Long-term unemployment must rise to top of the agenda

Long-term unemployment must rise to top of the agenda in 2010
by Ronan Lyons
ronanlyons.com/2010/01/12/lo … a-in-2010/

(later)

(later)

(later)

from the 2 comments posted to the blog so far:

NAMA ensures Unemployment like this never gets to the top of anyones agenda.

FAS stuffed with billions at the height of the economies “full employment” is now nothing more than a den of red faced flab.

All we need is a positive pro European campaign with a positive active slogan something liek, Yes for jobs! Maybe something like this…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sED3iApAvE

FUCK YEA!

To summarise: Politicians don’t create “jobs”

I hate the way I always find myself questioning the truths universally accepted; but, why ?

Why that is should ‘Long-Term Unemployment’ be at the top of the agenda, as opposed to any other unemployed group ?

Arbitrarily drawing a line at 12 months does nothing to give reason to why this particular group of people is more deserving than any other.

Economists like Generals are always trying to fight the current war using the last wars tactics; & their troops inevitably get slaughted as a result. Looking at 1929 & pretending it has all the answers is just codding ourselves.

Even during the boomiest part of our boom will still had ~5% unemployment. At the risk of getting stoned, I hereby submit these people are not unemployed; they are unemployable. So that’s a third of our total figure which frankly is a black hole into which we could pour as much money as we like & still not shift it.

On the remaining 10%, a very significant figure falls in the under-25 sector. Now I don’t think it too controversial to suggest that a large part of these men ( predominantly ) was working in Construction & related trades. Now with the best will in the world, they currently have no hope of employment for the foreseeable future !

So the question is not about how long someone has been unemployed; its about how we set about making people employable again regardless of how long they’ve been out of work & using the limited resources we have available to best effect.

A good starting place would be to take all staff of FAS who earn more than say €80,000 PA out to dinner in the best hotel in Dublin, & while they’re away, change the locks. Then give them their P45s with the Brandy & Cigars. We can’t afford to spend €100,000 per trainee so their time is over.

We need to immediately start taking those unemployed who have marketable skills, IT, Programming, Bio-Technology etc, etc & start providing tax inducements to get existing businesses to take on these skilled people at a low risk.

Next we have to start providing real training in marketable skills to those who have an aptitude for them. Time out-of-work is irrelevant, aptitude & desire are the important factors.

And finally we need to start yielding a sizeable stick to make sure that when people on the dole are offered a job, they either accept the job, or loose the dole. We can’t afford to sustain +15% on the dole.

I agree with most of what you’ve said with the exception of this:
“we need to start yielding a sizeable stick to make sure that when people on the dole are offered a job, they either accept the job, or loose the dole”
First of all, it’s ‘lose’
Secondly, I accept the need for a stick, but I would put it at a reduction rather than a total loss. Why?
Third, “these people are not unemployed; they are unemployable” - this is a key sentence. There is nothing ‘wrong’ with being unemployable, so there should not be an undue punishment for it. There are many on the margins of illness (for example, early Alzheimer’s) who are not fit to work, but don’t qualify for incapacity or illness benefit. Other illnesses, injuries or disabilities may have the same effect. Now, it may be that we need to broaden the disability list, but it is simpler (and so cheaper) to administer as just the dole…

But I do accept your key point. Youth unemployment is both a greater opportunity and a greater danger if left untreated.

Jesus Christ I forgot that… 100K per trainee in FAS that was a headline wasn’t it?

Imagine 100K employment grants. Dissolve FAS and convert it to a Grants scheme and there is your unemployment issue sorted overnight. I’ll hire 10 people, get me 1 million and do beautiful things.

Truth is a high rate of play and low rate of labour is the best course the natural course but then the international money markets and bondmarkets have to get the last go of the corpse! 8-

McWilliams blog on similar issue: viewtopic.php?f=19&t=22366&p=342278#p342278

I hate that word, I always get it wrong :blush:

I should have been clearer; I agree that there are people who are legitimately unemployable; I have no beef with this group & feel that they need to be protected, although I think we need to look hard at how we define disability in a world where it is increasingly possible to word from home etc. It is in societies & more importantly disabled peoples interests to include them in the workforce & allow them to contribute to the best of their ability.

My concern is what I call the ‘lifestyle unemployed’, those who could, but don’t; rather that those who just can’t.

WP

The Effect of Unemployment Duration on Future Earnings and Other Outcomes
FR Boston

ritholtz.com/blog/2013/10/th … -outcomes/