jackalbion
Well-known member
- Aug 30, 2011
- 5,048
Yes definitely, I think this is key, but having a property allows you to do those things more, as in theory, you should have more disposable income/worry.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[News] Is Britain work shy ?
- Thread starter Leekbrookgull
- Start date
CAPTAIN GREALISH
Well-known member
- Jan 6, 2010
- 2,631
100%
My daughter finished her master's degree this year She has applied for jobs every single day since she finished university. She did worked part time while doing her degree. Yet she gets nothing, the majority of the time companies do even reply. She never gets to talk to anyone, if she is lucky there is some stupid online assessment.
When she applied for a job working in the local Lidle she was not look at because she is over qualified. When applies for jobs she is qualified for she does not have the experience.
Every company seem shit scared of actually engaging and talking to people anymore. It is truly soul destroying,
When she applied for a job working in the local Lidle she was not look at because she is over qualified. When applies for jobs she is qualified for she does not have the experience.
Every company seem shit scared of actually engaging and talking to people anymore. It is truly soul destroying,
Washie
Well-known member
It's not just the younger generation. I know a few now into retirement who trained in woodwork and other skills that have been taken over by automation. They refused to re train or take other jobs. "Why should I? I was told I'd have a job for life"
And the problem is, companies are scared of giving people like your daughter a chance with the new 'full employment rights from day 1' stuff coming in. I know I am.
This attitude is something that is going to have to change enormously for the generation coming in to the workplace today. People are going to have to retrain every ten years, as their jobs get taken by AI. I'm hopeful I'm just old enough to have missed it, but I'm not completely convinced. My kids are definitely going to have this problem.
Many people in our generation have parents who moved away from home at anything between 16-18, invested a few years of hard work to get themselves somewhere to live, someone to love and then eventually some kids.
These things are psychologically and culturally important in emancipating yourself and becoming a grown person.
But when all of these things are obstructed and seemingly very hard to get hold of, people lose hope. And people with no hope have no motivation.
People with no motivation does not clean public toilets to be able to barely cover the cost of living in misery. Neither do they sharpen their elbows to get into the decreasing job market.
Most boomers will refuse to understand, maybe a cognitive self defense for taking part in ruining our future, that the world is a very difficult place for young people right now, and use the "lazy" or "work shy" arguments. So I'm going to ask those in favor of these arguments: if people are lazy, then why? If people are work shy, then why? "My generation are better people" won't do it unless you can provide a sociological reason why that would be the case.
Business simply can't afford it.
People that say if a business can't afford it they are not a very good business speak out of their backside. Many business owners work longer hours and for less per hour than their employees.
It never ceases to amaze me the ignorance of many of how the workplace actually works. Blinkered they think everyone works with a keyboard, works 9-5 Monday to Friday.Unfortunately this is often the view given to young adults. Go to college, go to university and get a cushy well paid job. Blair sold this idea and governments since haven't changed that thought. This country needs people that are prepared to work with their hands often for far more money. Apprenticeships are utter rubbish and nowhere near structured correctly.
You are right, the print setters come to mind.
AmexRuislip
Retired Spy 🕵️♂️
I always wonder how many of those who complain about 'work-shy scroungers' or 'generous welfare benefits' have ever been unemployed themselves - rather than smugly passing judgement from upon high onto those they deem morally inferior.
I don't doubt that some people are averse to hard work, but all of the unemployed?
To equate job vacancies with the number of unemployed , and conclude that they should automatically fill these vacancies belies a woeful lack of understanding of how the labour market operates.
a) Many employers would prefer to recruit someone who's already working, because they have current employment record and references, whereas the unemployed person is a 'risk'. Hence there is constant 'churn' in the labour market as workers leave a company to take-up another (better?) job, and leave behind another vacancy. This in turn will probably be filled by another in-work applicant.
b) Many companies will deliberately avoid filling vacancies for a year or so to save on the wages bill, so the 'vacancy' is not really available for an unemployed person to fill.
c) The unemployed will often not have the particular skills needed to fill a job vacancy - is an unemployed mechanic going to be appointed as a pastry chef in a restaurant, or a redundant supermarket shelf-filler going to be selected as a conveyancing solicitor.
d) Some/many employers will probably have the same prejudices as much of the public (and posters on this thread); that unemployed people are out-of-work because they are lazy. If so, that will reinforce point a) - employers will fill vacancies by recruiting other workers, rather than offering the job to an unemployed person. Hence many of the unemployed become trapped in unemployment, and the longer they are out-of-work, the harder it becomes to persuade employers that they are not work-shy.
As to 'generous' welfare benefits, Britain's social security benefits are among the lowest in Western Europe - the public vastly overestimates just how much an out-of-work person receives in Benefits. Moreover, anyone receiving Benefits has to prove to 'the authorities', on a regular basis, that they are actively applying for 'realistic' jobs; if they cannot do so, their Benefits are cut or suspended.
I trust that those who regularly condemn the unemployed don't use self-service checkouts in supermarkets, for example, because these are increasingly replacing check-out workers; so you are, indirectly, fueling unemployment as jobs disappear. Ditto self-check-in at airports, and online banking. As automation and AI advance, and employers look to minimise their wage bill to maximise profit and 'shareholder values', so many more (probably millions) jobs will disappear, with no guarantee that they will be replaced by new ones.
If you've (still) got a job, maybe adopt a 'There for the Grace of God' attitude when you see or hear about the unemployed -- instead of joining in the tabloid-fuelled 'punching-down'; which unpopular minority shall we all hate today, to make ourselves feel better, and perpetuate divide-and-rule among people - let's all hate other poor people, rather than tax-dodging billionaires, rich employers paying poverty wages, or slum landlords charging high rents!
Don't forget, 48% of welfare recipients are in-work, but their wages are so low that they are eligible for top-up Benefits to survive.
I don't doubt that some people are averse to hard work, but all of the unemployed?
To equate job vacancies with the number of unemployed , and conclude that they should automatically fill these vacancies belies a woeful lack of understanding of how the labour market operates.
a) Many employers would prefer to recruit someone who's already working, because they have current employment record and references, whereas the unemployed person is a 'risk'. Hence there is constant 'churn' in the labour market as workers leave a company to take-up another (better?) job, and leave behind another vacancy. This in turn will probably be filled by another in-work applicant.
b) Many companies will deliberately avoid filling vacancies for a year or so to save on the wages bill, so the 'vacancy' is not really available for an unemployed person to fill.
c) The unemployed will often not have the particular skills needed to fill a job vacancy - is an unemployed mechanic going to be appointed as a pastry chef in a restaurant, or a redundant supermarket shelf-filler going to be selected as a conveyancing solicitor.
d) Some/many employers will probably have the same prejudices as much of the public (and posters on this thread); that unemployed people are out-of-work because they are lazy. If so, that will reinforce point a) - employers will fill vacancies by recruiting other workers, rather than offering the job to an unemployed person. Hence many of the unemployed become trapped in unemployment, and the longer they are out-of-work, the harder it becomes to persuade employers that they are not work-shy.
As to 'generous' welfare benefits, Britain's social security benefits are among the lowest in Western Europe - the public vastly overestimates just how much an out-of-work person receives in Benefits. Moreover, anyone receiving Benefits has to prove to 'the authorities', on a regular basis, that they are actively applying for 'realistic' jobs; if they cannot do so, their Benefits are cut or suspended.
I trust that those who regularly condemn the unemployed don't use self-service checkouts in supermarkets, for example, because these are increasingly replacing check-out workers; so you are, indirectly, fueling unemployment as jobs disappear. Ditto self-check-in at airports, and online banking. As automation and AI advance, and employers look to minimise their wage bill to maximise profit and 'shareholder values', so many more (probably millions) jobs will disappear, with no guarantee that they will be replaced by new ones.
If you've (still) got a job, maybe adopt a 'There for the Grace of God' attitude when you see or hear about the unemployed -- instead of joining in the tabloid-fuelled 'punching-down'; which unpopular minority shall we all hate today, to make ourselves feel better, and perpetuate divide-and-rule among people - let's all hate other poor people, rather than tax-dodging billionaires, rich employers paying poverty wages, or slum landlords charging high rents!
Don't forget, 48% of welfare recipients are in-work, but their wages are so low that they are eligible for top-up Benefits to survive.
Which will be impossible for most people. "Need to find a temporary gig to escape the obsoletion of the human species for another 5 minutes" is not going to be all that motivating either.
Without meaning to sound like too much of a dick... I don't think they are THAT hard to get hold of. I'm 42 and grew up in a single parent household with my Mum on benefits, I didn't do very well at school (lack of effort rather than lack of ability) didn't do A Levels or go to Uni and moved out of home at 17 to move in with mates and drink booze / smoke bongs / take pills. f***ed around until I was about 23 ish then realised it was time to sort myself out.
Whilst I totally accept that young people today have it harder than my generation did, and much, much harder than my parents' generation did, I think a lot of the problem comes from them being badly advised in how to get on in life and how to get a decent job with a comfortable life. Particularly people who have been to University.
And is why I think Governments are focussing on the wrong things, rather than things like this which are really going to matter!
So yes I was one of those that bought my first place aged 18. Worked a bit and then bang all was rosy, f*** you youngsters. Or the truth.....
I had two jobs, working 12 hours shifts as an aircraft engineer followed by 4 hours at a pub. My flat had a mattress, a deck chair and an old TV. After three years my flat was worth £16,000 less than I paid for it, my mortgage was higher than the wage I had as an engineer.
It was f***ing hard work with very little reward. These days the youngsters NEED all their comforts aren't prepared to go without, do what is needed to get ahead. I agree housing costs are an issue but so are expectations.
Far too easy to moan and do f*** all.
maltaseagull
Well-known member
Some good points but rather spoilt by the generalisation.
There are undoubtably many that are work shy and there have been since benefits came in.
That was the conclusion on the R5 phone in.
Well, let's rephrase it.
There were lots of people who had definitive but different answers, with the likelihood being that they were all wrong.
If you read research papers on the mechanism of action of digitalis or aspirin, up to the 80s and 70s respectively, there were numerous plausible and strongly-advocated arguments. But along came a couple of clever bastards who discovered how these drugs actually worked, meaning all the competing ideas were wrong.
I tend to use this as a model scenario when faced with these sorts of questions and invited to consider possible solutions.
Maybe in the present case we will have a war or another (more lethal than COVID) contagion that makes the issue irrelevant, and everyone will be scrabbling around trying to find the next meal. On that cheery note....
How much is your property worth now?
dsr-burnley
Well-known member
- Aug 15, 2014
- 2,678
A lot depends on how old your parents are. My parents, for example, got married in 1955, and in those days it was possible for a qualified chartered accountant and a qualified teacher, together, to buy a three bedroomed terrace (with no central heating or double glazing, of course) - but they couldn't afford to run a car, or go out drinking, or go on foreign holidays (they could afford a week in a boarding house at Blackpool with a bathroom on each floor and a gas ring at the end of the corridor). My Dad didn't do A levels, they couldn't afford - he had to go out to work at 16. People who couldn't afford to buy a house, stayed with parents.
It's possible to look at a limited period from say 1970-2010 and say "don't young people have it hard", but remember it was a very limited period.
Bit unfair on this occasion as he neatly summarized a radio 5 phone in. No Mail to be seen.