UK Unemployment is at all time high
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15271800
the rate is 900, 000 lets get that rate to 1 million by yrs end
its not peole's fault they can' get the job
the only fault is at here is the companies who are too snobbish/arrogant to take on people and only want to take on the best
as long as you have the revelant skills then you will get it
but companies have the money to train people as they a lot it stashed away in their vaults somewhere
companies need to take on more and hire anyone and train them regardless of external factors
the rate is 900, 000 lets get that rate to 1 million by yrs end
its not peole's fault they can' get the job
the only fault is at here is the companies who are too snobbish/arrogant to take on people and only want to take on the best
as long as you have the revelant skills then you will get it
but companies have the money to train people as they a lot it stashed away in their vaults somewhere
companies need to take on more and hire anyone and train them regardless of external factors
Scroll to see replies
Original post by 01jtiong
its not peole's fault they can' get the job
its not peole's fault they can' get the job
Well.. it can be. Complete fault lies with no-one.
the only fault is at here is the companies who are too snobbish/arrogant to take on people and only want to take on the best
This just.. doesn't address the issue at all.
Firstly, there is no 'it is only x's fault' as mentioned above.
Secondly, those companies are not snobbish, or arrogant for wanting to take on the best, that's called life. That's how business works. Why on earth would a company ignore the people they think would do best for the job?
but companies have the money to train people as they a lot it stashed away in their vaults somewhere
Yep, all companies have hundreds of thousands to freely spare to train people who they won't employ because they don't need any more employees... ...
companies need to take on more and hire anyone and train them regardless of external factors
x 2.Take on more? Okay, lest just hire people for jobs that aren't there, pay them to do nothing, that would be so good for the business wouldnt it
Train them for what exactly? They are hired in to imaginary jobs..
Jesus. Why take quite a good article and ruin it with such unintelligent ramblings?
Original post by 01jtiong
the only fault is at here is the companies who are too snobbish/arrogant to take on people and only want to take on the best
the only fault is at here is the companies who are too snobbish/arrogant to take on people and only want to take on the best
how is that their fault?
It's not too few jobs, it's too many people.
Original post by 01jtiong
unemoloyment rate is high so companies need to hire anyone and everyone who is out of work makes sense these firms are loaded so spend the money on training
Oh please.. you have to be joking... my 9 year old brother could tell you how wrong every point you make is.
Original post by 01jtiong
unemoloyment rate is high so companies need to hire anyone and everyone who is out of work makes sense these firms are loaded so spend the money on training
Companies will not usually just take on or train anyone who is unemployed or has been unemployed for some time. Because training requires time, effort and money, companies will have to take risks and get the right person for the job. If you are not what they are looking for, they won't even give you an interview.
Original post by 01jtiong
unemoloyment rate is high so companies need to hire anyone and everyone who is out of work makes sense these firms are loaded so spend the money on training
The companies are not charities, they want to make money. If they already have people who have the training why would they bother spending money on training new people if they do not need them.
Not all companies are rich and many of them are struggling to remain in the market
if companies are taking that attidude then the UK will never imrpove and never move foward and improve their economic status
companies can no longer take this attidude where they are looking for the right person
the job market is in a state so its the companies resonisiblty to fix that by employing everyone and or anyone and put in the time and money to train those unemployed as they have tones of money to do so
companies can no longer take this attidude where they are looking for the right person
the job market is in a state so its the companies resonisiblty to fix that by employing everyone and or anyone and put in the time and money to train those unemployed as they have tones of money to do so
Original post by 01jtiong
if companies are taking that attidude then the UK will never imrpove and never move foward and improve their economic status
companies can no longer take this attidude where they are looking for the right person
the job market is in a state so its the companies resonisiblty to fix that by employing everyone and or anyone and put in the time and money to train those unemployed as they have tones of money to do so
companies can no longer take this attidude where they are looking for the right person
the job market is in a state so its the companies resonisiblty to fix that by employing everyone and or anyone and put in the time and money to train those unemployed as they have tones of money to do so
If that were the case, there would be little point in going through potential employees' CVs and applications. They would just pick new workers out from a hat. It's not going to work like that.
Well it's partly because there's not enough entrepreneurs and companies out there to hand out jobs. I mean, it's incredibly daunting starting a business nowadays, with all the massive MNCs about, you can't really get a decent hold in the market, not to mention the banks not really handing out loans. There are so many factors, and I know I certainly wouldn't want to bother starting a business let alone employing people. I have some respect for the people that have the balls to take risks.
Original post by Yawn11
Just to clarify, is this the forum section where people repost links of the latest news for people who probably are already up to date on the news already so they can give their opinions and discuss (debate) on the matter?
yes yes it is
Your title is wrong. Unemployment is at a 17 year high.
Deporting large swathes of Britains muslim population would tackle a whole range of socio-economic issues at a single stroke.
I've been trying to start a business and the 4 biggest problems I'm facing are:
1. Over Regulation
2. Can't get a penny of financing
3. High taxation, granted not right now but the thought of hitting the VAT threshold kills me
4. Even after all of that the market is frightened and no one wants to spend anything
So I am not surprised at unemployment levels
1. Over Regulation
2. Can't get a penny of financing
3. High taxation, granted not right now but the thought of hitting the VAT threshold kills me
4. Even after all of that the market is frightened and no one wants to spend anything
So I am not surprised at unemployment levels
Original post by coolstory
I've been trying to start a business and the 4 biggest problems I'm facing are:
Out of interest, what field are you looking to start your business in?
If you learned business, the biggest cost in a business is effectively its employees. To ask companies to hire people willy-nilly is stupid. You want to keep these companies profitable, so they can pump money into the economy through tax. But for them to pay their current employees, they need to stay profitable.
Although there are companies who make in the billions, it is the shareholders of those companies who originally invested in those companies for them to become as big as they are. So they kind of deserve the money they get because they paid into those companies for them to even exist. Though the point is obvious, if you create more jobs, that equals higher demand on products, since there are more people with money.
But there are just aren't any jobs people can do, since Britain lost its manufacturing base. If you look at that BBC article, most of the people unemployed are from 16-24 years old. Most and not all likely have no experience, which usually is always the issue. Companies want people who have experience as then they don't need to spend money on training the person and that person will be more efficient with the job if they have that experience.
What I'm saying is that if Britain still had its strong and large manufacturing base, unemployment wouldn't be so high. Since the financial services market is really what took the hit, which is what the UK economy is mostly based on right now.
What needs to happen is that there needs to be more demand for products and people need to keep spending for you to see companies employing more people. The currency exchange rates for companies importing from abroad have also gone up as the pound got weaker, meaning companies couldn't afford to keep prices low, which in essence reduces demand as people have less money to spend. Though it would be awesome if this could somehow stimulate a growth in manufacturing somehow. Though that is a more complicated matter.
Now how awesome would it be if the UK Government did this in the form of quantitative easing:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/ianmcowie/100010712/how-to-solve-unemployment-stimulate-consumer-demand-and-boost-house-prices/
Only problem I see with this is getting the 10 trillion pounds to finance this idea LOL!
Though there is another solution to create demand!
Lower the income tax rates and VAT. Surely that would create demand? - Which in essence would create jobs.
Although there are companies who make in the billions, it is the shareholders of those companies who originally invested in those companies for them to become as big as they are. So they kind of deserve the money they get because they paid into those companies for them to even exist. Though the point is obvious, if you create more jobs, that equals higher demand on products, since there are more people with money.
But there are just aren't any jobs people can do, since Britain lost its manufacturing base. If you look at that BBC article, most of the people unemployed are from 16-24 years old. Most and not all likely have no experience, which usually is always the issue. Companies want people who have experience as then they don't need to spend money on training the person and that person will be more efficient with the job if they have that experience.
What I'm saying is that if Britain still had its strong and large manufacturing base, unemployment wouldn't be so high. Since the financial services market is really what took the hit, which is what the UK economy is mostly based on right now.
What needs to happen is that there needs to be more demand for products and people need to keep spending for you to see companies employing more people. The currency exchange rates for companies importing from abroad have also gone up as the pound got weaker, meaning companies couldn't afford to keep prices low, which in essence reduces demand as people have less money to spend. Though it would be awesome if this could somehow stimulate a growth in manufacturing somehow. Though that is a more complicated matter.
Now how awesome would it be if the UK Government did this in the form of quantitative easing:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/ianmcowie/100010712/how-to-solve-unemployment-stimulate-consumer-demand-and-boost-house-prices/
Only problem I see with this is getting the 10 trillion pounds to finance this idea LOL!
Though there is another solution to create demand!
Lower the income tax rates and VAT. Surely that would create demand? - Which in essence would create jobs.
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by JonathanNorth
If you learned business, the biggest cost in a business is effectively its employees. To ask companies to hire people willy-nilly is stupid. You want to keep these companies profitable, so they can pump money into the economy through tax. But for them to pay their current employees, they need to stay profitable.
Although there are companies who make in the billions, it is the shareholders of those companies who originally invested in those companies for them to become as big as they are. So they kind of deserve the money they get because they paid into those companies for them to even exist. Though the point is obvious, if you create more jobs, that equals higher demand on products, since there are more people with money.
But there are just aren't any jobs people can do, since Britain lost its manufacturing base. If you look at that BBC article, most of the people unemployed are from 16-24 years old. Most and not all likely have no experience, which usually is always the issue. Companies want people who have experience as then they don't need to spend money on training the person and that person will be more efficient with the job if they have that experience.
What I'm saying is that if Britain still had its strong and large manufacturing base, unemployment wouldn't be so high. Since the financial services market is really what took the hit, which is what the UK economy is mostly based on right now.
What needs to happen is that there needs to be more demand for products and people need to keep spending for you to see companies employing more people. The currency exchange rates for companies importing from abroad have also gone up as the pound got weaker, meaning companies couldn't afford to keep prices low, which in essence reduces demand as people have less money to spend. Though it would be awesome if this could somehow stimulate a growth in manufacturing somehow. Though that is a more complicated matter.
Now how awesome would it be if the UK Government did this in the form of quantitative easing:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/ianmcowie/100010712/how-to-solve-unemployment-stimulate-consumer-demand-and-boost-house-prices/
Only problem I see with this is getting the 10 trillion pounds to finance this idea LOL!
Though there is another solution to create demand!
Lower the income tax rates and VAT. Surely that would create demand? - Which in essence would create jobs.
Although there are companies who make in the billions, it is the shareholders of those companies who originally invested in those companies for them to become as big as they are. So they kind of deserve the money they get because they paid into those companies for them to even exist. Though the point is obvious, if you create more jobs, that equals higher demand on products, since there are more people with money.
But there are just aren't any jobs people can do, since Britain lost its manufacturing base. If you look at that BBC article, most of the people unemployed are from 16-24 years old. Most and not all likely have no experience, which usually is always the issue. Companies want people who have experience as then they don't need to spend money on training the person and that person will be more efficient with the job if they have that experience.
What I'm saying is that if Britain still had its strong and large manufacturing base, unemployment wouldn't be so high. Since the financial services market is really what took the hit, which is what the UK economy is mostly based on right now.
What needs to happen is that there needs to be more demand for products and people need to keep spending for you to see companies employing more people. The currency exchange rates for companies importing from abroad have also gone up as the pound got weaker, meaning companies couldn't afford to keep prices low, which in essence reduces demand as people have less money to spend. Though it would be awesome if this could somehow stimulate a growth in manufacturing somehow. Though that is a more complicated matter.
Now how awesome would it be if the UK Government did this in the form of quantitative easing:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/ianmcowie/100010712/how-to-solve-unemployment-stimulate-consumer-demand-and-boost-house-prices/
Only problem I see with this is getting the 10 trillion pounds to finance this idea LOL!
Though there is another solution to create demand!
Lower the income tax rates and VAT. Surely that would create demand? - Which in essence would create jobs.
The problem with Ian Cowie's suggestions is none other than the fact that once that million is finished you will have a whole load of OAPs that the young will need to support.
A better idea was presented in US recently, rebuild cities to be smaller and greener. Involves massive amounts of new construction and refurbishments... surprisingly the first city that wanted to do it Flint, MI didn't quite managed to do it..... however the idea instead took off very well in Mumbai, Saigon and several smaller cities in China where they completely flattened out 1970s and 80s era city blocks and are rebuilding them complete with top-notch infrastructure.
It is not good. It is though nowhere near as bad as in the 1930s and probably not even as bad as the early 1980s.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- AQA A Level Economics Paper 2 (7136/2) -22th May 2023 [Exam Chat]
- GCSE Geography AQA 9 marker
- What should my A-level subjects reflect?
- Can someone help me improve my History Essay? (AQA History)
- STEM vs non-STEM salaries
- Help needed
- Edexcel A Level Economics A Paper 3 (9ECO 03) - 5th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- Post Your Economics Question Here
- Looking for UK universities that offer Business + Philosophy
- Parents
- Economics 2023 macro
- LSE Graduate prospects
- A Level Edexcel Economics B Paper 1 (9EB0 01) 2023 [exam chat]
- Early Student Loan for Studying Abroad?
- loans
- need to choose last 2 options for UCAS application still
- Ranking all engineering fields
- Unemployable graduate
- Comp Sci in uni with no prior knowledge?
- Parents live abroad
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
