Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Between Labour and Tories, who do you trust for finding you a job? Watch

  • View Poll Results: Who do you think will be the best at preventing unemployment?
    Labour
    46.25%
    Conservative
    31.25%
    Both as bad as each other
    21.25%
    Both as good as each other!
    1.25%

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dionysus)
    Labour. Primarily because I'm an active member of the Labour party involved in organising campaigning and should be able to get work with an MP reasonably easily.
    Don't count your chickens. I have a first class degree in Politics and American Studies, extensive office experience and an internship with my MP under my belt, but I still couldn't get a job in Parliament or a constituency. I went to an interview in Parliament in May and was told hundreds of people apply for even the most menial roles. I was also advised that a Masters is often needed, something that I'm just not willing to do considering it wouldn't guarantee me a higher salary.

    I was dead set on working as a researcher, but now I've had to have a bit of a rethink.

    Still, good luck! Didn't mean this to be such a depressing post :o:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Just Another Student)
    Indeed. Let's not forget the Tories record on unemployment. It amazes me that people are voting Tory on this issue.

    Job seekers allowance is too low, though. Had it of been increased with earnings since the 1980's it would stand at £100, instead of the current £60 or so.
    I think the full amount is just under £60, but few people are likely to see that as if you have any savings whatsoever, the benefits you receive decrease quite significantly.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Just Another Student)
    Indeed. Let's not forget the Tories record on unemployment. It amazes me that people are voting Tory on this issue.

    Job seekers allowance is too low, though. Had it of been increased with earnings since the 1980's it would stand at £100, instead of the current £60 or so.
    The ironic part of it all is that unemployment will probably decrease when the Tories get in come June next year, as a direct result of action taken by a Labour government- which Cameron and Co. vehemently opposed.

    Also, I agree with you on your point about JSA, but bear in mind that it would be even lower under a Tory government. I think I read somewhere that they plan to freeze it for the next few years which will obviously have catastrophic consequences for the poorest in society.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Just Another Student)
    Unenmployment has been low from 1997 to 2008
    Low in comparison to what? Because the only comparison that can be remotely relevant is between what unemployment was and what it would have been without a minimum wage.

    But it would mean millions would be paid on unfair wages
    There's no such thing as an unfair wage.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fabulous_darling)
    I think the full amount is just under £60, but few people are likely to see that as if you have any savings whatsoever, the benefits you receive decrease quite significantly.
    Yes, but you'll get more if you have made National Insurance contributions.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    Low in comparison to what? Because the only comparison that can be remotely relevant is between what unemployment was and what it would have been without a minimum wage.
    How about the comparison between employment from before the MW was introduced as to after?

    You guessed it.... no change!
    Offline

    14
    (Original post by Edenr)
    I trust the Tories more when it comes to letting businesses get on with creating jobs, if that's what you mean.
    This, although I bet any difference will be marginal.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jacketpotato)
    How about the comparison between employment from before the MW was introduced as to after?

    You guessed it.... no change!
    Really? I would have predicted it would decrease, considering we were going through a rather grand-scale economic boom.

    Which exposes the obvious flaw in your argument: that you cannot produce a situation whereby all other factors are constants. Any figures you can therefore produce are entirely and utterly worthless.

    So what do we do when we cannot prove something by experimentation? We use logical deduction, prediction and reason. The logical case for a minimum wage increasing unemployment is perfectly sound.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Conservative public service cuts, means major job losses.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Just Another Student)
    It amazes me that people are voting Tory on this issue.
    Given that no Labour government in history has ended its time in office with unemployment lower than when it started, I'm absolutely staggered that anyone could vote Labour on this issue!
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lollapalooza)
    The ironic part of it all is that unemployment will probably decrease when the Tories get in come June next year, as a direct result of action taken by a Labour government- which Cameron and Co. vehemently opposed.
    You mean like it was ironic when the govt was pulling a surplus when following tory spending/tax plans between 97 and 99?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    Really? I would have predicted it would decrease, considering we were going through a rather grand-scale economic boom.

    Which exposes the obvious flaw in your argument: that you cannot produce a situation whereby all other factors are constants. Any figures you can therefore produce are entirely and utterly worthless.

    So what do we do when we cannot prove something by experimentation? We use logical deduction, prediction and reason. The logical case for a minimum wage increasing unemployment is perfectly sound.
    This is an enormous leap of reasoning. There is a big difference between saying that "there are difficulties with economic evidence because everything is changing" and arguing that you can't use economic data at all for that reason. If what you are saying is true, we wouldn't be able to use economic data ever.

    Economic data is a lot more useful than that, despite the problems. Particularly in the labour market where changes tend to occur over a long period of time: we do not see immediate spikes in unemployment figures in the same way that we do in commodity markets. The fact is that the introduction of a NMW was a overnight thing. If our NMW really did cause much unemployment, we would expect to see a number of jobs disappear instantly, or at least very soon after, the introduction of the NMW. This didn't happen. Nor were there any changes to employment trends.

    To try and argue that the NMW causes significant unemployment despite the above would require something very very significant to have changed in the labour market at pretty much exactly the same time as the NMW was introduced, without any economists noticing. This is simply not believable. Its voodoo economics.

    "logical deduction" ignorant of the evidence does not help you either. Its very ambiguous. The labour market is not like the commodity markets. The supply of unskilled labour is relatively fixed, and employers are able to use their market power. Its easy to draw supply/demand/marginal revenue/marginal cost diagrams that show a NMW actually increasing employment levels by stopping employers from keeping demand down to keep price down.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fabulous_darling)
    Don't count your chickens. I have a first class degree in Politics and American Studies, extensive office experience and an internship with my MP under my belt, but I still couldn't get a job in Parliament or a constituency. I went to an interview in Parliament in May and was told hundreds of people apply for even the most menial roles. I was also advised that a Masters is often needed, something that I'm just not willing to do considering it wouldn't guarantee me a higher salary.

    I was dead set on working as a researcher, but now I've had to have a bit of a rethink.

    Still, good luck! Didn't mean this to be such a depressing post :o:
    If you're applying for work in London, it's bound to be competitive. I'll probably start as a campaign organiser in a constituency. It's not really a job you apply for centrally - more to do with being known and liked by an MP and the local party.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Every Labour government has left office with higher unemployment then when it got in.

    I know who I trust.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jacketpotato)
    This is an enormous leap of reasoning. There is a big difference between saying that "there are difficulties with economic evidence because everything is changing" and arguing that you can't use economic data at all for that reason. If what you are saying is true, we wouldn't be able to use economic data ever.

    Economic data is a lot more useful than that, despite the problems. Particularly in the labour market where changes tend to occur over a long period of time: we do not see immediate spikes in unemployment figures in the same way that we do in commodity markets. The fact is that the introduction of a NMW was a overnight thing. If our NMW really did cause much unemployment, we would expect to see a number of jobs disappear instantly, or at least very soon after, the introduction of the NMW. This didn't happen. Nor were there any changes to employment trends.

    To try and argue that the NMW causes significant unemployment despite the above would require something very very significant to have changed in the labour market at pretty much exactly the same time as the NMW was introduced, without any economists noticing. This is simply not believable. Its voodoo economics.

    "logical deduction" ignorant of the evidence does not help you either. Its very ambiguous. The labour market is not like the commodity markets. The supply of unskilled labour is relatively fixed, and employers are able to use their market power. Its easy to draw supply/demand/marginal revenue/marginal cost diagrams that show a NMW actually increasing employment levels by stopping employers from keeping demand down to keep price down.
    The only voodoo economics here, I'm afraid, is yours. Of course introducing a NMW at the bottom of the business cycle set at such a low rate that it only applies to 2% of wages isn't going to have an immediate effect on employment, especially when the procedures for dismissal in this countries are extremely costly and arduous for employers. But over time, you'd expect to see that the young, unskilled, and ethnic minorities (precisely those most likely to have marginal productivity lower than the rate the NMW is set at) bear the brunt. And guess what - that's exactly what we see. For instance, the graph below: Why could it be that Britain's youth unemployment has been so much worse than the average OECD country since 2000? Maybe, just maybe, because economic theory is correct and it's because of the minimum wage.

    On a note of methodology, I think you're also about as wrong as it's possible to be. The fact is that economic theory, soundly done at least, tells us what direction the effects of some policy or other would be in, all else being equal. But of course all else is not always equal, so the relative magnitudes of the different effects vary. This is where econometrics or economic data comes in very handy, because economics is not the sort of discipline which lends itself to repeatable and controlled experiments. But to question our knowledge of the direction that something like a NMW would go in is just silly; to quote James Buchanan (who, I'll submit, knows a thing or two about economics) "no self-respecting economist would claim that increases in the minimum wage increase employment. Such a claim, if seriously advanced, becomes equivalent to a denial that there is even minimum scientific content in economics, and that, in consequence, economists can do nothing but write as advocates for ideological interests. Fortunately, only a handful of economists are willing to throw over the teaching of two centuries; we have not yet become a bevy of camp-following whores."
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    At least with the Conservatives there is a bit of consistency - a slightly lower employment rate but a sustainable government, running a sustainable country with sustainable ideas improving services.

    With Labour you get a spike, a false sense of prosperity, a debt laden government running a debt laden country with populist agendas pursued for the sake of votes.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Erm sorry,

    I trust MYSELF to find me a job rather than banking on an unreliable government (either with Labour or the Tories in power)
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by c2uk)
    Wouldn't mind to see factual evidence for this statement.
    Isn't it obvious.IF employers have to pay more than is required for incredibly low skilled jobs then they can't afford to take on new people.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Just Another Student)
    Job seekers allowance is too low, though. Had it of been increased with earnings since the 1980's it would stand at £100, instead of the current £60 or so.
    What and let dossers who sit at home all day have even mre money. You are giving people an incentive no tto work so JSA should go.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by usainlightning)
    What and let dossers who sit at home all day have even mre money. You are giving people an incentive no tto work so JSA should go.
    I disagree. Long term receipt of JSA should be phased out but JSA is one of the few welfare initiatives I agree with. How would someone made unemployed cope if they had no savings?
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.