The Jobbridge Scandal

Xenji

Hello_MrFox wrote: »

Can someone partake in Jobsbridge as part of the work experience for a degree?

No, you have to be in receipt of Jobseekers Allowance, Jobseekers Benefit, One Parent Family Payment, Disability Allowance or Signing for Social Insurance Contribution Credits for 3 months before you are allowed to do the scheme.

Hello_MrFox

Xenji wrote: »

No, you have to be in receipt of Jobseekers Allowance, Jobseekers Benefit, One Parent Family Payment, Disability Allowance or Signing for Social Insurance Contribution Credits for 3 months before you are allowed to do the scheme.

Ok thank you. I am currently looking for work experience as it needed as part of my degree. I am thinking of just emailing the companies that are looking for people and telling them i will work for free. Is this a good idea? I am not expecting to get paid for it anyway although 50 euro would obviously be better than nothing.

Xenji

Hello_MrFox wrote: »

Ok thank you. I am currently looking for work experience as it needed as part of my degree. I am thinking of just emailing the companies that are looking for people and telling them i will work for free. Is this a good idea? I am not expecting to get paid for it anyway although 50 euro would obviously be better than nothing.

You could ask your university do they have any links with companies first, they might be able to set you up with something in your field of study, if not I am sure you will find some company willing to take you on, would be handy asking people who have done your course where they got the work experience as well and see if they recommend any companies.

Hello_MrFox

Xenji wrote: »

You could ask your university do they have any links with companies first, they might be able to set you up with something in your field of study, if not I am sure you will find some company willing to take you on, would be handy asking people who have done your course where they got the work experience as well and see if they recommend any companies.

Ok thank you for your response i appreciate it.

norrie rugger

also the companies pay feck all so there would be no 50 for you

Artful_Badger

Hello_MrFox wrote: »

Can someone partake in Jobsbridge as part of the work experience for a degree?

Only if you're on back to education allowance while doing your degree. Getting in touch with companies advertising for internships and offering to work for free is a good idea though. If you fit the bill they could pull the ad and hire you on. And ya never know given you wont be compensated any other way they may give you a few quid themselves.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Hello_MrFox

Artful_Badger wrote: »

Only if you're on back to education allowance while doing your degree. Getting in touch with companies advertising for internships and offering to work for free is a good idea though. If you fit the bill they could pull the ad and hire you on. And ya never know given you wont be compensated any other way they may give you a few quid themselves.

I am on BTEA doing my degree luckily enough but i also am not eligible for the fees so i must pay them myself.

I only ask this because it seems like there is very few companies in and around the locality that are advertising with positions and i cannot travel to far because of the cost etc.

KyussBishop

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

PermaBear also knows this is a straw-man, because nobody said there was a fixed number of jobs - it's the usual misdirection, where he ignores the argument actually made, and then puts in place one that is more easily batted down.

The lump of labour fallacy, is an argument I dealt with more than a week ago with PermaBear - but his tactic, is to just zombify/reanimate dead arguments as straw-men, so that you're just knocking down the same straw-men all the time:
This gives him the platform he wants, for soapboxing his views - so, he doesn't debate at all, he knows his arguments are largely disingenuous.

Permabear wrote: »

Very true. Improving people's skills, experience, and work ethic also encourages the creation of new indigenous businesses, which can become job creators themselves. KB naturally ignores these factors because he uses known fallacies to advocate his crackpot monetary theories.

Again a straw-man, since I've explicitly said Job Bridge can have a limited effect on jobs where there is a skills shortage, but that this contribution is completely unquantified (no stats on it), so it is unlikely to be a solution to unemployment.

Permabear accuses me of supporting 'crackpot monetary theories', when he himself theorizes that Bitcoin is going to take over fiat currencies...

My views on money creation that he likes to deride, have just been vindicated by the Bank of England - that is, the central bank of England - and my views on government use of money creation, are in the process of being vindicated by Martin Wolf, leading editor of the Financial Times and "one of the world's most influential writers on economics", who has recently said, in his article "Only the ignorant live in fear of hyperinflation":

Martin Wolf wrote:

...there is a case for letting the state create money directly. I plan to address such possibilities in a future column.

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/46a1ce84-bf2a-11e3-a4af-00144feabdc0.html?siteedition=intl

So, my 'crackpot monetary theories' are in the process of entering mainstream economic thought, and are being vindicated by some of the most well known and well respected economists around - at the same time that Bitcoin is being panned by many such economists, as being a vehicle primarily used for speculation, fraud and criminality.

Permabear wrote: »

Of course I'm not "anti-poor." Ideally, I'd like to see poverty and unemployment eliminated entirely; but I also know that the only force that can accomplish this is the free market. The state creates unemployment and poverty, while free markets lift people out. In post-2008 Ireland, the state refused to allow wages to drop to market-clearing levels, thus preventing young people from getting the experience, references, and skills they need to advance their careers. JobBridge is a token gesture toward the need for a workaround, but state meddling with the wage-setting process is the core problem.

Well since you like to cite Paul Krugman, here is him picking apart your 'fallacy of composition' here:

Paul Krugman wrote:

Would cutting the minimum wage raise employment?

...the belief that lower wages would raise overall employment rests on a fallacy of composition. In reality, reducing wages would at best do nothing for employment; more likely it would actually be contractionary.

Here’s how the fallacy works: if some subset of the work force accepts lower wages, it can gain jobs. If workers in the widget industry take a pay cut, this will lead to lower prices of widgets relative to other things, so people will buy more widgets, hence more employment.

But if everyone takes a pay cut, that logic no longer applies. The only way a general cut in wages can increase employment is if it leads people to buy more across the board. And why should it do that?
...

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/16/would-cutting-the-minimum-wage-raise-employment

So, unless you want to pretend you're citing Paul Krugman (circa 2003, on the 'lump of labour' fallacy), to debunk Paul Krugman (circa 2009, on the 'fallacy of composition'), are you going to acknowledge your straw-man?
Or just do what you always do: Never acknowledge any fault, in any of your arguments, lest that prevent you reanimating/zombifying it again later, for use as a repeated straw-man.

Gongoozler

Jesus this is so boring.

Backstreet Moyes

Anybody get called in for a group meeting with FAS and what happens. They kept sending me on interviews for jobs of no benefit to me before i got a job last summer. Unfortunately the place closed down so i presume i will be back to being sent to interviews for the library and selling tickets in a theater.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Gongoozler

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

You know I was including you in that, but nice try.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Call Me Jimmy

Would just like to share my experience today with my local employment services.

Had a one-to-one meeting with case officer and she assured me that I would NOT and can not be forced to do an internship that is unsuitable. I am looking to go down a new avenue career-wise and this was okay as far as they were concerned.

I was also told that if I do take up an internship and anything is awry that I should ring them immediately and I will not have to complete it.

Now, this was my first meeting with them so it is possible that the tune may change and that I am being naive, but the case officer stressed that this is the way it will be. It might depend on the case officer possibly on the pressure placed on a jobseeker, I'm not sure. It is also possible that if more time passes without any success that I may come under pressure.

But from my meeting today this case officer was of the view that it was a waste of time to have people doing unsuitable work based on their personality/qualifications.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Yeah cause one incident is all the proof you need to discredit anyone who said otherwise.

runawaybishop

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Don't be naive. Call Me Jimmys' experience is what everyone should have, but it isn't.

Call Me Jimmy

Well I am not saying people haven't been, maybe the bad press/stories have caused a change in policy, maybe those people had different case officers that pressured or possibly forced people into jobs. The case officer said she couldn't be certain that it hasn't happened iirc. I was discussing my own case so didn't explore what they may have done in the past.

I am not of the opinion that anyone has lied just because my case officer had a certain outlook. They seemed especially accommodating for me though.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Those against it aren't using just one example. They're looking at the multiple complaints levelled against the scheme but hey you've already made it clear that no matter what you support the scheme.


Get the impression that there's some people who would support the introduction of work camps where the unemployed spent 12 hours a day breaking rocks and lived off bread and water. The attitude toward the unemployed that some have is just disgusting and you can't help but hope that some people find themselves out of work and watching their lives go down the drain.

Gongoozler

Jimmy, you should ask them about you get that in writing.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

KyussBishop

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Yes, I got banned off of Politics for discussing my economic views too often; not for the economic views I hold, but for insisting that it's impossible to discuss most Politics that touch on economics, without delving into economic theory (creating an unresolvable conflict between me and the mods) - an opinion I still hold.


Actually, a number of people have largely been thanking me for debunking your arguments here in increasing clarity/detail - while you continue to try and derail this thread into pushing a variety of debunked neoliberal (under pretence of Libertarianism) economic views.

I debate my views with people, you pretend to debate by consistently using straw-men, when what you are really doing is soapboxing.

Yes - soapboxing like that, and me batting down the same debunked argument for the 'n'th time (so regular, that by now I've got a table full of your debunked arguments that I can copy between posts), is - I am sure - incredibly boring for everyone involved; at least though, I can then more easily show to those who are interested, precisely how you are soapboxing.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I think you'll find that most people agree that the scheme is a great idea on theory. Those of us speaking out against it are doing so because the implementation of the scheme has been flawed beyond belief. Yes, some people have had good experiences but the overall experience has been over whelmingly negative.

People would live if the scheme worked and helped people find employment but its simply not the case. You can trot out your figures all you want but considering the numbers who don't finish an internship it's hard to know how many it's helped. Most people who find employment after doing one don't find it with the host organisation and as such it's impossible to get a clear idea as to what good the scheme does.


The other points were obviously not releated to the scheme. Merely that there are some people, yourself included who refuse to acknowledge or consider any criticism of the scheme. Christ the way you defend it ine has to assume that you either are behind it, use it to get free labour or are a FG apologists who believes Enda can do no wrong. The negative experiences regarding the scheme far out weigh the positive so either most people are lieing or in fact it's not quite the shining beacon of hope you see it.

KyussBishop

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

No they don't. Plenty of people have posted that they have benefited from it and been thanked for their input, not mocked.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I will take quite a leap here and say that almost everybody supports Job Bridge, just not in its current form where it seems to lead to exploitation; ironically, your post is a hyperbolic misrepresentation of the thread.

Permabear wrote: »

More hyperbole. Many posters here only want the unemployed to find jobs so that they can build better lives for themselves and not be a burden on society. JobBridge has impressive statistics when it comes to getting people back to work, which leads people to support it.

Except no stats show Job Bridge creating jobs, that is an assumption that relies on a Fallacy of Composition:
Fallacy of Composition|Reality
"JobBridge reduces unemployment"|JobBridge helps some unemployed workers, compete against the rest of the unemployed, for the same number of jobs (with exceptions for skill-shortage roles - with no stats to quantify JobBridge's contribution here).
"Removing minimum wage boosts employment"|This can reduce wages/aggregate-demand/business-profits and then reduce employment.
"Slashes wages can boost employment"|For the same reasons as above, can reduce employment.
"People can get a job, they just need to put more effort in and try harder, to retrain into skilled roles that are in demand"|There are not enough jobs available, not everybody will be employed, no matter how hard they all try or how much effort they collectively put in.
"In a worldwide economic downturn, people can get a job, they just need to emigrate"|In a worldwide downturn, similar to above, there are not enough jobs available, not everybody will be employed, no matter how many emigrate.
"Competing on exports (e.g. by slashing wages) can bring recovery"|If all of the world tries to import less and export more all at once (which a great many of our trading partners are, due to the economic crisis), they will all fail, and it will be a race-to-the-bottom in wages/living-standards.
"Cutting government spending and increasing taxes (austerity) can bring recovery"|Cutting government spending and increasing taxes, reduces aggregate demand, which harms employment and economic activity.
"A government budget surplus is good"|A budget surplus, without adequate exports to offset the money this removes from the private sector, can drain the private sector of money and cause an over-reliance on credit/debt (which can create an unsustainable debt bubble).

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Dyr

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Being banned from the politics forum on boards is probably the best endorsement of a poster there is. Long and proud history of dubious mods on that forum

KyussBishop

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

You brought up MMT on this thread, not me - you are derailing this thread to promote your NeoLiberal economic views (under the guise of Libertarianism).

You are wrong, I am not permanantly banned off all Politics forums, I am restricted to Political Theory forum - because that is the only place the mods judged it acceptable for me to discuss economic theory.
It is not my economic views that got me banned, it is that I believe it is not possible to discuss most political topics that touch on economics, without delving into economic theory.