More than a fifth of UK adults not looking for work
- Thread starter hifinutt
- Start date
gintonic
50 shades of grey pussy cats
@alanbeeb
because they are not UK citizens, they don't have the right to work in the UK. So the employer needs to sponsor the visa (tier 2 visa). EU citizens now need a visa to work, but with freedom of movement in the EU, we rarely get applications.
Occasionally you get a candidate holding a global talent visa (tier 1 visa) or post study work visa (max of 2 or 3 years) after holding a tier 4 visa (adult students).
I receive alot of applications from India, Pakistan, S Africa, Iran, and China - all need a visa sponsoring. We do get some applications from UK citizens, but not many.
ks.234
Half way to Infinity
Truck driving is another one of those jobs that is not what it once was I’m afraid? Pay, and especially conditions much deteriorated
sq225917
Bit of this, bit of that
If experience of recent vacancies at my workplace is anything to go by more than half of applicants are straight up lying about their skillset and most of the rest want to work from home. I can't recall the number of times claims of experience don't add up to being able to answer questions on the specifics of their experience, ie you'd expect someone proficient at photoshop to be able to reel off what the common keyboard shortcuts are or if not what position on a text menu corresponds to the same function. Same for shopify, Netsuit etc, not knowing the names of variables in the back end but claiming have dev experience.
ks.234
Half way to Infinity
Mike Hughes
pfm Member
Zero evidence for this. Opinion dressed as fact.
Spot on.
I once ridiculed a colleague who intolerably jibed very loudly “I’m 62. I don’t need this s**t. Nowadays I wonder why I was so tolerant for so long.
Getting Carers Allowance (CA) is wholly dependent upon receipt of a qualifying benefit by the disabled person. That is generally not straightforward at all and even Attendance Allowance, one of the few benefits which worked as it ought, has gone to hell in a handcart in the past year when they moved most of the experienced decision makers over to writing UC appeal papers. Then there is the tricky issue of receipt of CA reducing the income of the disabled person if they live alone; have no non-dependants living with them etc.
Always love how people still start from the assumption the benefits system is both simple and meets your needs when you ask…
The growing number of NEETs (Not in Education, Employment and Training) is a significant crisis for both the children and the economy. The solution thus far has been to partially monetise it and try and generate income from non-attendance.
Not noticed periodic shortages of specific food stuffs then?
Last edited:
raysablade
pfm Member
Something that I suspect afflicts my late 50s early 60s age group is long term impact of mass unemployment in the late 70s and 80s. When we were entering the workforce getting any job was incredibly difficult. Once you had one you clung to it.
By the time the labour market was starting to tighten again and opportunities to change might have arisen we were all trained and most of us were in relationships and starting families. Scarred by our experience when entering the workforce we tended to stick to what we knew rather than risk even looking at something different. That means that a bigger proportion of us than is usual ended up in jobs and professions we didn't necessarily like and as soon as the opportunity arises we are glad to see the back of them.
By the time the labour market was starting to tighten again and opportunities to change might have arisen we were all trained and most of us were in relationships and starting families. Scarred by our experience when entering the workforce we tended to stick to what we knew rather than risk even looking at something different. That means that a bigger proportion of us than is usual ended up in jobs and professions we didn't necessarily like and as soon as the opportunity arises we are glad to see the back of them.
wulbert
pfm Member
I think you are correct. My mistake.
I think employers used to play a bigger role in training people up and getting them skilled, now you're expected to be 100% ready to go and hit the ground running no matter what the little quirks or differences exist between previous and current employers. It used to be that if your head and feet faced the same way and you showed a level of competence/learning then you'd get taken on with the expectation you'd get some quality on the job training.
It's another symptom of the road we've gone down over the last 40 odd years. We've thrown a lot away, things that can't easily or quickly be rebuilt. Another leg down in the race to the bottom. But hey, at least dividends keep rolling in and the share price is up.
It's another symptom of the road we've gone down over the last 40 odd years. We've thrown a lot away, things that can't easily or quickly be rebuilt. Another leg down in the race to the bottom. But hey, at least dividends keep rolling in and the share price is up.
hifinutt
hifinutt
Agreed , we used to have one provider of care (council) with one set of policies and accountability .now we have hundreds of separate companies with the cheapest engaged and poor employment conditions in many cases
Bob McC
Living the life of Riley
My experience is completely different.
The council carers were incompetent beyond belief, on at least one occasion we witnessed one leaving after ten of the allocated thirty minutes, they changed from day to day thus causing unnecessary stress to the client with dementia, they didn’t know how to deal with her personal care needs, several times she was left lying in her own piss, they made no attempt to cajole her to eat or drink, didn’t engage with her personally at all.
Luckily in Scotland you can be allocated their cost towards buying in your own. We could not wait to bin them off and employ our own choice. Yes, need to top up because they were more expensive but now she has regular settled carers who are professional, spend the full allocated time with her and who go out of their way to show compassion and support, even giving their own time to take her out.
The council carers were incompetent beyond belief, on at least one occasion we witnessed one leaving after ten of the allocated thirty minutes, they changed from day to day thus causing unnecessary stress to the client with dementia, they didn’t know how to deal with her personal care needs, several times she was left lying in her own piss, they made no attempt to cajole her to eat or drink, didn’t engage with her personally at all.
Luckily in Scotland you can be allocated their cost towards buying in your own. We could not wait to bin them off and employ our own choice. Yes, need to top up because they were more expensive but now she has regular settled carers who are professional, spend the full allocated time with her and who go out of their way to show compassion and support, even giving their own time to take her out.
Jubal
pfm Member
Thanks for posting. If I’ve read it correctly, then the headline is from the 90s we’ve seen a roughly 5% decline in those of working age looking for work. No wonder we can’t fill vacancies. It doesn’t explain the heavier competition for some jobs but I’m sure the type of job, pay rate and so on is a big factor.
Pity our govt then demonises the workforce rather than addressing more fundamental issues.
wulbert
pfm Member
Interestingly, in Denmark it is much easier to hire and fire people than in the UK. Their government makes it deliberately easy for an employer to get rid of staff they no longer need or want. One result is they have much less use of zero-hours contracts and businesses feel they can hire for the short-term if they need to. People can take a job and leave it if it is not a good fit.
There is a big BUT, however in that they have an excellent support system for unemployment with a guaranteed income of X% of whatever your wage was, until you find a job of your choosing, in your own time (e.g. no forcing of ex-retail managers to clean toilets).
What they have done is shift the burden of supporting the labour force from employers ( leaving them free to do business ) and onto the state. It seems to work for them but presupposes a government that actually cares about it's population and has their best interests at heart.
There is a big BUT, however in that they have an excellent support system for unemployment with a guaranteed income of X% of whatever your wage was, until you find a job of your choosing, in your own time (e.g. no forcing of ex-retail managers to clean toilets).
What they have done is shift the burden of supporting the labour force from employers ( leaving them free to do business ) and onto the state. It seems to work for them but presupposes a government that actually cares about it's population and has their best interests at heart.
wulbert
pfm Member
And how do you plan for the future, rent a flat, start a family, make an expensive purchase, keep a relationship etc when you don't know what your income and work-pattern is going to be from one month to the next?
These precariously employed people are not spending much back into the economy or paying much tax. Their employers may be off-shore corporations paying little tax. It would not surprise me if these jobs are a net loss to the real economy as a whole (but generate vast profits for a tiny number of people).
raysablade
pfm Member
The differences between men and women are amazing.
I'm guessing this is based on the self reporting used by the Labour Market Survey.
My wife is part of this at the moment. The questions they use and the approach are in themselves interesting.
ks.234
Half way to Infinity
Yes. Full employment has become a meaningless term. Feudalism and serfdom create full employment.
The whole notion of employed and unemployed has been redefined to suit political purpose. It used to be that full unemployment was thought to be the necessary condition of classical economic theory, until, of course, the Wall Street Crash.
Keynesianism was a response to the not unreasonable observation that real unemployment was a bit of a problem and his solution, investment in real jobs with decent wages, actually worked.
In response Milton Friedman, opposed to investment, came up with his ‘natural rate of unemployment’. For Friedman, 'the natural rate of unemployment, when an economy is in a steady state of "full employment", is the proportion of the workforce who are unemployed'.
Really?
This is nothing more or less than a tortured justification for free market fundamentalism at the expense of investment in people.
Friedman’s explanation made little theoretical sense when he developed it in the 60’s and has been proven to be utter nonsense by 5 decades of application in the real world.
Why do we still allow ourselves to be governed by such a broken ideal?
We need to face up to the fact that we have two contrasting ideals. One is the old one that workers need to be disempowered by the threat of unemployment and low wages in order for the economy to work for an elite, the other that empowering workers is the means to creating an economy that works for everyone.
Anyone expecting full employment is deluded, before or after any Wall Street Crash. There will always be people who choose not to work or can't work because of childcare, care for the elderly, those recovering from illness or still ill, those taking early retirement, of private means or any variety of reasons. How many women aged 16-65 worked at the time of the WSC? Few. How many of childbearing age? Fewer still. The causes of people being economically inactive are manifold and defy any simple one-size-fits-all solution.