• It has come to our attention that some users may have been "banned" when they tried to change their passwords after the site was hacked due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software. This would have occurred around the end of February and does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you believe you were affected by this, please contact a staff member or use the Contact us link at the bottom of any forum page.

Should People who hold down "uneconomic jobs" be forced to give them up?


Casualbets

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 7, 2004
Messages
1,638
Okay here's a question that's been bugging me....

You might remember, before the Insolvency Bill was published, there was a bit of a debate/ruckus about second-income low-earning parents whose childcare costs exceeded their income might be forced to give up their job to qualify for the protection of the Insolvency arrangements...... In the end, it was clarified that there was to be no compulsion and each case could be individually structured etc.

Now I've been thinking on a few points :

* For a start, if you're in a job that's costing more than you take in, it's bad economics - or at least it would seem to be....
* One of the main complaints was that women (and it does mainly affect women apparently) would lose out on Career progression. But surely if someone is a fulltime professional, their salary would easily be greater than their childcare costs?. Would the women affected be more likely those in menial/part-time jobs?
* Someone staying on in an "uneconomic" job is actually (probably) blocking another person being taken on/promoted - and in some cases preventing graduates/young people from being taken on.... I'm not saying every job given up results in someone else being taken on, but you would presume in many cases it would....
* It could be argued this might be offset by increased employment in the childcare industry, but looking at the statutory ratios (1 adult to 3 babies...1 adult to 8 3yo+) it's probable only one extra job is being generated per 4 or 5 children being cared for.

In a nutshell, is someone holding onto an "uneconomic" job preventing someone who needs an "economic" job from getting work, and generating insufficient compensatory employment?

I'm not preaching the above as gospel, but just putting the above up for discussion and particularly for those with economic expertise to tell me if I'm right or wrong?
 

Ryan Tubbs

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 20, 2012
Messages
3,660
Working is about more than making money. It is about progression, betterment, interaction with peers and colleagues, and it radically improves your state of mind compared to sitting at home.

Any suggestion that people shouldn't work, for whatever reason, would be a dangerous line to cross. It should be everyone's individual choice. And in some cases there will be a clear situation where people shouldn't work and need to cut their cloth accordingly.
 

zakalwe1

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 3, 2008
Messages
5,306
i suspect people won't see past your FF avatar when responding.

i for one, think that you raise fairly valid points.
it is not economically rational to hold onto one of these "uneconomic" jobs where you have to pay to go to work.
 

seabhcan

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 3, 2007
Messages
14,327
* One of the main complaints was that women (and it does mainly affect women apparently) would lose out on Career progression. But surely if someone is a fulltime professional, their salary would easily be greater than their childcare costs?. Would the women affected be more likely those in menial/part-time jobs?
So its better to keep women on the dole than for the state to pay for child care?

Child care is costing us 1100 euro a month. We have to pay that until the kids start school, then the state pays for their day care.
 

Casualbets

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 7, 2004
Messages
1,638
Working is about more than making money. It is about progression, betterment, interaction with peers and colleagues, and it radically improves your state of mind compared to sitting at home.

Any suggestion that people shouldn't work, for whatever reason, would be a dangerous line to cross. It should be everyone's individual choice. And in some cases there will be a clear situation where people shouldn't work and need to cut their cloth accordingly.
Aye of course. But isn't the case here that someone holding down a job that actually costs more than it earns is preventing someone else to whom the job would be of economic benefit from being taken on.

And TBH I wouldn't favour compulsion - far too blunt an instrument. But all the focus in this discussion has been on the rights of those people to keep their jobs, and none on the people who are on the dole or emigrating because they can't get a job.
 

enuffisenuff

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 27, 2011
Messages
3,462
What price can you put on the prospect of having something to get up for in the morning?
 

Casualbets

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 7, 2004
Messages
1,638
So its better to keep women on the dole than for the state to pay for child care?

Child care is costing us 1100 euro a month. We have to pay that until the kids start school, then the state pays for their day care.
Not on the dole. And it's not just women. I'm referring to specifically 2 income households where the 2nd income is less than childcare costs. Those jobs are not, if you will, economic, and that person holding them is - in essence - preventing another person whom the job WOULD be of economic benefit too taking up employment.
 

Casualbets

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 7, 2004
Messages
1,638
What price can you put on the prospect of having something to get up for in the morning?

Of course, a job improves psychological well-being. But that cuts both ways. What about the psychological well-being of the person who would be taken on instead who would actually benefit economically from the job?
 

Casualbets

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 7, 2004
Messages
1,638
i suspect people won't see past your FF avatar when responding.

i for one, think that you raise fairly valid points.
it is not economically rational to hold onto one of these "uneconomic" jobs where you have to pay to go to work.
It's not just that, but that it - presumably - essentially blocks someone who financiallys NEEDS a job from gaining employment
 

zakalwe1

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 3, 2008
Messages
5,306
Working is about more than making money. It is about progression, betterment, interaction with peers and colleagues, and it radically improves your state of mind compared to sitting at home.

Any suggestion that people shouldn't work, for whatever reason, would be a dangerous line to cross. It should be everyone's individual choice. And in some cases there will be a clear situation where people shouldn't work and need to cut their cloth accordingly.
bollix...
 

zakalwe1

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 3, 2008
Messages
5,306
It's not just that, but that it - presumably - essentially blocks someone who financiallys NEEDS a job from gaining employment
thats true also...
 

Alan Alda

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 23, 2011
Messages
5,504
Of course, a job improves psychological well-being. But that cuts both ways. What about the psychological well-being of the person who would be taken on instead who would actually benefit economically from the job?
Is it fair or realistic to put them into direct competition? How do we judge such a situation?
Who deserves the job most? Why ? What if xyz?
Its a minefield.
Can you suggest a system we could use? Also could you give an example of this scenario in real life?
I dont fully see the issue here , apart from the obvious 'income vs costs' issue.
 

enuffisenuff

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 27, 2011
Messages
3,462
Of course, a job improves psychological well-being. But that cuts both ways. What about the psychological well-being of the person who would be taken on instead who would actually benefit economically from the job?
So they give up their psychological well-being to improve the psychological well-being of someone else?
 

Casualbets

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 7, 2004
Messages
1,638
Is it fair or realistic to put them into direct competition? How do we judge such a situation?
Who deserves the job most? Why ? What if xyz?
Its a minefield.
Can you suggest a system we could use? Also could you give an example of this scenario in real life?
I dont fully see the issue here , apart from the obvious 'income vs costs' issue.
You're getting slightly ahead of me here. What I'm talking about is the fundamental economics of the situation - that it would seem that someone holding down an uneconomic job is preventing someone who actually (financially) NEEDS the job. (And - btw - I'm only referring to those who will be taking the benefit of the insolvency arrangements).

In other words, I'm not discussing the politics of the situation - as you rightly say forcing people to give up work would be highly controversial and problematic.

BUT, is it not unreasonable to ask that if you are taking the benefit of the Insolvency Bill, isn't an "uneconomic job" something of a questionable luxury?
 

drummed

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 22, 2010
Messages
37,438
You're getting slightly ahead of me here. What I'm talking about is the fundamental economics of the situation - that it would seem that someone holding down an uneconomic job is preventing someone who actually (financially) NEEDS the job. (And - btw - I'm only referring to those who will be taking the benefit of the insolvency arrangements).

In other words, I'm not discussing the politics of the situation - as you rightly say forcing people to give up work would be highly controversial and problematic.

BUT, is it not unreasonable to ask that if you are taking the benefit of the Insolvency Bill, isn't an "uneconomic job" something of a questionable luxury?
Few things ever come down to pure economics. You can't isolate a decision from all the other factors.

Only the Libertarians see life in your terms. Where's Ribster with the answer when we need him?????????
 

Casualbets

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 7, 2004
Messages
1,638
So they give up their psychological well-being to improve the psychological well-being of someone else?
Well in such a case, the incumbent is taking the benefit of the Insolvency Bill - apologies if I didn't make that clear - and is actually PAYING to stay in work, effectively blocking someone who would BENEFIT from being employed. Both woul;d benefit psychologically, but it's clear - to me anyway - that it makes much more economic sense for the 2nd person to be employed.
 

Casualbets

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 7, 2004
Messages
1,638
Few things ever come down to pure economics. You can't isolate a decision from all the other factors.

Only the Libertarians see life in your terms. Where's Ribster with the answer when we need him?????????
TBH, I'm not looking at this from an ideological perspective - and it's the first time I've been described as a Libertarian, that's for sure.

Of course things don't come down to pure economics. But it's purely the economic element I'm attempting to discuss....
 

drummed

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 22, 2010
Messages
37,438
TBH, I'm not looking at this from an ideological perspective - and it's the first time I've been described as a Libertarian, that's for sure.

Of course things don't come down to pure economics. But it's purely the economic element I'm attempting to discuss....

Back up the bus poster! I'm not accusing you of being a cult member.

I'm suggesting no economic choice you can present is solely based on economics. There's always other factors.
Trying to isolate a subject solely to its economic consequences is impossible.
 

enuffisenuff

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 27, 2011
Messages
3,462
Well in such a case, the incumbent is taking the benefit of the Insolvency Bill - apologies if I didn't make that clear - and is actually PAYING to stay in work, effectively blocking someone who would BENEFIT from being employed. Both woul;d benefit psychologically, but it's clear - to me anyway - that it makes much more economic sense for the 2nd person to be employed.
I do get your basic point alright......but its a total can of worms.....
 
Top