Follow @PoliticsIE
 
 
 
Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 41

Thread: Should People who hold down "uneconomic jobs" be forced to give them up?

  1. #1
    Politics.ie Member Casualbets's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    1,636
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default Should People who hold down "uneconomic jobs" be forced to give them up?

    Okay here's a question that's been bugging me....

    You might remember, before the Insolvency Bill was published, there was a bit of a debate/ruckus about second-income low-earning parents whose childcare costs exceeded their income might be forced to give up their job to qualify for the protection of the Insolvency arrangements...... In the end, it was clarified that there was to be no compulsion and each case could be individually structured etc.

    Now I've been thinking on a few points :

    * For a start, if you're in a job that's costing more than you take in, it's bad economics - or at least it would seem to be....
    * One of the main complaints was that women (and it does mainly affect women apparently) would lose out on Career progression. But surely if someone is a fulltime professional, their salary would easily be greater than their childcare costs?. Would the women affected be more likely those in menial/part-time jobs?
    * Someone staying on in an "uneconomic" job is actually (probably) blocking another person being taken on/promoted - and in some cases preventing graduates/young people from being taken on.... I'm not saying every job given up results in someone else being taken on, but you would presume in many cases it would....
    * It could be argued this might be offset by increased employment in the childcare industry, but looking at the statutory ratios (1 adult to 3 babies...1 adult to 8 3yo+) it's probable only one extra job is being generated per 4 or 5 children being cared for.

    In a nutshell, is someone holding onto an "uneconomic" job preventing someone who needs an "economic" job from getting work, and generating insufficient compensatory employment?

    I'm not preaching the above as gospel, but just putting the above up for discussion and particularly for those with economic expertise to tell me if I'm right or wrong?

  2. #2
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Cylon-occupied Caprica
    Posts
    3,658
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Working is about more than making money. It is about progression, betterment, interaction with peers and colleagues, and it radically improves your state of mind compared to sitting at home.

    Any suggestion that people shouldn't work, for whatever reason, would be a dangerous line to cross. It should be everyone's individual choice. And in some cases there will be a clear situation where people shouldn't work and need to cut their cloth accordingly.

  3. #3

    Default

    Man does not live by bread alone.
    I have no money, but I love my life.

  4. #4
    Politics.ie Member zakalwe1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    C'mon Team Ireland!!!!!
    Posts
    5,288
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    i suspect people won't see past your FF avatar when responding.

    i for one, think that you raise fairly valid points.
    it is not economically rational to hold onto one of these "uneconomic" jobs where you have to pay to go to work.
    I liberate minds with my music. That's more important than liberating a few people from apartheid or whatever. - Kanye West

  5. #5
    Politics.ie Member seabhcan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    14,309
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Casualbets View Post
    * One of the main complaints was that women (and it does mainly affect women apparently) would lose out on Career progression. But surely if someone is a fulltime professional, their salary would easily be greater than their childcare costs?. Would the women affected be more likely those in menial/part-time jobs?
    So its better to keep women on the dole than for the state to pay for child care?

    Child care is costing us 1100 euro a month. We have to pay that until the kids start school, then the state pays for their day care.

  6. #6
    Politics.ie Member Casualbets's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    1,636
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ryan Tubbs View Post
    Working is about more than making money. It is about progression, betterment, interaction with peers and colleagues, and it radically improves your state of mind compared to sitting at home.

    Any suggestion that people shouldn't work, for whatever reason, would be a dangerous line to cross. It should be everyone's individual choice. And in some cases there will be a clear situation where people shouldn't work and need to cut their cloth accordingly.
    Aye of course. But isn't the case here that someone holding down a job that actually costs more than it earns is preventing someone else to whom the job would be of economic benefit from being taken on.

    And TBH I wouldn't favour compulsion - far too blunt an instrument. But all the focus in this discussion has been on the rights of those people to keep their jobs, and none on the people who are on the dole or emigrating because they can't get a job.

  7. #7
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    3,443
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    What price can you put on the prospect of having something to get up for in the morning?

  8. #8
    Politics.ie Member Casualbets's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    1,636
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by seabhcan View Post
    So its better to keep women on the dole than for the state to pay for child care?

    Child care is costing us 1100 euro a month. We have to pay that until the kids start school, then the state pays for their day care.
    Not on the dole. And it's not just women. I'm referring to specifically 2 income households where the 2nd income is less than childcare costs. Those jobs are not, if you will, economic, and that person holding them is - in essence - preventing another person whom the job WOULD be of economic benefit too taking up employment.

  9. #9
    Politics.ie Member Casualbets's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    1,636
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by enuffisenuff View Post
    What price can you put on the prospect of having something to get up for in the morning?

    Of course, a job improves psychological well-being. But that cuts both ways. What about the psychological well-being of the person who would be taken on instead who would actually benefit economically from the job?

  10. #10
    Politics.ie Member Casualbets's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    1,636
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zakalwe1 View Post
    i suspect people won't see past your FF avatar when responding.

    i for one, think that you raise fairly valid points.
    it is not economically rational to hold onto one of these "uneconomic" jobs where you have to pay to go to work.
    It's not just that, but that it - presumably - essentially blocks someone who financiallys NEEDS a job from gaining employment

Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •