Economics by Whazzock

It\’s an interesting plan, isn\’t it?

We\’re demanding job creation not destruction from the government. We\’re demanding a wage you can live on for all, including apprentices and interns. We\’re demanding a halt to the brutal attacks on benefits, already lower for young people.

We\’re going to increase the number of jobs for young people by increasing the price of employing young people. Oh, and, also increasing the amount that young people get if they\’re not in a job.

I hope I\’m not the only one who can see that that is somewhat contradictory.

43 thoughts on “Economics by Whazzock”

  1. ‘What do we want?’

    ‘The right to sit on our @rses on generous benefits while Poles and Romanians do all the hard low paid work.’

  2. “It is fitting that this all coincides with the 75th anniversary of the Jarrow Crusade. “

    Most inappropriate comparison ever

  3. Spain and France have had chronic youth unemployment for decades because of restrictive labour laws brought in by the Left to protect the members of unions. To blame austerity is a joke.

  4. Our latest trainee was up in the office the other week, rather than the school leaver I’d expected he was in his mid 20’s.

    Apparently an increasing number of projects in London are now asking that we pay all our guys LLW, based on our hours that’s effectively £20.5k a year which has meant HR are less willing to offer those jobs to people who are untested in the job market.

  5. Indeed, a brother of mine just out of college and as of yet to find work offered his services to a local business as a trainee/intern at £2.50 an hour. By working hard he earns a wage, and no-longer has to face the benefits trap, and they get another worker. This classical unemployment caused by minimum wage is benefiting no-one.

  6. H Doodson
    Does your brother pay rent, support children, live life?

    Or is he supported by other means, say parents?

    How much is he in debt after college?

    You brought his situation up as an example, so let’s break it down.

  7. Arnald,

    We all agree that the people not being able to get a job would be better off if they were paid 40k a year (or why not 100k, 1mn, 20 mn…) . Can we please limit the debate to what the best and sustainable way of getting there is?

  8. Arnald – speaking personally, my first job(s) were summer holiday farm labourer/fruit picking type things on what would now be less than the minimum wage.
    One summer I worked at the local zoo, on £1.50 an hour.
    There were people doing those jobs as actual jobs qua jobs, too, but none of us minded being paid next to nothing: we were young, and understood that we had to start somewhere and it was beer money.
    We didn’t think we were being exploited, because we weren’t; we were only worth a couple of quid an hour, because we couldn’t really do much beyond lift and carry stuff or run of to fetch things.
    The point is, it wasn’t a permanent state of affairs, for any of us.
    It was a way in to work, and something to put on your CV. Everyone I worked with in those jobs who was doing it full time, without exception, left inside a year to go and do something else for what would now be the minimum wage, and a year after that they left and went to do something paying a bit more still.
    We were living at home, so we weren’t paying rent, or supporting children (we did live life, though), but those jobs were not aimed at people with those sorts of responsibilities.
    They were entry-level things, stepping stones to something better, and their disappearance is actually a tragedy.
    As is so often the case, the best of intentions, the best laid plans, the road to hell etc.

  9. I worked in Tesco (in the instore bakery) during the summers of ’86 and ’87. I earned about £1.70 an hour. During my gap year I had a £2/hour stint as a fry cook working split shifts in a chippy. That was just the way the world works. I didn’t like it, but I didn’t attribute it to some evil cosmic conspiracy.

  10. Surreptitious Evil

    I still remember the sheer glee when I graduated from berry picking to baby-sitting the farmer’s kids – it went from a tiny percentage of the minimum wage to £10 per day. My first ‘real’ job, in terms of wanting an NI number and things, paid £30 per week – so about 80p per hour (1985).

    Was I exploited? Nah – even the berry picking had me paid a reasonable %age of the value add.

  11. There is no job quite so character-forming as the one you get straight out of school, to tide you over until you start college. The pay is risible, the work is menial, but it doesn’t half straighten out your head.

  12. God spare us all these “I worked for next to nothing as a yoof and it did n’t do me any harm”.
    Try answering Arnald’s question : how is somebody going to pay for accommodation etc at these rates?Even Henry Ford realised you had to pay workers enough to buy your goods after they’d paid for food and somewhere to live.

  13. “Even Henry Ford realised you had to pay workers enough to buy your goods after they’d paid for food and somewhere to live.”

    I very much doubt he did realise that. It only takes a basic understanding of arithmatic to see this for the nonsense that it is.

    Clue: you may want OTHER employers to pay their workers enough to buy your goods, but paying your own workers more than they are worth simply so they can buy your goods just doesn’t add up. If you make $100 by selling a $1000 car, and you pay your employees an extra $1000 in order to buy your cars, you are down $900 on on for every employee that buys a car, and the full $1000 for ever one that doesn’t. No one who is stupid enough to not be able to grasp this point is likely to have a business for very long.

  14. Surreptitious Evil

    how is somebody going to pay for accommodation etc at these rates?

    Simple – they’re not. There is no economic right to spring, Athena-like, from the educational system into full financial independence from everybody (including the state), with your first ever job. It’s why some people flat-share, some people live with their parents etc, etc.

    It didn’t stop us “living life”. And, frankly, even if we’d had a student loan, the repayments wouldn’t have kicked in at this point, would they?

    It is also a false dichotomy – We have welfare state support for people on low or no wages. The real question is are people better off, in the long term, working for less than the minimum wage (even, for free, in the voluntary sector) than sat on their arses watching Jeremy Kyle? The minimum wage condemns some people to their version of the latter. And research has shown that the longer people are out of work, the worse their prospects are.

    If I had started my second job now – instead of in Jan 86, after about 4 months in the first one – I’d be on £15.6k rising to over £24k once I had finished training.

  15. I can’t be bothered. These posts on these boards are just randomly generated by a bigotted-child algorythm.

    I still haven’t seen one tested contradiction to the Murphy, of his political success and of his media reputation. All you’ve got is Portugese Worstall opining like a brat about things he has no contact with.

  16. DBC Reed, you are deliberately missing the point. And I did in fact say I doubted he realised that rather than stating it for sure.

    However, the important point is not whether he believed it or not, but whether it is correct or not. A few moments thought and a basic grasp of arithmetic is sufficient to show the notion to be wrong. However, if you say Henry Ford believed it to be so, I am quite happy to say he was wrong too.

    @Arnald you really are a daft twat.

  17. I can’t even spell algorithm.

    But no irony. I’m yet to see a single attempt at a solution for any of the stories worstall trawls up to snide at.

    Any one can take the piss. He doesn’t even do it well. And you lot are like the sub-Clarkson devotees.

    as here

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0i0RXMvzMs

  18. ChrisM

    At what age must school leavers stop living at home with no commitments whilst working for a £1 an hour?

    Let’s open the workhouses, yeah?

    Surely a developed society should strive better than people like you slagging off the young because neo lineral economics has shagged the world?

  19. @TM
    Even the Wikipedia article makes much of the idea that Ford’s double-the-average wage arrangements were to stabilize labour turnover .So what’s your point?
    I don’t suppose the workers cared too much .The Melting Pot theories (he actually had big papier mache pots out of which True American certicates were presented) was, indeed ,crap ,but what the hell? you got paid extra (according to your reading)for going along with it.
    You do not show that Ford did not pay double the usual rate or that he had no concern that workers should be able to buy the stuff produced.Some of your fans think a capitalist industrial system can produce £x billion of goods and services while distributing £X minus Y in purchasing-power .
    When push came to shove, Ford’s workers reverted to type : there is a film of Italian-looking workers ,smoking and socialising, then breaking off to shoot,with what look like Lee Enfields, at Ford security goons.

  20. “Even the Wikipedia article makes much of the idea that Ford’s double-the-average wage arrangements were to stabilize labour turnover .So what’s your point?”

    The point is you made the ridiculous claim that they were paid what they were in order to be able to afford the goods the company made whereas they were paid what they were for entirely different reasons.

  21. Surreptitious Evil

    At what age must school leavers stop living at home with no commitments whilst working for a £1 an hour?

    As soon as they can, that’s the whole point. It took me 4 months. And that was when ‘the evil that is Thatcher’ was personally and singlehandedly destroying the entire British economy.

    Surely a developed society should strive better than people like you slagging off the young

    Without excusing the execrable syntax here (‘strive’ is normally followed by ‘to’ or an equivalent construction), you’ve nailed your colours to the mast. Right or wrong in what he says, ChrisM’s comments are individual effort. To which you want a collective response.

    I still haven’t seen one tested contradiction to the Murphy, of his political success and of his media reputation.

    Sorry, I know a persecution complex is part of the initial issue kit for lefties, but this thread is talking about a completely different union-sponsored idiot. And you’ve missed out the “that I, Arnald, am willing to accept”. The response to Ritchie’s flaying of “rules based (sic) logic” is a tested contradiction of one of his statements.

    How are we supposed to provide a “tested contradiction” of his political ‘success’ or media reputation? How do you “contradict” something like that.

    Oh, and the irony bit you were too stupid (you started the ad-hominems, remember) to spot? You are castigating us for not contradicting your hero – who deletes from his blog any comments other than fawning adoration. Compare this with our host (note, not our hero), who not only owned up to his Lenin mistake but has left the post with it up, unamended, for posterity.

  22. SE
    God, you’re a cock. I haven’t got time to edit before I post. So what? This ain’t a forum for English teachers. It’s a spazz fest for sociopaths.

    Hark at you, 4 months indeed! Are you telling me you were able to afford life 4 months after leaving school? How representative of school leavers do you think that makes you? You couldn’t make it up.

    I applied for hundreds and hundreds of jobs in all sectors during the early nineties, that after having worked two years as a volunteer. Degree educated and cross trained with NVQs coming out of my ears. Even the fucking supermarkets didn’t want me (too ambitious), let alone my specialised field (oversubscribed, not enough experience). You are talking bollocks. How do you equate the 1 in 5 of 16-24 year olds out of work? Jeus, you’re are so completely out of touch.

    You obviously don’t read Murphy’s blog at all so there is any point responding.

  23. As for the “flaying”…well done for taking apart a few words. I bet you all feel big.

    Being pedantic is not the same as having ideas. It just means you’re stuck up your own arses.

    And Worstall doesn’t moderate because he doesn’t care. Moderation of one’s own media outlet is necessary if you don’t want twats like me cunting things up.

    But then worstall does it himself by sounding like a self entitled swivel eye.

  24. “I applied for hundreds and hundreds of jobs in all…”
    “… Even the fucking supermarkets didn’t want me (too ambitious)”

    Thats because you are a chippy cunt with a bad attitude. It doesn’t help that you can’t string a coherent sentence together either of course.

  25. Surreptitious Evil

    Are you telling me …

    Err, yes. That was the whole point of the exercise. Representative? Only of myself. But on the order of 1000 non-grads were on the same or a similar scheme to me.

    And Worstall doesn’t moderate because he doesn’t care.

    But he does moderate. Comment 21 on this thread, for example. Whether that is indicative of him caring or now, I wouldn’t like to guess.

    “Degree educated and cross trained with NVQs coming out of my ears.”

    I think Chris has you pretty much cracked …

  26. Ha ha ha bad attitude!!!

    Yes dear, of course. That’s why I do what I do!

    No, my attitude is precisely focussed on the rhetoric that promotes social disorder.

    As for coherent sentences *sigh*. Whatever. I don’t have to excuse the fact that my hands type faster than my in-line edit faculty.

    Frankly, caring about typos and punctuation, or about DELIBERATE grammatical patterns is not really why you read this blog, is it? After all you never pick up on Worstall’s continual balls ups.

    Bad attitude!!! That’s coming from a sociopath!!!

  27. I was not talking about your motivations for spouting crap on this blog, I was giving you an explanation why you couldn’t get a job.

    I am not picking on your typos, or even your appalling grammar. However there are times where you are literally incoherent – as in people have no idea what point you are even making. Pointing this out is not pedantry.

    One example of many. “How do you equate the 1 in 5 of 16-24 year olds out of work?”

    This is totally meaningless, I defy anyone to work out what the above means.

  28. “As for coherent sentences *sigh*. Whatever. I don’t have to excuse the fact that my hands type faster than my in-line edit faculty.”

    A great excuse if you were using a typwriter. Given that you are using a computer, a pretty silly one. There a number of facilities for editing text on a modern computer including backspace, delete, a mouse and arrow keys.

  29. Surreptitious Evil

    One example of many. “How do you equate the 1 in 5 of 16-24 year olds out of work?”

    This is totally meaningless, I defy anyone to work out what the above means.

    Oh, I think I got it. But I’m used to working with cretins and the illiterate.

    May I try? Thank-you 🙂 It should probably have read something like, ahem:

    “How would you (as in me, SE, I think) equate that (referring either to Arnald being a hoofing failure at applying for jobs or my experience at getting a living wage after 4 months in my first job – he is unclear) with the statistic that 1 in 5 of 16-24 year olds are NEETs?”

    Now, I could now answer his question. But I’ve got some work to do. I may be back later.

  30. Yeah SE, Chris, I could have held your hand through the question, but since you think you’re so clever I didn’t think I needed to. After all, it’s not hard to follow a thread, is it?

    And still you can’t answer. There are no jobs for 20% of 16-24 year olds. No jobs in a capitalist economic model? Where are the entrepreneurs and the wealth generators? How will slashing the public sector, laying off a disproportionate amount of women, closing community facilities and selling off businesses offshore help eradicate this descent into the third world?

    Just because you (SE) managed to get a living wage within four months of leaving school, doesn’t mean those opportunities are afforded for the majority. I’m sure if you broke the 16-24 y o employment stats further then I still doubt there would be a significant proportion them on a living wage.

    So, j’accuse. Basing your views on what you consider the whole world should be like, rather on dealing with it as it actually is displays a contempt for society. Patronising those more unfortunate than you does not change them.

    The ideologies that abound within this sorry blog are extremist and unnatural. To see obviously intelligent people descend to this level of bigotry and ridicule is like going back to school.

    It’s very disappointing.

  31. Your thoughts are hardly so valuable that it is worth expending any extra effort in deciphering your appalling writing style. If you are too lazy, too stupid, or both to express yourself clearly, this is problem for you, not the rest of the world.

  32. “And still you can’t answer….”

    I haven’t noticed anyone answering your questions anymore. You don’t debate or argue, you are just a monkey flinging shit. You are a figure of ridicule, not some to engage with seriously.

  33. So all your amusing links when I first started posting counted as……

    Yep, resort to patronising. It’s all you can do.

  34. I’ll engage sensibly with sensible commentators – including those I totally disagree with. I see fewer and fewer people engaging sensibly with you because trying to have a sensible discussion with you is pointless.

Leave a Reply

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