Oh dear, there\’s that code word again:

The £1 billion fund is open to local councils, charities and other voluntary organisations.

The bodies bid for the public money from the Government in order to create \”socially useful jobs\”.

As has been pointed out before, the word \”socially\” modifies to mean \”not\”, as in \”not useful jobs\”.

From the frontpage:

Government to create tens of thousands of \”socially useful jobs\” such as dance assistants

Quite.

33 thoughts on “Creating jobs”

  1. Don’t know which is more chilling – the socially useful jobs like, say, exhorting school children to rat on environmental naughtiness, the minds behind dreaming up these jobs or the bureucode they speak in.

  2. Where does the article mention binmen, sewer men or pedestrian paint men? I can’t see any mention of them in the article,

  3. Well, see, it mentions local councils, and local councils employ binmen, sewer men and pedestrian paint men. If you’re not in favour of local councils employing taxpayer-funded dance assistants, you’re also not in favour of local councils employing binmen, sewer men and pedestrian paint men.

    C’mon, people, pay attention.

  4. “If you’re not in favour of local councils employing taxpayer-funded dance assistants, you’re also not in favour of local councils employing binmen, sewer men and pedestrian paint men.”
    That’s a very impressive non-seq.

  5. Binmen aren’t useful?

    The guys who maintain the sewers – they’re not useful?

    The guys who paint the white lines on pedestrian crossings – they’re not useful?

  6. The defenders of this rubbish are basically using the same bollocks argument as those who say that any cuts in spending must come from schoolsnhospitals.

  7. The text to which a link has been posted reads –

    “The bodies bid for the public money from the Government in order to create “socially useful jobs”.

    The blogger’s comment on that reads –

    “As has been pointed out before, the word “socially” modifies to mean “not”, as in “not useful jobs”

    It is therefore completely legitimate to question whether the blogger believes that some occupations which perhaps the majority would consider to be socially useful, such as binmen, sewerage engineers and the painters of white lines on pedestrian crossings, are not in fact socially useful. Their words, not mine.

  8. “It is therefore completely legitimate to question whether the blogger believes that some occupations”
    Don’t be disingenuous. You were not simply asking a question, you were implying a position on something to someone and then asking why that person held that position.

  9. OK, out of the jobs below, which are the only ones listed in the article, which is *not useful* (as opposed to ‘currently done inefficiently’ or ‘currently overpaid’)?

    [begin quote]
    The list of new vacancies – most of which will be filled by 18-24 year olds – will include sports coaches, classroom assistants and social carers, department sources said last night.

    However, in a move that attracted claims that public money is being wasted on “soft jobs”, others include positions for forestry workers, loft laggers and child carers.

    Jobs based around refurbishing council houses and in local recycling projects are also to be created.
    [end quote]

    Cos to me that sounds like sports coaches, teachers’ assistants, old folks’ carers and nursery nurses, tree fellers, loft laggers, builders and binmen. Or ‘the kind of jobs that we’ve needed for as long as we’ve had civilisation’.

  10. The point of “creating” a job should be to get something done, not to provide a job – otherwise we may as well pay people to dig holes and fill them in.

    If a teaching job, (or coach, carer etc) is being created for the sake of creating a job rather than because there is a genuine need for that job function then it is not a useful job – it is a make-work program

    And given the whole article was about creating jobs for the sake of creating jobs rather than because the output from those jobs was necessary, they are not useful.

  11. Or to put it more bluntly, if we need 100 nurses and 100 teachers and we hire 110 of each, we have 10 useless nurses and 10 useless teachers. There is nothing sacred about the job title teacher or nurse that means they are always a good thing.

  12. “Sports coaches” are a non-job also, for obvious reasons. Other than the old folks carers, the rest ought to be in the private sector. Why the fuck are the council employing “loft laggers”?

    Oh, yes, armaggeddon, we’re all going to die, I forgot.

    =sigh=

  13. john b,

    “Cos to me that sounds like sports coaches, teachers’ assistants, old folks’ carers and nursery nurses, tree fellers, loft laggers, builders and binmen. Or ‘the kind of jobs that we’ve needed for as long as we’ve had civilisation’.”

    Really? So, why do we need the government to create more loft lagging jobs now? How many people have sat in cold houses waiting for someone to come and lag their loft?

    Loft lagging is something most people can do themselves. If they can’t do it themselves, they know a friend. If they don’t have any friends, they can pay a handyman a small amount of money to do it.

    It’s a job with almost no barrier due to qualifications or experience. There’s plenty of unemployed lads who could have done it if there was such a huge need that wasn’t being met.

  14. “Cos to me that sounds like sports coaches, teachers’ assistants, old folks’ carers and nursery nurses, tree fellers, loft laggers, builders and binmen. Or ‘the kind of jobs that we’ve needed for as long as we’ve had civilisation’.”

    Hmm.

    sports coaches – needed? I don’t think so.

    teachers’ assistants – wouldn’t be needed if classes were smaller and teachers weren’t overwhelmed with paperwork to meet pointless targets.

    old folks’ carers – known everywhere else as ‘family’

    nursery nurses – wouldn’t be needed if mothers weren’t driven to work (to please the feminists) and looked after their own children instead.

    tree fellers – is there a shortage of these then? Where – Canada?

    loft laggers – as Tim A points out, it’s not really such a demanding job, is it?

    builders and binmen – not on the list.

  15. “The point of “creating” a job should be to get something done, not to provide a job – otherwise we may as well pay people to dig holes and fill them in.”

    I fear most of these are exactly that – we don’t need them, and civilisation wouldn’t exactly crumble if we didn’t have them…

  16. “My, that was refreshing.”
    Yes, a wank often is. But seriously, you don’t think you actually made any points in any of the above do you? Except the bits you quoted from other people, it was clichéd hyperbole, non-sequiteurs and bollocks from beginning to end .

  17. Entirely at random –

    “Why the fuck are the council employing “loft laggers”?”

    Posibly because local authority tenancy agreements prohibit the tenant from doing it themselves – a plausible real world scenario. If you knew anything about council housing, you would not have made this comment.

    “But Martin, those (binmen, etc) specifically aren’t the jobs mentioned in this article under that description, are they?”

    That is not the point. If the blogger had been more precise in their use of language, the point would not have arisen. But he wasn’t, and it has.

    “You were not simply asking a question, you were implying a position on something to someone and then asking why that person held that position.” –

    As immediately above. Next!

    “The point of “creating” a job should be to get something done, not to provide a job – otherwise we may as well pay people to dig holes and fill them in.” –

    A practice about as useful as management consultancy.

    “If a teaching job, (or coach, carer etc) is being created for the sake of creating a job rather than because there is a genuine need for that job function then it is not a useful job – it is a make-work program” –

    Otherwise known as management consultancy.

    “And given the whole article was about creating jobs for the sake of creating jobs rather than because the output from those jobs was necessary, they are not useful”

    As like…well, you can guess the rest.

    “Or to put it more bluntly, if we need 100 nurses and 100 teachers and we hire 110 of each, we have 10 useless nurses and 10 useless teachers. There is nothing sacred about the job title teacher or nurse that means they are always a good thing.”

    Who draws the line? You? No chance, pal. Back of the bus.

    “Really? So, why do we need the government to create more loft lagging jobs now? How many people have sat in cold houses waiting for someone to come and lag their loft?” –

    Possibly very many more than you might think. They are usually not just cold, but also damp, due to the poor quality of building materials used and the inefficiency of the electric heating that was installed within them; not a problem that can be fixed by changing electricity suppliers.

    Whoops, up comes the big one…

    “sports coaches – needed? I don’t think so.” –

    Well, Tim, that’s the next generation of England rugby stars down the tubes.

    “teachers’ assistants – wouldn’t be needed if classes were smaller and teachers weren’t overwhelmed with paperwork to meet pointless targets.” –

    It is a most disconcerting habit of those who proclaim an interest in economic policy to pronounce upon topics of which they know nothing. Do you have any evidence to back up this assertion?

    “old folks’ carers – known everywhere else as ‘family’” –

    And if the adult children of elderly parents are disabled, and just about able to look after themselves? Like me? Who is to look after the old folks then? The Soylent Green Company? The nice nurse who’ll give them an injection to make all the pain go away, an inevitable consequence of the kind of assisted suicide law now being touted for us? Do you honestly see (no offence, Tim) a generation of expats giving up the high life in order to come back to the UK so they can wipe the old man’s arse?

    “nursery nurses – wouldn’t be needed if mothers weren’t driven to work (to please the feminists) and looked after their own children instead.”

    Agreed. We can then have the discussion concerning the regarding the free flow of labour and capital across the world that that topic deserves. In this space, however, it would be off thread.

    “I fear most of these are exactly that – we don’t need them, and civilisation wouldn’t exactly crumble if we didn’t have them…”

    Noy unlike management consultancy.

    My, that was refreshing.

  18. @juliam, the ‘council house refurbishers’ are builders, and the ‘recycling project’-ers are binmen.

    On the other stuff, yes, if we lived in the 1950s then some of the jobs on the list would be less important (although non-working-motherhood was a strange social aberration that only lasted for about 50 years and only existed for the middle classes, so I’m never sure why anti-feminists want to pick *that* particular era to turn the clock back to…). But we don’t, so that’s not relevant.

  19. Martin, you were talking shit. I called you on it. Get over it instead of coming out with your insufferably pompous metaphors.

  20. “Yes, a wank often is. But seriously, you don’t think you actually made any points in any of the above do you? Except the bits you quoted from other people, it was clichéd hyperbole, non-sequiteurs and bollocks from beginning to end .”

    Chris, a posture of intellectual arrogance is often best supported by a bedrock of intellectualism.

  21. No they are properly SPELT as ‘non sequiturs’. I would rather mis-spell a work but know how to use it, than be able to spell it, but not know how to use it.

    If you think that the mark of intellect is never making a spelling mistake, you have an impoverished view of what constitutes intellect.

  22. No, you called me out on fuck all, actually. As an example of what I am talking about in my immediately previous comment, what you describe as ‘non-sequiteurs’ are properly described as ‘non sequiturs’.

    I’ve got things to do now. See you in the morning.

  23. “If you think that the mark of intellect is never making a spelling mistake, you have an impoverished view of what constitutes intellect”

    Not quite, but if one considers words to be tools for the making of points it’s a good start. For example, the word ‘SPELT’ that you CAPITALISED in your last COMMENT is actually spelled…oh dear, gave the game away, didn’t I?

    See you later, Chris. I have more things to do today, and you seem unconvincable.

  24. The point being Martin that you used the word “described” when you should have used the word “spelled”. At least I was in the right ball ball. You used totally the wrong word. Spelling the wrong word correctly seems to be a pretty hollow boast. An autistic savant can achieve that!

    Moreover, whenever anyone starts by attacking spelling or grammar in blog comments of all things, it implies they have no actual substantive point to make. Hence they are reduced to the rather juvenile practice of looking for typos.

    So well done, you apparently can spell better than I can, I am happy to concede this. I can apparently think better than you can. I am also happy about this.

  25. For us both. In future then play the ball not the man. If you disagree with something I say, its probably best to concentrate on that rather than faffing round on spelling mistakes. These are blog comments, not CV covering letters. As for not having thoughts one way or another on whether dyslexics are thick, that is a bit of a cop out.

  26. I don’t have thoughts about dyslexics one way or the other. Suffering from severe Tourette Syndrome as I do, I have enough problems of my own to worry about.

    This is becoming undignified. If it matters so much to you, you win.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *