Shops could face legal action over 'lads' mags'

[Coito ergo sum]

Having people reach the age of 21 without knowing how to be gainfully employed is shameful. It's poor public policy.

As a society we are going to have to accept that more and more people will never work, economically they are surplus to requirement, technology makes most the non-skilled jobs obsolete. That doesn't stop them having needs even through aren't needed and that will be everyone problem.

Does anyone in a 100 years time think think even 50% of people wlll actually work?, maybe we will have to ban all full times jobs who knows but its a problem that one day will need to resolved

I don't think we have to accept that, since it isn't inevitable. It's only if we impose policies which make it difficult to employ people -- many of the so called "protections" simply make it too expensive and not worthwhile to have people do menial things.

People will find things to do, as long as they aren't hindered from doing so by onerous and unnecessary regulation.

But, the world will likely change in many ways that we cannot even imagine at present. Robotics and computer technology, particularly the synthesis between organic life and computer technology is going to link the species. It's going to change things going forward, that's for sure. Until then, though, we have to deal with what we have.

[MrJonno]

There is now a permanent underclass who no longer have manual skilled or unskilled work to do as such jobs don't exist any more. That isn't changing any time soon. Even relatively basic jobs are pretty skilled these days, my local charity shop won't 'employ' someone as a volunteer unless they are a graduate as they need to learn a large range of skills to do the job

[Seth]

Really? Cite a law that says I can't direct an employee to sit silently and still at a desk. Do I have to allow 2 15 minute breaks and one 30 meal break? Yes, but otherwise if I want you to play mannequin while you're at work, I believe I can do so.

Try that here and you won't have your business bar running a prison shop

Which is exactly my point. Jackass socialists strangle the economy and then wonder why things don't get better.

Although I would like to see some citations for your claim.

[Seth]

There is now a permanent underclass who no longer have manual skilled or unskilled work to do as such jobs don't exist any more. That isn't changing any time soon. Even relatively basic jobs are pretty skilled these days, my local charity shop won't 'employ' someone as a volunteer unless they are a graduate as they need to learn a large range of skills to do the job

And everybody else should be forced to labor on behalf of the indolent, lazy and willfully uneducated why, exactly?

[MrJonno]

There is now a permanent underclass who no longer have manual skilled or unskilled work to do as such jobs don't exist any more. That isn't changing any time soon. Even relatively basic jobs are pretty skilled these days, my local charity shop won't 'employ' someone as a volunteer unless they are a graduate as they need to learn a large range of skills to do the job

And everybody else should be forced to labor on behalf of the indolent, lazy and wilfully uneducated why, exactly?

Because you have to live alongside them ?, its protection money and a damn good investment

[Coito ergo sum]

eight -- somehow -- eight copies of the same post popped up.

[Coito ergo sum]

seven

[Coito ergo sum]

How the hell did this happen --

sixplicate!

[Coito ergo sum]

There is now a permanent underclass who no longer have manual skilled or unskilled work to do as such jobs don't exist any more. That isn't changing any time soon. Even relatively basic jobs are pretty skilled these days, my local charity shop won't 'employ' someone as a volunteer unless they are a graduate as they need to learn a large range of skills to do the job

It's not going to change if it keeps getting subsidized, and if public policies like the ones you advocate keep expanding. The way to help the no longer skilled is to get them skilled.

By making it onerously difficult to get rid of undesired employees, it raises the cost of hiring employees immensely. Raise that cost, and you get less hiring. That's basic. By saddling employers, particularly small employers, with paid leave requirements, guaranteed jobs after long term leaves, month-long vacations, and such, that also increases the cost of employing people.

Think of it this way -- if the rules allowed me to just hire somebody on a handshake and pay them in cash, and tell them to go when I didn't want them around anymore, while providing no benefits, wouldn't that be the least expensive way to hire employees? Yes, of course. So, I am at that point the most willing to bring people on. I can pay people to do stuff that I might make do without because the cost is low, and I can take more chances on hiring because I'm not locked into anything. If, however, I wont be able to get rid of them once hired or if I'll have to justify my business decision to someone, and if I have to provide unemployment insurance, workers comp insurance, benefits, lenghty vacations, paid leave and a host of other things -- don't you see how that raises the cost of each employee and therefore with each such increase I become more and more hesitant to hire?

Now, to me, the extreme of "no rules regarding hiring and firing" is as unworkable as the extremely onerous rules we see in many countries. There must be a compromise for sure. But, understanding that there is real macroeconomic and public policy factors that militate against constantly increasing "protections" for workers is, I think, a must. It's not necessarily better to require employers to pay higher minimum wages and give more vacation time. It seems better, on the surface, because who wouldn't want to be guaranteed more vacation and benefits? But, as a matter of national policy, it can clearly have a lot of detrimental impact, not the least of which is to increase the amount of normal unemployment.

[Coito ergo sum]

Jezus H. Christmas

Quintuplicate!

[Coito ergo sum]

quadruplicate

[Coito ergo sum]

triplicate

[Coito ergo sum]

dupey mcdooplicate

[Coito ergo sum]

There is now a permanent underclass who no longer have manual skilled or unskilled work to do as such jobs don't exist any more. That isn't changing any time soon. Even relatively basic jobs are pretty skilled these days, my local charity shop won't 'employ' someone as a volunteer unless they are a graduate as they need to learn a large range of skills to do the job

And everybody else should be forced to labor on behalf of the indolent, lazy and wilfully uneducated why, exactly?

Because you have to live alongside them ?, its protection money and a damn good investment

This I take issue with. I don't see any less violence or crime in the countries that do the things you advocate. We get riots all over Europe attributed to young unemployed men, even those who are being paid this protection money.

Poverty does not cause crime. And, paying people to stay home and out of sight doesn't prevent it.

It seems, from the state of Europe, to be positively poor investment, and one I'd not make voluntarily. Seems more like paying the protection money and still getting the brick through your window...

[MrJonno]

This I take issue with. I don't see any less violence or crime in the countries that do the things you advocate. We get riots all over Europe attributed to young unemployed men, even those who are being paid this protection money

All countries including the US have a welfare state and pay this protection money ,also rioting seems to be common on both sides of the Atlantic. Extreme poverty leads to revolution w which is why capitalism reformed itself to ensure that didnt happen ie accepted the welfare state