?
A. Risen by 50% since he took over.

Solve the following mathematical problem (it's an easy one) ...
If a country has 2,500,000 people with no jobs and has 500,000 vacancies, how many of the those 2,500,000 people will get jobs?

Clue : How many times does 2,5000,000 go into 500,000?
Another clue : Job Centres can't help people back into work that doesn't exist.

Wicked

Re: Work for benefits : Sun Oct 06, 2013 11:44 pm  

El Barbudo wrote:

Clue : How many times does 2,500,000 go into 500,000?
Another clue : Job Centres can't help people back into work that doesn't exist.

Another interesting question is how many of those 2,500,000 want those 500,000 jobs? Why are there still skills shortages in a lot of industries in this country and why do so many Eastern Europeans regard the UK as easy street because of how easy it is to find jobs?

Re: Work for benefits : Mon Oct 07, 2013 6:03 am  

Saddened! wrote:

Another interesting question is how many of those 2,500,000 want those 500,000 jobs? Why are there still skills shortages in a lot of industries in this country and why do so many Eastern Europeans regard the UK as easy street because of how easy it is to find jobs?

Part of the answer is the nature of those jobs being of a short term or "casual" nature - I work with a lot of employment agencies and they are very good, extremely proficient in sniffing out and then filling posts for two shifts a week, or ten days shift work spread across three weeks, or similar.

Which is fine and dandy if you are a single person in short term rented furnished accommodation that can be changed with little notice, your own transport and availability 7 days a week - a newly arrived immigrant for instance - but much more difficult if you have been permanently resident in your district for some time with children in local schools, a wife working, a reliance on public transport and most important, a reliance on tax credits or other benefits or even JSA that will be stopped when you take up temporary work, requiring you to go through the whole long winded process of re-applying, and the waiting period, when your temp work comes to an end.