h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

No, the point about "exotic dancers" is valid. The positions are advertised in Job Centres alongside every other job and a long-term unemployed person with the relevant qualifications would be "expected" to apply.

The point I also made is that you do not have to accept any particular job. Start turning down too many jobs though...

I really don't understand what people mean when they say there are limited job opportunities in the UK. Hundreds of thousands of immigrants seem to have no trouble finding work at all. Isn't the lack of workers the reason we need so many immigrants?

You have a point there
British people are frequently unwilling to accept minimum wage jobs, work in sweatshops, put up with poor Health & Safety, go cockle picking on Morecambe beach etc
Of course if thats the sort of economy we want perhaps we need to get tough with them

As you know, though...it's more complicated than that; Unemployment is localised; Many of the immigrants (especially from eastern Europe) are temporary migrants, not settlers; Low-qualified indiginants are less able to fins/hold jobs than more qualified migrants; migrants are (by definition) those who are more flexible in terms of ties to their home communities; etc. etc.

(I'm an immigrant worker myself. I sometimes envy those who stay in places where they still bump into cousins on the street. It makes for stable communities).

>>Of course if thats the sort of economy we want perhaps we need to get tough with them

And that's an excellent point too. Not only is that not the economy we want...but we couldn't compete in it. China would undercut us. Or whatever African proxies China develops in the next few years.

Under Thatcher, the Josephite desire was to turn Britain into the Spain of Europe. Spain used to be a low-wage economy. Now they've overtaken us and are thriving. (and their high immigration levels have played a part here also).

The only way we can hold our own is as an educated, 'Knowledge Economy' - the way that Scotland has arguably done over the last 300 years (exporting engineering and administration skill to the Empire). But that takes a more stable, cohesive, 'kinder' society.

Novo, to be honest I think that even if Carphone Warehouse's practices were widely known, there would stuill be a huge number of people who wouldn't give a toss. And speaking as someone wearing a £5 Primark shirt I don't have the right to get on my high horse about that.

And I think we are ad idem on the matter of jobs.

I actually find it interesting that SWL turned down a job at Carphone warehouse because of their policies. SWL - am I right in thinking that you would like to see a return to a sort of 'enlightened' capitalism that was very common in the 19th century with figures such as Carnegie and Rockefeller funding huge amounts of charity work, rather than the outrright do-eat-dog capitalism of modern day Russia?

""Poverty is directly linked to idleness though.""

I've seen some crass staements made in various discussions in this bit of H2 and I generally don't contribute but the above statement is so crass, so wide off the mark I think I ought to just explain something.

I live, by the governments own figures, below the poverty line. Why? Because I had the temerity to inherit Coronary Heart Disease that stopped me working aged 40. Up until then I had both worked {and played} hard all my life, payed masses in tax and insurance, all well and good.

I'll be 48 in May, that'll be 8 years out of work on incapacity benefit. I didn't claim disability until 2 and 1/2 years ago, only then because I was on £79.00 a week and couldn't afford to run my own vehicle anymore, public transport non-existent, so I opted for a motability car. Now the misconception is that this car is free. Wrong. It costs me £44.00 a week all in and I have to obviously put fuel in. It's tax exempt being motability.

I've had several attempts at going back to work, each time stopped either by the heart problem or insurance issues. My driving is restricted to social uses only, I'm not allowed to drive commercially, something of a handicap for a qualified diagnostics vehicle technician who needs to road test customers vehicles for various fault diagnosis.

The point about all the above is, far from being an Idle B*****d I've been a hardworking, law abiding member of society all my life and what I will not tolerate is brain dead individuals who take some sort of perverted delight in tarring everyone with the same brush by telling folk that being poor is their own fault because they're idle. It may apply in a minority of cases but certainly not the majority.

If you're going to have these sort of debates then at least don't do a tabloid press hatchet job, get your facts right and balanced in the interests of fairness.

ST.

This post has been removed.

ST, that smacks a little of coming into a thread, blowing a raspberry and running away.

Poverty is directly linked to idleness.

Demonstrably true - but there are many reasons for idleness. And, as has already been pointed out, the link may not be causal. The fact that you and others make the mental leap to people being deliberately idle is indicative of your mindset, not mine.

<>

I didn't say it was definitive, what I said was the competing through low price (with associated low cost base) is a perfect example of what is erronously known as 'free-market' capitalism. A business model which has currency in *any* market.

Famous Grouse is a bit of a red herring as it's not a PLC, it's effectively a charity. No coincidence therefore that its working conditions are superb, eh?

<>

Can you explain *precisely* what you mean by idleness, SWL? Is it based purely on effort, or something else?

Pedro - unless you're wealthy, if you're idle (for whatever reason) you're likely to be living in poverty.

ST just demonstrated it. It's hardly my fault if others choose to put negative connotations on the word idle.

That's false logic.

Idleness (for whatever reason) may be linked to poverty. Poverty is not necessarily linked to idleness.

And if you don't favour Carnegie and the others (including Gates and the other American guy whose name eludes me), you therefore presumably hold that making all this money comes with no responsibilities whatever?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking the actions of benefactors, but I don't believe we should have a society that's reliant upon them. We pay shed-loads of taxes and expect to see a return. Now, that may appear to be an argument for socialism, but it's actually a recognition shared by many (the majority?) of businesses that investment in workers brings returns on the balance-sheet.

Thanks Blues, I knew there was something that wasn't registering.

Back to SWL...

Poverty is directly linked to idleness.

Not *caused*.
Not *resultant*

Linked

It is also linked to the economy, wage-levels, inflation, global warming, natural disasters...

Mentioning one link does not lead to a sin of ommission of others.

Well, if it's not caused by it, or results from it, then who gives a shit? Why are we discussing it?

It does in the way you phrased it. You might want to think about how to avoid leading yourself up these blind alleys.

Try it like this - 'Idleness is linked to poverty, as are a number of other factors'.

You'd still be wrong, but at least you'd not have to backpeddle like a circus clown when the error is pointed out.

It's an important point because we have millions of people unemployed. There is no realistic attempt by government to help people back into employment in the short-term. With upwards of four million people effectively idle, this is the entire excuse given for mass immigration of supposedly temporary workers. To deny that being unemployed is linked to poverty (notwithstanding the myriad excuses), is to blind yourself to reality.

This is a capitalist society. Unless you're really, really lucky, if you don't work you can expect to be poor.

So no, I'm not backpedalling. I'm making the mistake of indulging those who are making a circus ring on the head of a pin.

Sod it. What got modded?

"Poverty is directly linked to idleness.

Demonstrably true "

Since the idle rich and hardworking poor both undoubtedly exist in what sense is this true?

Even the idle poor may end up rich if they do the lottery and working hard in a deadend job will never make you rich