Is Slavery acceptable?
Yes, I gave up my job to work for nothing the rest of my life
13.2% (10)
13.2% (10)
No, slavery is wrong as people aren't born to work for the wealthy few
86.8% (66)
86.8% (66)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: Politicians fight for Slavery to be Acceptable for Graduates

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

Batou667:
I'd support these mandatory back-to-work placements if they paid minimum wage (or more accurately, if the hours worked compared to JSA given equated to to earning minimum wage). I suspect that they don't. Expecting somebody to work for under minimum wage is exploitation - maybe not exactly slavery, but still something we shouldn't allow.

especially when these a jobs which would otherwise be filled with paid positions

warmachine:
It's good to know there's a way to kick those on the lowest end of the socio-economic scale even more.

What rubbish. They don't lose anything to their financial situation, and gain a day rhythm, a chance to get offered a contract for work, and work experience.

This whole bullshit marxist dogma of 'it's all a conspiracy to exploit the workers!!!' is becoming fairly repetitive and annoying, not to mention it was based on wild speculation to begin with.

ok where to start... i seem to have missed this thread (even though ive been posting about the subject a lot elsewhere)

ok first of all its not "slavery". it's corvée. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corv%C3%A9e

the only countries in the modern world that practice corvée amongst their general population are Bhutan, Myanmar, Rwanda and Britain.

ok second the case. she was already in self arranged job training in line with her chosen career (and in line with David Cameron's "big society" thinking btw). she isn't a "job snob" (as labelled by IDS), has always said she does not consider such work beneath her and currently works for Morrisons part time as a shelf stacker.

ok thirdly all these facts were known (due to reporting of the court case) for about a week before IDS went on the Andrew Marr show and deliberately tossed out his propaganda spiel for public consumption. he was either not following the case as well as the press were covering it (!!!!!) or being deliberately disingenuous and misleading with the public. the fact the BBC interviewer didn't challenge him on any of these points is a fucking disgrace. i hope Andrew Marr wasn't watching because he'd probably have had another stroke..

ok fourthly this is IDS : http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/audio/2010/apr/07/iain-duncan-smith-brain-size have a listen. seriously. he believes "the poor" and "criminals" have smaller brains and its his job as part of the born to rule "political class" to effectively herd them like the lesser beings he sees them as for their own good and the wider good of society. the man's a fucking fascist. and just like those before him (who used Darwinism as justification) the scientific community who's research he is twisting in this speech were appalled that it was so distorted and misrepresented to support this view: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/apr/09/iain-duncan-smith-childrens-brains

ok fifthly the UK does not have "welfare". it has Social Security benefits. benefits which provide social security. Job Seekers Allowance is a National Insurance benefit for up to the first year you claim it (ie it's your National Insurance deductions paid back to you and not "a wage" from the state) and while on Job Seekers Allowance you are required to be constantly and checkable looking for work and available for job that you may find or the job centre may find for you. needless to say you can't do this when working for poundland (secondments are now up to 6 months at a time apparently).

ok sixthly for every single one of these placements the taxpayer via the government pays the companies involved 3 grand. if you add in the cost of JSA for a year it comes out at an approx cost of 6 grand per annum. for every single one of these placements a "real" albeit low paid minimum age job is removed from the Job Centrers boards. a minimum wage job pays approx 12 grand a year on which tax and National Insurance is paid and the rest of it will be spent in the wider economy supporting yet more jobs. the policy is economic lunacy and even the right wingers who post in the UKs right wing tabloids have spotted this and consider it an abomination (check out the "Best Rated" comments on the daily mails reporting of the case and interview for example : http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2277426/Iain-Duncan-Smith-condemns-Poundland-benefits-ruling-opens-40m-floodgate.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2280064/Iain-Duncan-Smith-attacks-graduates-claim-good-stack-shelves.html ).

last but not least this is about the best comment piece i've seen on the whole thing : http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/goodbye-to-the-big-society-money-comes-first-a-better-world-second-8500186.html

Its not exactly slavery in the old tradition and comparing it to that is probably offensive to people who really lived in slavery, shes not going to get her legs cut off if she tries to escape but its still bullshit since she was volunteering before in a museum and had to quit that to work in poundland which is basically the somalia of the high street

Blablahb:

warmachine:
It's good to know there's a way to kick those on the lowest end of the socio-economic scale even more.

What rubbish. They don't lose anything to their financial situation, and gain a day rhythm, a chance to get offered a contract for work, and work experience.

This whole bullshit marxist dogma of 'it's all a conspiracy to exploit the workers!!!' is becoming fairly repetitive and annoying, not to mention it was based on wild speculation to begin with.

Meanwhile, the paid employee that normally has to do the job is no longer employed in a time of high unemployment. The opportunities for the unskilled person's income - employment - shrinks further. As for those on the scheme, few have a chance of a work contract and work experience is on the level of stacking shelves.

Now, if the scheme was an apprenticeship, that would be valuable work experience and a good chance of a job. The kind of job where if a good employee is found, you keep him. These are successful and popular in the UK. But the scheme is not an apprenticeship.

Coppernerves:
*snip*

I left out the irrelevant parts of the post I replied to since I wasn't talking about rights v privilege - I simply care about how to help everyone and not just one section of society, England clearly isn't broke if they can afford to give away 10 billion pounds to India (who have their own space program) so any "deficit" is merely fictional

The problem with private companies is that you need to force them to pay or else, by nature, they will forever seek to avoid paying as much as possible (business literally means "to make money")

So via unpaid "work experience" programs you are giving the private company a way of avoiding payment/cutting employment, they WILL do this if you let them

One more thing, they bother with deadlines because they WANT something for nothing and they know they will get it if they bully hard enough

warmachine:
This whole bullshit marxist dogma of 'it's all a conspiracy to exploit the workers!!!' is becoming fairly repetitive and annoying, not to mention it was based on wild speculation to begin with.

Meanwhile, the paid employee that normally has to do the job is no longer employed in a time of high unemployment.[/quote]Really? Then I look forward to you showing proof that the work schemes have replaced paid jobs 1:1....

warmachine:
Now, if the scheme was an apprenticeship

It pretty much is...

This story goes hand in hand with the surge of apprenticeships by unskilled proffesions. Companies can offer apprenticeships for shelf stackers, floor sweepers, toilet cleaners etc and pay their staff below the minimum wage as a consequence. This story is basically another example of the Conservatives trying to circumvent the minimum wage laws to the benefit of their rather well off benefactors and it never fails to amaze me how there are poor people in my country who vote for them.

Iain Dumb-cunt Smith is using schemes like this to fudge the unemployment figures to make his party look like they are suceeding when they aren't.

Shivarage:

Coppernerves:
*snip*

I left out the irrelevant parts of the post I replied to since I wasn't talking about rights v privilege - I simply care about how to help everyone and not just one section of society, England clearly isn't broke if they can afford to give away 10 billion pounds to India (who have their own space program) so any "deficit" is merely fictional

The problem with private companies is that you need to force them to pay or else, by nature, they will forever seek to avoid paying as much as possible (business literally means "to make money")

So via unpaid "work experience" programs you are giving the private company a way of avoiding payment/cutting employment, they WILL do this if you let them

One more thing, they bother with deadlines because they WANT something for nothing and they know they will get it if they bully hard enough

I think we can agree then, that we need the government to make the companies pay up a good cut of the profit they make from these schemes.

Otherwise the scheme reduces the amount of money the business disperses into this country.

So said cut of the profit needs to be small enough that the business still benefits from the scheme, but large enough that the nation does so as well.

But how can we, the general public, help make sure that the businesses participating in the scheme get taxed the right amount at the right time?
Is there anything? Or do we just sit, watch, and decide who we're gonna vote for based on whether the Tories can make the scheme work in the countries' favour, while still being attractive to participating businesses?

Coppernerves:
*snip*

The "scheme" shouldn't be there at all, if they want work done then they can pay for it.

As far as the government goes, it's a rigged system so don't count on them to move an inch for the sake of it's people since it costs a lot of money to run a party and guess who provides that money... for absolute proof, look up Nick Clegg's pledge

In conclusion this "scheme" should be renamed "scam" but hey, that would be telling the truth which the government clearly doesn't do

Shivarage:
The "scheme" shouldn't be there at all, if they want work done then they can pay for it.

Free unlimited money in reward for not seeking a job strikes me as unfair.

Not to mention you'd be cancelling the advantages of such schemes for the long-term unemployed.

Shivarage:
As far as the government goes, it's a rigged system so don't count on them to move an inch for the sake of it's people

Citation for this radical left rhetoric is direly needed.

Blablahb:

Shivarage:
The "scheme" shouldn't be there at all, if they want work done then they can pay for it.

Free unlimited money in reward for not seeking a job strikes me as unfair.

you don't take in nearly as much as you read do you ?

its a National Insurance benefit for the first year. paid for by the persons own National Insurance contributions.

JSA requires the person to be "pounding the streets" looking for work, handing in multiple applications, attending the job centre, working through a job seeking action plan with a personal advisor, attending any interviews they might get out of their job applications and making themselves available for any job procured by themselves or the job centre on their behalf.

JSA requires this. by law. and its usually seriously rigorously enforced by the DWP.

they can't do this if they are shelf stacking in poundland...receiving free money in reward for not seeking a job...

Blablahb:
Not to mention you'd be cancelling the advantages of such schemes for the long-term unemployed.

these long-term unemployed ?

image

all 4420 or whatever of them ?...lets say 5 thousand for the sake of convenience.

and would that be learning the "skills" of what is fundamentally defined as an "unskilled job" or is it "getting out of bed i the morning" which ofc they can't do (even tho they've been doing it since primary school) because they are somehow lesser "others" than you and inherently lazy ?...

let me lay this out as simply as i can: the reason the over 5 years long-term unemployment rate can sit at less than 5 thousand people when 2-3 million are on the dole is because most of those 2-3 million find jobs within that time and do not become counted as long-term unemployed.

that means most people actively seek work and find it.

the huge vast 2-3 million minus 5 thousand majority of them within 5 years.

the same can be applied to any difference between the current unemployment figures and say those unemployed over 2 or 3 or 4 years.

the numerical difference is people actively seeking work and finding it (within the time period).

and its always a large difference and those people are always the majority.

this is called statistical analysis.

and it proves, statistically, that unemployed people are not "lazy" and do seek out work.

the problem is when people are also losing their jobs at the same time and so the unemployment numbers stay the same.

or worse, go up.

this is also exacerbated by poor quality short term & non secure jobs.

the two combine into a lot of "churn" where the same person might come back onto the list more than once in succession because of "poor quality" jobs that don't last or a person who actually manages to secure a lasting "good quality" job is near simultaneously replaced on the list by others losing theirs.

this happens more in a period when the economy is bad.

like now.

the worst time since "the great depression" in the 1930s.

any of this getting through ?

bad economy : few lasting, secure jobs.

not lazy people.

bad economy.

Blablahb:

Shivarage:
*snip*

*snip*

Shivarage:
As far as the government goes, it's a rigged system so don't count on them to move an inch for the sake of it's people

Citation for this radical left rhetoric is direly needed.

Do we have a thread on whether Britain is a plutocracy or not? Anyone else interested?

Sleekit:
ok where to start... i seem to have missed this thread (even though ive been posting about the subject a lot elsewhere)

ok first of all its not "slavery". it's corvée. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corv%C3%A9e

the only countries in the modern world that practice corvée amongst their general population are Bhutan, Myanmar, Rwanda and Britain.

Australia as well, the only significant difference in the respective 'workfare' schemes is that the Oz govt doesn't hand over unemployed people to work for corporations (unless they're agricultural producers in a declared Drought area or similarly being fucked by nature)... so it's more like being placed on a Community Work Order but instead of being a petty criminal you're unemployed.

RhombusHatesYou:

Sleekit:
ok where to start... i seem to have missed this thread (even though ive been posting about the subject a lot elsewhere)

ok first of all its not "slavery". it's corvée. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corv%C3%A9e

the only countries in the modern world that practice corvée amongst their general population are Bhutan, Myanmar, Rwanda and Britain.

Australia as well, the only significant difference in the respective 'workfare' schemes is that the Oz govt doesn't hand over unemployed people to work for corporations (unless they're agricultural producers in a declared Drought area or similarly being fucked by nature)... so it's more like being placed on a Community Work Order but instead of being a petty criminal you're unemployed.

most people are fine with the idea of "community work" and also working for charities (both of which would fit in with Cameron's "Big Society" spiel). you can see as much if you read though the comments in most of the papers.

but not this.

Sleekit:

RhombusHatesYou:

Sleekit:
ok where to start... i seem to have missed this thread (even though ive been posting about the subject a lot elsewhere)

ok first of all its not "slavery". it's corvée. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corv%C3%A9e

the only countries in the modern world that practice corvée amongst their general population are Bhutan, Myanmar, Rwanda and Britain.

Australia as well, the only significant difference in the respective 'workfare' schemes is that the Oz govt doesn't hand over unemployed people to work for corporations (unless they're agricultural producers in a declared Drought area or similarly being fucked by nature)... so it's more like being placed on a Community Work Order but instead of being a petty criminal you're unemployed.

most people are fine with the idea of "community work" and also working for charities (both of which would fit in with Cameron's "Big Society" spiel). you can see as much if you read though the comments in most of the papers.

but not this.

True but it still fits under the linked definition of modern corvée... but then again, so does conscription.

I should have said the only significant difference in stated policy was the corporate bollocks... the actual implementation of the policies is miles apart, and quite frankly, the Australian scheme is far less batshit loony and punitive.

Blablahb:
*snip*

I didn't realise people live forever so I have no idea where "unlimited" comes from

As I said, look up Nick Clegg's "tuition fees" pledge and then take a look at how he voted on it, there will be your answer

We're just going to go round in circles & you've said all I needed to hear so I'm finished, good chat.

Balberoth:
The issue here is that she was claiming a benefit that is conditional on her seeking paid employment, studying is not covered by this, and nor is internship, if she chooses to do an internship to further her chances of getting started in her chosen career then fine.
However, she is not entitled to claim welfare money from the state to pay for it while she does so.
Your chosen career may entail sacrifices and unpaid internship may be one of them, but the key word here is CHOSEN!
I disagree with her being put to work in Poundland however, as no company should benefit from virtually free labour while the taxpayer has to pay the JSA, she should have been put to work digging up the roads instead, something which will benefit us all.
If she finds that objectionable she can always find an actual paying job, or she can take out a loan to finance her internship, she has chosen this type of career path, so she can pay for it herself!

How can she find a good paying job if she's being forced to stack shelves? She might've chosen this career, but that still doesn't justify blatant exploitation. We can't just dismiss hardships and unfairness people face while pursuing their careers. Society needs all sorts of people to function, so if someone chooses the hard route, they should be encouraged.

the fact people seek a better life is part of what drives "Capitalism", "The Economy" and "Civilization".

what if she was the first Geologist or "the Einstein" of her field.

consider that *waves finger* :P

and even far flug supposition aside look at all the industrys old and new like fracking and the steel industry (who make things like supermarket shelves) and that need the sad lonely people who like staring at and figuring out things about rocks...

and even if she isn't any of that seeking to exist in an manner which we think we'd enjoy, to "better ourselves", is what drives Humanity.

it is "the drive".

are we really to suggest that the innate human drive for "betterment" which in our modern civil society coalesces around the ideal of getting "a decent education" and thus "a decent career" that earns enough money and provides a reasonable comfortable "middle class" existence is wrong and should be repressed ?

because that's what he did.

and bear and mind through almost all of this she was in fact "working" towards that goal.

the more i think of it the more annoyed i get at someone talking down someone else's (quite humble) steps towards a having a (quite humble) goal in life.

screw iain duncan smith.

we will not "know our station in life".

there isn't a shelf stacker alive that doesn't seek "to better themselves".
even in such a job they work to get money to spend to make their life "better".

we all do.

imo a real "Capitalist" would know that.

"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we can expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."

I wonder about what measures the UK government implemented to stop this JSA program from becoming a government sponsored company shortcut to replace some regular paid workers with free/below minimum wage workers?

Seems great for companies, but also very bad for taxpayers and people who are looking for simple jobs to support themselves. Maybe it would have been smarter to put these young people to work in the public sector instead. That's already taxpayer's money and there you can atleast control which job vacancies you destroy.

Sleekit:
the steel industry

Wait... the UK still has a steel industry? Where are you hiding it?

screw iain duncan smith.

we will not "know our station in life".

Oh, he's one of those types, huh? Reactionary, classist, Social Darwinist cunt... possibly also a pseudo-Cargo Cultist, thinking if they set the social policies back to those of when the UK was the pre-eminent world power then the power and prestige will magickally return.

Missed this part...

Sleekit:
imo a real "Capitalist" would know that.

Yes but 'real' Capitalism relies on the free and unrestricted flow of goods and money with no guarantees that the money will stay with the 'right kind of people'. Then just anyone could buy their way into polite society... any common oik could save enough cash to buy a house in a nice neighbourhood. Why, they could even possibly afford to dine in the better resturants. It would be CHAOS and ANARCHY... Why, you could end up with neighbours who follow the football and listen to music by people who haven't been dead for at least 150 years (except for Andrew Lloyd Webber who only looks like he has been).

RhombusHatesYou:

Sleekit:
the steel industry

Wait... the UK still has a steel industry? Where are you hiding it?

*deadpan face* we have people who make things from what must be provably be steel...

obligatory link proving there is still one :P http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e43974ea-9cdf-11e1-9327-00144feabdc0.html

its maybe one of the things we were a bit overzealous about getting rid of near completely.

modernly viable coal pits are being reopened too.

Sleekit:

RhombusHatesYou:

Sleekit:
the steel industry

Wait... the UK still has a steel industry? Where are you hiding it?

*deadpan face* we have people who make things from what must be provably be steel...

obligatory link proving there is still one :P http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e43974ea-9cdf-11e1-9327-00144feabdc0.html

Gah... obligatory link demands I sign up. Fuck obligatory link... I'll just take your word for it.

its maybe one of the things we were a bit overzealous about getting rid of near completely.

Those industries were killed purely so Thatcher could break the unions and punish the pro-Labour electorates that surround them.

But yes, it's always good to keep some mineral extraction and manufacturing capacity in place even when you have a service based economy.

modernly viable coal pits are being reopened too.

RESPEK!

the clockmaker:
The hyperbolic nature of this thread annoys me. Slavery is being kept in a dark room thousands of miles from home because you were fooled into think that there was paid work waiting. Slavery is being beaten for not working hard enough, or because your owner felt like it. Slavery is starvation, isolation, humiliation and most importantly, there is no way out for you. You cannot decide to change career paths or take something lower paying, you can't move to greener pastures and you can't escape.

People under this scheme are already being paid by the government, their not being paid twice for doing one lot of work is not slavery and daring to call it such is a fucking insult to those who actually suffer it. I will agree that the government needs to provide a safety net for people, but it does not need to support them in whatever endeavours that they choose. If she wanted to be a geologist and could not find paid work for it, it is not the government's responsibility to pay for that lifestyle.

If she were a slave, she would not have the option of ceasing to accept the benefits and pursuing her own employment.

Also, terrible poll is terrible.

Overall, this is a bad thread.

You don't understand the concept of wage slavery then.

Being effectively bound to work for a trinket wage, or else you and your family starving to death, losing your home, all your possessions, and your livelihood. It exists, and if you're ignorant to that, I don't know what to say, but money, and the threat of a lack of it, can be used to control people. This is some form of slavery or serfdom.

What's even worse about this is that the government is collaborating in wage slavery, using a system that was created to help the unemployed to force them to sell their labour for well below its price. They are forced to be dependent in some way or another economically.

MammothBlade:

the clockmaker:
The hyperbolic nature of this thread annoys me. Slavery is being kept in a dark room thousands of miles from home because you were fooled into think that there was paid work waiting. Slavery is being beaten for not working hard enough, or because your owner felt like it. Slavery is starvation, isolation, humiliation and most importantly, there is no way out for you. You cannot decide to change career paths or take something lower paying, you can't move to greener pastures and you can't escape.

People under this scheme are already being paid by the government, their not being paid twice for doing one lot of work is not slavery and daring to call it such is a fucking insult to those who actually suffer it. I will agree that the government needs to provide a safety net for people, but it does not need to support them in whatever endeavours that they choose. If she wanted to be a geologist and could not find paid work for it, it is not the government's responsibility to pay for that lifestyle.

If she were a slave, she would not have the option of ceasing to accept the benefits and pursuing her own employment.

Also, terrible poll is terrible.

Overall, this is a bad thread.

You don't understand the concept of wage slavery then.

Being effectively bound to work for a trinket wage, or else you and your family starving to death, losing your home, all your possessions, and your livelihood. It exists, and if you're ignorant to that, I don't know what to say, but money, and the threat of a lack of it, can be used to control people. This is some form of slavery or serfdom.

What's even worse about this is that the government is collaborating in wage slavery, using a system that was created to help the unemployed to force them to sell their labour for well below its price. They are forced to be dependent in some way or another economically.

Oh no,I understand it, I just dispute it. If other employment comes up, they are able to take it. They are able to not show up for work, they are able to quit and wear the consequences. They have uncountable freedoms that slaves do not and calling it 'wage slavery' is nothing more than an attempt to link the emotive response that decent people have to slavery to their own situation. It is, and I stand by everything I said in the above post (including that the poll is terrible) Calling this slavery is a fucking insult to those who are actually being enslaved right the fuck now, but who are instantly ignored because they are either a-tucked away in some deep dark corner of the world that no one seems to give a fuck about or B-Immigrants hidden away in some deep dark corner of your country that no one gives a fuck about. You can argue that they should be paid more, but calling it slavery is flat out wrong.

Employment, for whatever wage, is based solely around the carrot method. Work for me and I will give you the carrot. This is fundamentally the opposite of slavery, which is based around the stick. Threatening to remove the carrot is in now way the same a threatening the stick.

Finally something that I often hear in situations like this one, and see in my unemployed friends, is that they want work only in their own field. The person in question intended to remain on benefits for several years while volunteering in order to get their foot into the door of a profession that interested them. I do not see employment in your ideal field as a right that the government should pay for, if you have chosen a career that cannot support you economincally, it is your job as a thinking adult to either seek a new career or choose a new job in the period until your chosen career becomes economically viable.

MammothBlade:
What's even worse about this is that the government is collaborating in wage slavery, using a system that was created to help the unemployed to force them to sell their labour for well below its price. They are forced to be dependent in some way or another economically.

Uh... Right? And where did that happen then? You're bringing up something new here, not related to the work schemes for longterm unemployed. Because those are completely optional, and only apply to people who are unemployed for a long time, and also to their own benefit.

Ok there is something wrong with this guy. As for work experience, why wouldn't you do it somewhere elsa like an internship. What is the point to stacking stuff. Is it a waste of job, and an excuse for min. wage. As for work ethic and a positive attitude save that for when you do the job that were meant to do, not for something where you get almost nothing from it.

the clockmaker:

Oh no,I understand it, I just dispute it. If other employment comes up, they are able to take it. They are able to not show up for work, they are able to quit and wear the consequences. They have uncountable freedoms that slaves do not and calling it 'wage slavery' is nothing more than an attempt to link the emotive response that decent people have to slavery to their own situation. It is, and I stand by everything I said in the above post (including that the poll is terrible) Calling this slavery is a fucking insult to those who are actually being enslaved right the fuck now, but who are instantly ignored because they are either a-tucked away in some deep dark corner of the world that no one seems to give a fuck about or B-Immigrants hidden away in some deep dark corner of your country that no one gives a fuck about. You can argue that they should be paid more, but calling it slavery is flat out wrong.

Slavery comes in several forms, not just the obvious chain and ball, gun to head, coercion.

In this case, people can have their benefits cut or withdrawn altogether if they do not agree to work for little more than a pittance. They need those just to survive below the poverty line.

Employment, for whatever wage, is based solely around the carrot method. Work for me and I will give you the carrot. This is fundamentally the opposite of slavery, which is based around the stick. Threatening to remove the carrot is in now way the same a threatening the stick.

Except they don't have carrots in the first place, if you are a decent human being with far more carrots than you need, you will share with them enough carrots to feed themselves and their families anyway. It's not about working for a reward, people need food to survive, you can't just take that away from them even if they are not being productive in the short-term.

the clockmaker:

Employment, for whatever wage, is based solely around the carrot method. Work for me and I will give you the carrot. This is fundamentally the opposite of slavery, which is based around the stick. Threatening to remove the carrot is in now way the same a threatening the stick.

I wouldn't call the very least a person needs to life "the carrot". I'd call starvation the "stick".

If somebody's employed, and their employer threatens to dock their pay or fire them, is that the stick? Surely, yes. Withdrawal of a carrot that is very much relied upon for a basic standard of living is a stick.

I'm just demonstrating that that's not a very logically sound way of thinking about these things; It's too simplistic, it's too reductionist.

the clockmaker:
Finally something that I often hear in situations like this one, and see in my unemployed friends, is that they want work only in their own field.

Then they should have studied engineering. Youy never hear stories about hordes of unemployed engineers in Australia, only industry demands for more engineers.

the clockmaker:
Threatening to remove the carrot is in now way the same a threatening the stick.

While I get what you're trying to say, I think I need to stop you here for a moment. There are situations in which the stick and the lack of carrot are effectively the same thing. I do not know whether or not this is one of such situations, but if the stick only does what the lack of carrot would have done even if maybe over aslightly longer period of time, there's really not much difference between them.

Finally something that I often hear in situations like this one, and see in my unemployed friends, is that they want work only in their own field. The person in question intended to remain on benefits for several years while volunteering in order to get their foot into the door of a profession that interested them. I do not see employment in your ideal field as a right that the government should pay for, if you have chosen a career that cannot support you economincally, it is your job as a thinking adult to either seek a new career or choose a new job in the period until your chosen career becomes economically viable.


Obviously, everyone should purchase a crystal ball so that they can know which professions will be viable in a bunch of years, and can pick those today responsibly.

Excuse me; that itched so bad I just had to scratch it, let me put this into a more serious and salient form.

Picking a particular field is not something you can really be held completely accountable for, since you did not make an informed decision, or rather, the decision you made when picking it could not be informed by definition - because the information on whether or not your choice was actually viable when your finish your education is information that simply does not exist at the time you decide upon what kind of a career you wish to pursue. Sure, there are degrees of certainty, and there are professions which you can arguably expect will always be in demand, but when you're making a career choice you simply do not have all the relevant information required to make that choice, because a lof of that information is still in the future.

But, of course, as you say, people should be willing to look outside their comfort zone. They'd be surprised at how many options there are. Still no guarantee though, there is still a distinct lack of jobs going around at least where I live, and even if all available openings were taken right now, we'd still have a rather disturbing level of unemployment...

MammothBlade:

Slavery comes in several forms, not just the obvious chain and ball, gun to head, coercion.

In this case, people can have their benefits cut or withdrawn altogether if they do not agree to work for little more than a pittance. They need those just to survive below the poverty line.

And they have the option of seeking other employment. You, and several others seem to be making out that there is no other option for these people in life other than those benefits.

Except they don't have carrots in the first place, if you are a decent human being with far more carrots than you need, you will share with them enough carrots to feed themselves and their families anyway. It's not about working for a reward, people need food to survive, you can't just take that away from them even if they are not being productive in the short-term.

Again, working on the false dichotomy of this employer gives this employee wages or that employee starves. Slavery means no choice, no options no fucking escape. This is not slavery. If you can accept that, we can have a more meaningful discussion, but it is not slavery.

Silvanus:

I wouldn't call the very least a person needs to life "the carrot". I'd call starvation the "stick".

If somebody's employed, and their employer threatens to dock their pay or fire them, is that the stick? Surely, yes. Withdrawal of a carrot that is very much relied upon for a basic standard of living is a stick.

I'm just demonstrating that that's not a very logically sound way of thinking about these things; It's too simplistic, it's too reductionist.

I find it kind of funny that you are calling me simplistic and then running with the view that if a specific employer does not pay a specific employee than that employee is doomed. I guess that means that when I was made redundant I starved to death and am not actually discussing this now.

In a free society there exists the option to opt in and out of agreements. Job seekers allowance is an agreement that the government will support you for a brief period while you look for work, you can opt out of this by finding work. YOu opt in to an agreement with an employer that you will work for them and they will give you money. You can then opt out of that and into an agreement with a differing employer.

Do you get what I am saying, legitimate question because I am kind of hung over and not phrasing myself all that well.

RhombusHatesYou:

the clockmaker:
Finally something that I often hear in situations like this one, and see in my unemployed friends, is that they want work only in their own field.

Then they should have studied engineering. Youy never hear stories about hordes of unemployed engineers in Australia, only industry demands for more engineers.

Or become a tradee, or gone to the mines, or gone to one of the other growth industries.

Vegosiux:

While I get what you're trying to say, I think I need to stop you here for a moment. There are situations in which the stick and the lack of carrot are effectively the same thing. I do not know whether or not this is one of such situations, but if the stick only does what the lack of carrot would have done even if maybe over aslightly longer period of time, there's really not much difference between them.

Carrot, being given money in exchange for work, removal of carrot, not being given money in exchange for not working.
Stick, being beaten, raped, threatened, watching your family suffer the same, being dragged thousands of ks from home because you did not work hard enough.

One of these is employment, one of these is slavery. They are not the same and the mongrels who keep calling them the same in order to big up the 'oppression' that they live under stacking a few shelves are insulting those who actually live an oppressed life.

Obviously, everyone should purchase a crystal ball so that they can know which professions will be viable in a bunch of years, and can pick those today responsibly.

Well if you had asked me to look into my crystal ball when this young lady was entering Uni, it would have said that geology would not be a highly lucrative career choice.

Picking a particular field is not something you can really be held completely accountable for, since you did not make an informed decision, or rather, the decision you made when picking it could not be informed by definition - because the information on whether or not your choice was actually viable when your finish your education is information that simply does not exist at the time you decide upon what kind of a career you wish to pursue.

disagree, there tend to be broad trends as to what is and is not going to be a growth sector for career choices over the period of training to enter a trade and then entering that trade.

Sure, there are degrees of certainty, and there are professions which you can arguably expect will always be in demand, but when you're making a career choice you simply do not have all the relevant information required to make that choice, because a lof of that information is still in the future.

Also, no expectation to choose a career tends to be extant before early adult-hood. Now I may be expecting a bit too much of people, but making a career choice is a weighty decision that should involve a fair amount of research. I know that I spent many a long night learning about the past, present, predicted future, requirements, benefits and locational opportunities of my career before signing on the dotted line.

A key part of this research should be 'is this viable in supporting me financially'. I expect someone of eighteen or older to know that their philosophy degree will nor provide a wage, nor will their literature degree, their gender studies degree or their history of pottery. Building on that, there are degrees that provide a living wage only to the best, most of the sciences being an example. Following on from that, another question that you need to ask your self honestly is 'am I good enough that I will be able to get into one of the few paying positions?'.

When somebody fails to have a basic look at their career, and then fails to excel to the point of getting one of the elite positions, they should change streams or get another job to support their continued aspirations in that stream. It should not fall upon the state to provide them support until a job that they desire comes along.

But, of course, as you say, people should be willing to look outside their comfort zone. They'd be surprised at how many options there are. Still no guarantee though, there is still a distinct lack of jobs going around at least where I live, and even if all available openings were taken right now, we'd still have a rather disturbing level of unemployment...

Exactly, I am not demanding that people immediately give up their dreams, only that they swallow their pride and take whatever work they can get until they can get what work they want. I was made redundant a few years ago, and even then, the job that I was leaving was not in my desired career stream. Still, It had left me with several marketable skills that were, unfortunately falling out of demand ( I had gained a quite a few skills in landscaping, building retaining walls, fencing, concreting and slab pouring, light machinery operation etc but due to the recession, there was less and less call for renovations and landscaping so I lost my job and there were no places hiring in that field.) So I carpet bombed resumes and took whatever work I could. I spent a fair amount of time cleaning toilets, but it wasn't all bad, I got more experience in fire fighting, learned some conservations and land management, did some guard work and even a bit of corporate planning. Eventually, the chance to get into my desired career came up and I took it.

It's a good thing to have dreams, it's a good thing to work towards them. Just don't expect the world to bend over backwards so you can door your dream job, as seems to be the case in the OPs source.

the clockmaker:
Well if you had asked me to look into my crystal ball when this young lady was entering Uni, it would have said that geology would not be a highly lucrative career choice.

disagree, there tend to be broad trends as to what is and is not going to be a growth sector for career choices over the period of training to enter a trade and then entering that trade.

Also, no expectation to choose a career tends to be extant before early adult-hood. Now I may be expecting a bit too much of people, but making a career choice is a weighty decision that should involve a fair amount of research. I know that I spent many a long night learning about the past, present, predicted future, requirements, benefits and locational opportunities of my career before signing on the dotted line.

A key part of this research should be 'is this viable in supporting me financially'. I expect someone of eighteen or older to know that their philosophy degree will nor provide a wage, nor will their literature degree, their gender studies degree or their history of pottery. Building on that, there are degrees that provide a living wage only to the best, most of the sciences being an example. Following on from that, another question that you need to ask your self honestly is 'am I good enough that I will be able to get into one of the few paying positions?'.

When somebody fails to have a basic look at their career, and then fails to excel to the point of getting one of the elite positions, they should change streams or get another job to support their continued aspirations in that stream. It should not fall upon the state to provide them support until a job that they desire comes along.

I'm aware of that. But while there are trends, you can't know for sure. It's a gamble. Some bets indeed are safer than others, but then again a slave could run away too and hope to come across someone who will recognize their worth as a human being, after all, not every free person living in a slave-owning society is likely to be fine with it, or willing to exploit slaves.

Not really comparable? I know, but the question is, where do we draw the line between bets one needs to made being "safe enough" and "too skewed in favor of the house"? Genuine question here, mind. Because while I agree with you that the situation described in OP isn't "slavery" by definition, the bets people who are dealing with it have to make are still kind of skewed in favor of the house.

Essentially, everything we do regarding future planning is a gamble to some degree, but there are gambles people shouldn't be coerced into - and keep in mind that physical force and direct threats to one's life or health are not the only form of coercion. I'm still undecided on whether or not the OP situation is such a gamble, but I do know it's one I'd really rather not have to take.

Should everyone research what they can about their chosen careers? Of course. But there are factors of uncertainty. And while "Can this support me financially" should be an important consideration, I'm with you on that one, "Do I want to be doing this for most of the rest of my life" is another one. Finding a balance between those two is something I really don't want to get into, however, because it'd be liable to blow up then I couldn't make heads and tails of it. Still, you don't have to be poor to be miserable.

Leaving out the rest since we're agreeing on that so there's not much more to add.

Gergar12:
Ok there is something wrong with this guy. As for work experience, why wouldn't you do it somewhere elsa like an internship. What is the point to stacking stuff. Is it a waste of job, and an excuse for min. wage. As for work ethic and a positive attitude save that for when you do the job that were meant to do, not for something where you get almost nothing from it.

You're forgetting this scheme is for long term unemployed. It's not an unreasonable assumption that they're doing something wrong, and could use an example of work, any sort of work.

Heck, if I'd stuck to my education's standards after the contract with the military ended I'd be unemployed too right now. When I started studying there was plenty of work in government advice and private advice firms. But the cuts made for government efficiency 2005-2009 and the increasing tendency to not research spatial impact of business decisions devastated the work field, and study-relevant jobs have become rare. They looked for 2 spatial advisors in a municipality recently, and they had 224 applications. Most job ads discriminate against young people too by demanding 5-10-15 years of experience on a similar job, while in 90% of the cases those demands are bullshit and not really needed.
I decided to push on for a master's degree and security guard certification. Security work isn't anywhere near on my real level, but it's been the main source of income for me for years now.

So if you'd hold to a standard of only accepting a job 'at your level', you'd be unemployed for years. Already the average time to find a job after graduating has risen from 8 to 10 months, and most of that is either not study-related, or some dumb traineeship where you get exploited at a minimum wage for years before you get a shot at the big time.

We have similar schemes where a job is offered and not accepting is punished by loss of benefits, but it's a good thing to get the message across that whatever people have been doing so far isn't working (haha). And as a bonus it also offers a chance at being offered a contact. I think to remember the contractually hire rate among those work sheme participants was 60% (those that stayed at least a year afterwards), and an additional 34% finding other work after entering.

This would suggest that such a work-for-benefits scheme cuts unemployment in that group anywhere between 60% and 94% depending on how much is caused by the effects of the scheme.

RhombusHatesYou:
Then they should have studied engineering. Youy never hear stories about hordes of unemployed engineers in Australia, only industry demands for more engineers.

Not just Australia, pretty much everywhere. People masochistic enough to volunteer for studying mathematics that advanced tend to be in short supply.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked