Forced Employement, to Combat large scale Unemployment

  • Thread starter Thread starter MindOverMatter2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
In the uk, the government has come up with the idea to make the unemployed take jobs in supermarkets full time for 40 hours a week for 6 month, what do they get in return, about £65 with is unemployment plus they can claim expenses for travelling to the job, while the normal employees will be earning at least 5 times as much as them for the same hours.

This is so wrong on so many levels, the government should be addressing why there is so much unemployment, not making the poor suffer more then they are already.

Can anyone on here hand on heart say they would still be doing the job they are doing now but only earning a fraction of their pay
 
Zundrah said:
I suppose you’d have to look at the financial capabilities that some businesses have and then compare with the population of unemployed people where ever it is set out.

There’s facts and figures to really think about.
Click to expand...
We also have the Constitution to think about. We are not a communist society with a central planning committee that can take money from companies we deem have enough and give it to workers we think should be hired. That form of government has proven to be problematic.
 
agnes_therese said:
So, if I owned a small business, and could afford to pay 10 employees, and then the government comes along and tells me to hire 10 more – again, who would pay them? I had already hired all the employees I could afford.

I don’t think you’ve thought this out very well. And/or you have no business experience at all.
Click to expand...
You would pay them all about 40% of what you were paying the original 10. The amount an organization can pay for labor is not very flexible. That amount includes salary and benefits (that’s why the new payrate isn’t 50% of the original). So roughly the same total amount would be spread over more employees. Of course employees closer to the minimum wage would get a smaller cut while those making more than double the minimum wage would get a bigger cut.

Any guess how long your most experienced employees would stick around? :rolleyes:
 
pnewton said:
Yes, if that is what it took to put food on the table.
Click to expand...
sorry i find that hard to believe, you would be willing to work for a 5th of what you get paid now while others are earning what you use to,
 
Maralah said:
sorry i find that hard to believe, you would be willing to work for a 5th of what you get paid now while others are earning what you use to,
Click to expand...
If that was my only job I could get and needed it for food, yes, I would. Men do what they have to for families. That is not to say I would not be trying to improve my situation in the meantime.
 
Maralah said:
In the uk, the government has come up with the idea to make the unemployed take jobs in supermarkets full time for 40 hours a week for 6 month, what do they get in return, about £65 with is unemployment plus they can claim expenses for travelling to the job, while the normal employees will be earning at least 5 times as much as them for the same hours.

This is so wrong on so many levels, the government should be addressing why there is so much unemployment, not making the poor suffer more then they are already.

Can anyone on here hand on heart say they would still be doing the job they are doing now but only earning a fraction of their pay
Click to expand...
What the government want to do over here in the UK is evidently not far from slave labor, and is not what i was proposing.
 
MindOverMatter2 said:
What the government want to do over here in the UK is evidently not far from slave labor, and is not what i was proposing.
Click to expand...
If they are indeed *made *to take the job, then you are right. I am curious as to how they would make them though.
 
Maralah said:
In the uk, the government has come up with the idea to make the unemployed take jobs in supermarkets full time for 40 hours a week for 6 month, what do they get in return, about £65 with is unemployment plus they can claim expenses for travelling to the job, while the normal employees will be earning at least 5 times as much as them for the same hours.

This is so wrong on so many levels, the government should be addressing why there is so much unemployment, not making the poor suffer more then they are already.

Can anyone on here hand on heart say they would still be doing the job they are doing now but only earning a fraction of their pay
Click to expand...
If the grocery store can get employees from the government for a 5th of the cost, (and I don’t know what bag boys get in the UK but here that would be at most $2 an hour) why would they hire any other employees at all? What they are proposing isn’t new. It’s called indentured servitude. (Except indentured servants usually get temporary lodgings out of the deal.)
 
Maralah said:
sorry i find that hard to believe, you would be willing to work for a 5th of what you get paid now while others are earning what you use to,
Click to expand...
Sorry, you lost me. Your original statement was that these are people who are unemployed and instead of getting paid for doing nothing, they will now work for their salary at an amount equal to the unemployment pay. They aren’t working for a 1/5 of what they are making now if they are unemployed. 🤷
 
Corki said:
Sorry, you lost me. Your original statement was that these are people who are unemployed and instead of getting paid for doing nothing, they will now work for their salary at an amount equal to the unemployment pay. They aren’t working for a 1/5 of what they are making now if they are unemployed. 🤷
Click to expand...
That would be alright, if they were making the same wages as the other employees that did the same job. And of course, if the company agreed to it. But then, what is the difference between that and just getting a job? What we’ve created here is what we call an unemployment office.
 
Allegra said:
That would be alright, if they were making the same wages as the other employees that did the same job. And of course, if the company agreed to it. But then, what is the difference between that and just getting a job? What we’ve created here is what we call an unemployment office.
Click to expand...
This just cuts the government out. It is very shortsighted, however. The average wage of workers would be reduced drastically, which means reduced spending. Reduced spending creates a contraction in the economy. A contracted economy would result in many of those same businesses who were forced to add workers closing their doors or sending labor overseas.
 
The OP does not understand the free market system.

You cannot FORCE anyone to hire someone and expect success.
 
MindOverMatter2 said:
Should the State force employers to take on workers in-order to combat high level unemployment?

I don’t have an opinion on this yet, so don’t attack me.
Click to expand...
“Employers?” I guess that includes everybody who hires somebody to mow their grass, or fix their plumbing. Sure, just make me hire 10 guys to mow my grass when 1 can do it (myself). And make sure that they’re all unionized so that they get paid top dollar and benefits.

This is such a great idea…why stop at forcing just “employers?” Is that fair? Certainly those who employ no one are already way behind on their responsibility to hire someone to combat high unemployment. Make all those irresponsible and selfish non-employers do more to solve unemployment.

Sheesh…:rolleyes:
 
Actually, working for unemployment benefits is not such a bad idea, as long as the work is not in the private sector. I can see where that would result in others being layed off to accommodate the unemployment people. Now that being said, I do not see where it is necessary to pay such people less, as there really is no need to make it a 40 hour week. If the pay is half what they get, then let them work half the time, even if it just cleaning and maintaining the roadways. This would have the added benefit of permitting enough time for them to search for a job.
 
pnewton said:
Actually, working for unemployment benefits is not such a bad idea, as long as the work is not in the private sector. I can see where that would result in others being layed off to accommodate the unemployment people. Now that being said, I do not see where it is necessary to pay such people less, as there really is no need to make it a 40 hour week. If the pay is half what they get, then let them work half the time, even if it just cleaning and maintaining the roadways. This would have the added benefit of permitting enough time for them to search for a job.
Click to expand...
That seems more reasonable.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top