Jobless to get incentives to move in order to find work

pragmatic

Distinguished Member
Jobless to get incentives to move in order to find work - UK Politics, UK - The Independent

I think this is a good idea although not practical for every circumstance.

I have in my working life had to move all around the UK to get jobs that fits my skills, I wouldn't/couldn't just wait around for a job to appear in where ever I was living (In the north east in particular, but I'd image anywhere that isn't London/South East this is true).
If your fit and single I don't see how this as anything but an incentive to work, a leg up even which might be difficult or even impossible otherwise.

The situation gets complicated if you have a family and kids in schools, but some might jump at the chance to have a fresh start somewhere else.

Does anyone see it as derisory or an invasion of 'rights' or some of the other negative connotations some of the press seem to be presenting this as?
 

Badger0-0

Distinguished Member
Typical blinkered thinking imo.

What would happen if a lot of people were to actually take this idea up?
Surely these areas would become even more desperate?

Mr Duncan Smith complained that decades of employment planning had left the UK with a "static" workforce, and that people should be prepared to travel, even hundreds of miles, to escape joblessness.

What utter rubbish.
You only have to look at how busy our roads are to see how many people are travelling for work.

I'm currently working at a factory where all the employees lived literally on the doorstep in the 70's.
Having spoken to quite a few of the current regular employees, many of them travel from all over the midlands.
So it's certainly not the case that people won't travel imo.

enabling job-seekers to go to the top of the housing list in another area rather than giving up their right to a home.

I assume these are the homes that the tories banned councils from building (and Labour never changed it) to allow wealthy people to rent their other houses out at extortionate rates? :rolleyes:
Which working people are subsidising, remember.

How about the government goes the other way and encourages business to move away from the south east?
Starting with government departments.

I can see that it would suit some people, as you say, but I don't see why you should have to move hundreds of miles.
 
Last edited:

pragmatic

Distinguished Member
I can see that it would suit some people, as you say, but I don't see why you should have to move hundreds of miles.

I'd say the reverse if the job was a hundred miles away why wouldn't you move? If you want a job its sometimes what you have to do, its got to be better than being on benefits?

I do agree that on the face of it, it seems to fly in the face of the idea of creating more jobs outside London/South East, but it could benefit people in outlying villages to move to local cities to get jobs there.
I'd give an example pit villages in the north east/Yorkshire that have since had nothing but local town/cities have much more opportunities, but the lack of housing (as pointed out in the article) makes it impossible, as not only would you have no where to live locally but you'd loose your current as no longer seen as 'needy'. (I'd say this is another benefit trap, keeping people out of jobs because of bureaucracy)

Another example would semi/skilled people in the steel industry recently made redundant in Redcar to be able to move to Sheffield or other places that have steelworks. This retains the skills industry needs and makes relocation more attractive.

I think the proposal is well meaning and is intended mostly for the two groups I said above, but if anything comes of it, well I guess it comes down to jobs and people. As long as its voluntary, I suppose any help to get people working should be applauded?
 
Last edited:

Badger0-0

Distinguished Member
As long as its voluntary, I suppose any help to get people working should be applauded?

Absolutely!

I just don't think this will help.
 

Badger0-0

Distinguished Member
Sorry, that was a short answer because we were losing 2-0 :(

I'd say the reverse if the job was a hundred miles away why wouldn't you move? If you want a job its sometimes what you have to do, its got to be better than being on benefits?

Given the way things work now, where companies go bump at the drop of a hat?

No chance mate.
It's not like the old days where you had a job for life or as long as you wanted it.

Don't get me wrong, I'll travel anywhere for work.

But many people won't and I don't blame them.

Another example would semi/skilled people in the steel industry recently made redundant in Redcar to be able to move to Sheffield or other places that have steelworks. This retains the skills industry needs and makes relocation more attractive.

So what happens to Redcar then?
You're now left with what the Mail would call the dregs (unskilled cheap labour) which just lowers the lowest common denominator even more.

Hmm, yes, that's a great idea :rolleyes:
 

namuk

Distinguished Member
If the Government did not sell our assets off or just the Contacts book i.e clients aboard , no one would have an issue of using a helicopter to get to work due to Killing local towns economy . one reason we need People in parliament not living on the moon or thinking we all have a second home.
 
D

Deleted member 293381

Guest
... one reason we need People in parliament not living on the moon or thinking we all have a second home.

I agree with that bit - but don't undertand the rest of your post! :D
 

Sonic67

Banned
I'd say the reverse if the job was a hundred miles away why wouldn't you move? If you want a job its sometimes what you have to do, its got to be better than being on benefits?

Because no job is for life any more. If I'm going to quit my home, friends, family to live somewhere else that's quite a once in a lifetime decision.
If the job is something big like building big ships or something for the Navy I might hope it was a job for life. Anything else I don't think I would without a lot of guarantees.

I'm not against being away from home or moving, I used to be in Germany, but it needs to be something certain.
 

pragmatic

Distinguished Member
Because no job is for life any more. If I'm going to quit my home, friends, family to live somewhere else that's quite a once in a lifetime decision.

I've done it 3 times in the last 5 years (almost 4 corners of the UK)... but I'm relatively single and don't have any dependents, I think in this economic climate there are plenty of other professionals that do the same, for so called 'low/semi-skilled' workforce it seems as you say a once in a lifetime thing. As I said I move to where the work is, if the governments going to help I don't see an excuse (which I've seen raised before).

In another post it was mentioned the draining of the workers from the likes of Redcar leaving a sorrier state behind, I don't see the logic in that.
If there are no jobs in say Redcar for those steel workers then they will be on the dole, otherwise those steelworkers will take jobs that aren't at all related to their many years of experience in which case depriving someone else from Redcar of getting that job.

If these people were offered a job that fits their many years of experience and are given assistance to move then isn't that the best for everyone (other workers in Redcar are say working in an office and skilled worker is given better paid work that they have been trained to do)? I'm taking the view here that the type of jobs lost won't spring up again in the local area, like say pit villages/towns in the past.

If in the above example people just stay put then I don't see the difference to pit communities that have chronic unemployment and a lack of aspiration as the soul of the place has been crushed, if a way out was provided I'd think that would be a lot better (and new communities would form).

Its all about the implementation though, if done badly then it'll be a terrible policy but if it works then its another step to recovery.
 

namuk

Distinguished Member
I agree with that bit - but don't undertand the rest of your post! :D

What i mean is , when a company goes up for sale here any country can buy the company and move it anywhere in the world even if it just the Clients book, so then you get mass job lose, but in other contrys people have the vote or a say for this not to happen , i have seen too many companys go aboard due to this issue , one reson the company i work for lost some massive contracts.
 

dazza74

Distinguished Member
Ultimately it comes down to wages for me. I've never in my life worked because it was the right thing to do, I've always worked because it meant a better life than not working, foreign holidays a nice car. When you lose that incentive your only left with the moral high ground.

As has been touched upon before, being unemployed is nowhere near as boring as it was 20 or 30 years ago. Most people who can cobble together the money for an internet connection and a basic laptop could spend most of the day on here putting the world to rights :)
 
D

Deleted member 51156

Guest
Interesting that this has come to light as me and my partner are considering moving away from yorkshire,business is very slow the market is saturated with out of work tradesmen,so we are considering closing it ,moving further south ,where i can get a job for 6 to 12 months and then set up again in my new area.
I don't know what the answer is, asking people to move is a big deal ,they need the skills to move and many just dont have them ,i don't envy any goverment minister trying to get us out of recession..and people back into work..
 

Sonic67

Banned
I've done it 3 times in the last 5 years (almost 4 corners of the UK)... but I'm relatively single and don't have any dependents,
That would be another problem, both Mrs Sonic and I work.
 

Badger0-0

Distinguished Member
i don't envy any goverment minister trying to get us out of recession..and people back into work..

I believe it is quite easy.
You do exactly what Labour did (to a very small extent) in creating non-jobs.

It may seem daft, but the alternative of paying people benefits for doing absolutely nothing is even dafter imo.

But it suits the books for employers to have a nice big pool of unemployed to choose from, as it drives wages down.

It's why the tories are so keen to attack the public sector imo.
 

pragmatic

Distinguished Member
It costs more to have people working in the public sector non job than being on the dole, which has pretty much the same net effect just one is more expensive.
Salary is only a small proportion of the cost, add on the pension contributions, employer NI, and administration cost and people given non jobs in the tax office to pay the people in non jobs elsewhere their tax credits after already taking their money off them in tax which is all entirely paid by the private sector (and now 1/4 paid by yearly investors).

Its unarguably better for the country that those people work in the private sector adding to the tax pot and maybe doing something productive than a non job any day. I'd image the ones doing the non jobs are those that want to have a job are hardly have the scrounger mentality.

Labours non job employment policy and move the long term unemployed onto sickness benefit are currently and will be shown to be the sham they are. That is the true cost that has bankrupted the economy, the banking crisis is just a nice big smoke screen (and one that will pay itself back) Labour and most of all Brown have been able to hide behind.

Housing benefit alone has ballooned so that over the last decade it has cost around £180bn, it was several hundred million a year when labour got into power, its now £18bn annually, add to the non jobs and the unethical reclassification of million of the long term unemployed to incapacity benefit purely to make the stats look good. This all goes to show the real incompetence of labours economic profligacy in some misguided idealogical attempt to get full employment without trying to foster industry and create real jobs in the boom times when the money was there to do it.

As for the pool of unemployed drives down wages, you could say non jobs make the country less competitive by not only driving wages up but also drive down the tax take that could be used to build a better, fairer and more cohesive country.
The extra tax take could be used for better infrastructure or pay those with real jobs in the public sector more, or even clear the massive public sector pension deficit so those that paid in have a hope of getting out what they signed up for Public sector pension figures 'were fiddled under Brown' | Money | The Observer or tax breaks so those in real jobs spend more in the economy in turn generating more real jobs.
 
Last edited:

Badger0-0

Distinguished Member
Badger your views seem so out of kilter (at least with mine) you might as well be as mad as one.

No need to remove that bit, as I don't see it as offensive or personal :)

It's only opinions :smashin:

It costs more to have people working in the public sector non job than being on the dole, which has pretty much the same net effect just one is more expensive.

Really?

Maybe in ultimate monetary cost (which sadly is all that counts these days after all), but what about hidden costs?
Poorer health, increased crime etc?

I don't have a clue what a couple with a kid would get on the dole, but it's not the only cost.
A basic house in the private sector (cheap social housing has pracically gone out the window remember, so rich people can line their pockets even more) costs easily £150 a week in my (very lower working class) area.
Assuming dole would be about the same, that's £300 a week. About the same as quite a few people I know earn.
And I won't mention how this family is contributing nothing back at all in tax or insurance or lack of spending power (again all our false economy is based on).

This all goes to show the real incompetence of labours economic profligacy in some misguided idealogical attempt to get full employment without trying to foster industry and create real jobs in the boom times when the money was there to do it.

Labour messed it up by playing basicallythe same game as the tories imo.
It was never a proper Labour party under Blair and I've been saying it for years.

Are you seriously trying to tell me the tories will foster industry?
That's laughable, if so.
See above about pit towns, while we still have masses of coal reserves.
We don't have any car industry anymore and our steel is foreign owned, as are our utilities.
I could go on, but suspect I'd be wasting my breath.

As for the pool of unemployed drives down wages, you could say non jobs make the country less competitive by not only driving wages up but also drive down the tax take that could be used to build a better, fairer and more cohesive country.
The extra tax take could be used for better infrastructure or pay those with real jobs in the public sector more, or even clear the massive public sector pension deficit so those that paid in have a hope of getting out what they signed up for Public sector pension figures 'were fiddled under Brown' | Money | The Observer or tax breaks so those in real jobs spend more in the economy in turn generating more real jobs.

So by your logic driving wages up and having more employment reduces the tax take :confused:
You've got me there.
I'm lost for words tbh.

The tories tried to increase competitiveness. It didn't work then and won't work now.
We can't compete with 3rd world labour when it comes to wages and doing the same as was tried in the 80's is totally doomed to failure.

better, fairer and more cohesive country.
and tories doesn't mix in my experience.
Unless you're better or luckier.

As for a pension, good luck if you have one. Many people don't.
 

dazza1011

Well-known Member
Another example would semi/skilled people in the steel industry recently made redundant in Redcar to be able to move to Sheffield or other places that have steelworks. This retains the skills industry needs and makes relocation more attractive.

have you been to Sheffield ?

because there are plenty of unemployed steel workers already here that could do with the job without bussing in people from redcar.:rolleyes:

added to the fact the government has just refused to loan a steel company money in order to employ more people in the industry.

yet another stupid idea dreamed up by the Con-Dem coalition
 

Badger0-0

Distinguished Member
have you been to Sheffield ?

because there are plenty of unemployed steel workers already here that could do with the job without bussing in people from redcar.:rolleyes:

added to the fact the government has just refused to loan a steel company money in order to employ more people in the industry.

yet another stupid idea dreamed up by the Con-Dem coalition

Ah, Forgemasters, yes?
I forgot that one.

A company only matched by one other in the whole world in it's expertise (Japan Steel works, although I'm sure you don't need any explanation).

And refused an £80M loan when other investors thought it was a decent thing.

Real fostering of industry, that is :rolleyes:
 

dazza74

Distinguished Member
Ah, Forgemasters, yes?
I forgot that one.

A company only matched by one other in the whole world in it's expertise (Japan Steel works, although I'm sure you don't need any explanation).

And refused an £80M loan when other investors thought it was a decent thing.

Real fostering of industry, that is :rolleyes:

That is one I've been struggling with as well I have to admit, would have created 180 jobs as well I believe. I know there's an argument why couldn't they get the finance themselves externally but given how reluctant banks are to lend it's a bit of a weak argument imo.
 

Dave

Distinguished Member
Of course, a cynic would suggest that the Conservatives don't really mind a pool of jobless workers as this generally keeps wages low.:rolleyes:
 

dazza1011

Well-known Member
That is one I've been struggling with as well I have to admit, would have created 180 jobs as well I believe. I know there's an argument why couldn't they get the finance themselves externally but given how reluctant banks are to lend it's a bit of a weak argument imo.

They could have but it would have meant giving up shares to outside interests this happened in the past and the outside interests nearly bankrupted the company in order to get some money ( asset stripping etc ) as it is owned by the workers currently.
 

dazza74

Distinguished Member
Of course, a cynic would suggest that the Conservatives don't really mind a pool of jobless workers as this generally keeps wages low.:rolleyes:

Your exactly right Dave, North east companies are complaining they can't fill the minimum wage jobs they offer because of the public sector paying more in that region.
 

dazza1011

Well-known Member
Your exactly right Dave, North east companies are complaining they can't fill the minimum wage jobs they offer because of the public sector paying more in that region.

maybe the tip is to offer more then ( either pay or some kind of benefits that enhance the low pay better holidays etc )
 

dazza74

Distinguished Member
maybe the tip is to offer more then ( either pay or some kind of benefits that enhance the low pay better holidays etc )

They probably wait for the next wave of EU Migrants to arrive. I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying this is what this government wants to do, shift the wages from the tax payer to the private sector. They don't give a monkey's whether somebody earns less as a result or has a poorer standard of living.
 

The latest video from AVForums

Star Wars Andor, Woman King, more Star Trek 4K, Rings of Power & the latest TV, movies & 4K releases
Subscribe to our YouTube channel

Latest News

JVC adds Filmmaker Mode to latest D-ILA projector firmware
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Bowers & Wilkins launches Px8 headphone
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Sky set to launch its plug-and-play Sky Stream solution
  • By Ian Collen
  • Published
Movies Podcast: 26th September 2022
  • By Phil Hinton
  • Published
AV Podcast: 26th September 2022
  • By Phil Hinton
  • Published

Full fat HDMI teeshirts

Support AVForums with Patreon

Top Bottom