Finland to pay all its citizens 800 euros a month to fight unemployment

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

It's not the employers job to train people. Stop trying to put the burden where it doesn't belong.

Whose job is it then? Government? The individual?

 

[Neonchameleon]

Who cares. Governments do silly things. We can afford it. Greece can't, yet does it anyway.

In short the problem is not to do with how silly things are (whether or not they are silly). I'm glad you agree. The problem is spending beyond what you can actually afford. On paper before the crash Greece could afford what it was spending. The problem was that its books were a work of fiction. I.e. fraud.

Current demand vastly outweighs supply

Current demand

It's not the employers job to train people. Stop trying to put the burden where it doesn't belong.

There are four ways of getting a trained workforce.
1: You can pay enough to recruit an already trained workforce, luring them away from rivals if necessary.
2: You can pay enough to make it worthwhile for people to fund their own training (possibly mixed with some advertising)
3: You can train unskilled people yourselves.
4: You can go cap in hand to the government and beg them to train people for you.

What we have is a bunch of whiny employers who think that fully trained people mspring fully formed from Zeus' brow and are unwilling to pay enough to poach people, unwilling to pay enough to get people to train themselves, and unwilling to set up their own training courses. I'm putting the blame exactly where it belongs. On the whiny employers who have decided in a vacuum what rates for a skilled person are and think that their ideas can set that wage and that they are immune to market forces.

And for the record every company I have ever worked for has either paid for or directly provided at least some training because they aren't stupid and have found it saves them money and improves their workforce loyalty if their staff can get extra skills. Small business, large business, public sector. It doesn't matter.

 

[Maxperson]

Whose job is it then? Government? The individual?

It's the job of the individual. However, if the government is forced to decide between paying someone to sit on his rear forever or pay much less to get that person trained and able to pay for himself, training is the better option.

 

[Maxperson]

In short the problem is not to do with how silly things are (whether or not they are silly). I'm glad you agree. The problem is spending beyond what you can actually afford. On paper before the crash Greece could afford what it was spending. The problem was that its books were a work of fiction. I.e. fraud.

No. No. No. The problem is not the lies. All governments lie, America's current one is among the worst. The problem is that they couldn't afford their spending. Failure to afford is what caused the crash, not the lies. They would have crashed with the truth as well.

Current demand

And supply is nowhere is sight.

There are four ways of getting a trained workforce.
1: You can pay enough to recruit an already trained workforce, luring them away from rivals if necessary.

False. These skilled positions already pay a lot. If pay were the reason, we wouldn't have a problem. Also, luring people away fixes nothing. It just shifts the empty jobs around.

2: You can pay enough to make it worthwhile for people to fund their own training (possibly mixed with some advertising)

Er, how does this work? If they don't have jobs, they can't afford to fund their own training no matter how much jobs pay.

3: You can train unskilled people yourselves.

A few companies do this, but it's not their job to do so.

4: You can go cap in hand to the government and beg them to train people for you.

Nope, or if they've done this, the government has told the companies to go pound sand.

5: the government can just train people itself, rather than hand out free money forever.

What we have is a bunch of whiny employers who think that fully trained people mspring fully formed from Zeus' brow and are unwilling to pay enough to poach people, unwilling to pay enough to get people to train themselves, and unwilling to set up their own training courses. I'm putting the blame exactly where it belongs. On the whiny employers who have decided in a vacuum what rates for a skilled person are and think that their ideas can set that wage and that they are immune to market forces.

The employers aren't getting anything done and what I am saying has nothing to do with companies other than to note that jobs are available for trained poor people. Maybe companies are being whiny, and maybe they aren't. Who cares. Their whines have nothing to do with this issue.

 

[Neonchameleon]

And supply is nowhere is sight.

And where are the training companies? After all people will pay for training. Both employees and companies.

Or is the real shortage one of skilled training companies? In which case that can be fixed.

False. These skilled positions already pay a lot. If pay were the reason, we wouldn't have a problem.

The skilled positions clearly do not pay enough for people to think it's worth taking out a loan to get the training to fill them. Which means they don't pay what is needed for the position.

Also, luring people away fixes nothing. It just shifts the empty jobs around.

False. Luring people away raises wages in the sector. Which means that investing in training for it becomes a more sensible choice.

Er, how does this work? If they don't have jobs, they can't afford to fund their own training no matter how much jobs pay.

Loans. And cascade as people with unskilled jobs instead pay for training for the skilled ones, and the unskilled ones open up.

A few companies do this, but it's not their job to do so.

Only tangentally.

A company's job is to do the job it wants to. If the company requires a skilled work force then its job is to ensure it has one so it can produce the end product. Providing pay and conditions that are good enough to get already skilled workers is one of the two main ways it can do this. Taking people and training them is the other way.

Being a whiny jobsworth who sits round and bitches that there aren't the skilled workers available is an excuse for the company not doing its job.

Nope, or if they've done this, the government has told the companies to go pound sand.

And that's entirely within the government's right. To not provide the companies the subsidies they want. Looking after the people not the corporations.

5: the government can just train people itself, rather than hand out free money forever.

The government does not do lean in any way, shape, or form (which is just as well because lean cuts things to the bone and requires supervision by adults not politicians). Training people to program in FORTRAN wouldn't be much use to anyone.

Are you really saying that the government is more effective at both sorting out skills-based training and giving people that training than the private sector is? That the private sector is that inefficient? In which case why not just nationalise those companies?

The employers aren't getting anything done

If they aren't prepared to pay enough to get trained workers and they aren't prepared to train workers themselves then their business isn't profitable without government support in which case if the market is any use at all they should go bust. Or if it is

and what I am saying has nothing to do with companies other than to note that jobs are available for trained poor people. Maybe companies are being whiny, and maybe they aren't. Who cares. Their whines have nothing to do with this issue.

!

The only way the government can train the right numbers of people is to create a Command Economy. The government doesn't know who is going to need training or in what skills. And it certainly isn't the government's job to ensure that any business has the workers it wants on hand. The main reason for the suppposed shortage of skilled workers is the whines of the business owners and their desire to have skilled workers without paying for them.

And that you say that it's the employee's responsibility to get training without saying that it's the employer's responsibility to pay enough to make sure that being trained is a smart economic decision for those people to get trained shows a lot about your assumptions and how little you understand even right wing economics.

 

[Maxperson]

And where are the training companies? After all people will pay for training. Both employees and companies.

They are everywhere. Just look for anything with college, school, tech, etc. in the name.

Or is the real shortage one of skilled training companies? In which case that can be fixed.

Nope. There are schools all over that provide training. The problem is money.

The skilled positions clearly do not pay enough for people to think it's worth taking out a loan to get the training to fill them. Which means they don't pay what is needed for the position.

You should try being poor sometime. Getting loans and the ability to go to school instead of survive is rather hard for them.

Loans. And cascade as people with unskilled jobs instead pay for training for the skilled ones, and the unskilled ones open up.

You clearly don't know what it's like to be poor and unskilled or you wouldn't be suggesting things like that.

And that's entirely within the government's right. To not provide the companies the subsidies they want. Looking after the people not the corporations.

This discussion is not about companies or subsidies. It's about training the poor to be contributors instead of takers.

The government does not do lean in any way, shape, or form (which is just as well because lean cuts things to the bone and requires supervision by adults not politicians). Training people to program in FORTRAN wouldn't be much use to anyone.

Are you really saying that the government is more effective at both sorting out skills-based training and giving people that training than the private sector is? That the private sector is that inefficient? In which case why not just nationalise those companies?

If you've been paying attention, you know that I've been saying that the government should provide money to people to become trained.

The only way the government can train the right numbers of people is to create a Command Economy. The government doesn't know who is going to need training or in what skills. And it certainly isn't the government's job to ensure that any business has the workers it wants on hand. The main reason for the suppposed shortage of skilled workers is the whines of the business owners and their desire to have skilled workers without paying for them.

And that you say that it's the employee's responsibility to get training without saying that it's the employer's responsibility to pay enough to make sure that being trained is a smart economic decision for those people to get trained shows a lot about your assumptions and how little you understand even right wing economics.

The government does in fact know what skills are needed. It tracks these things. And no, I never said it was the employee's responsibility to get training. I said it was the individual's responsibility. They aren't an employee until AFTER the training and have no employer for that position before then.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Nope. There are schools all over that provide training. The problem is money.

Indeed. The problem is money. The problem is that employers would rather bitch, moan, and not get things done than pay the employees what they are worth or pay to get employees trained.

You should try being poor sometime. Getting loans and the ability to go to school instead of survive is rather hard for them.
...
You clearly don't know what it's like to be poor and unskilled or you wouldn't be suggesting things like that.

Actually this was a leading question for you. I'm glad you've got half a clue and realise that claiming it's the individual's responsibility to get training is (a) silly and (b) impractical.

Which doesn't make it the government's responsibility to ensure that the employees that corporations need are trained.

This discussion is not about companies or subsidies. It's about training the poor to be contributors instead of takers.

No it's not. It's about whether companies should base their training programs on government handouts or whether they should either be allowed to play chicken with the welfare system or be allowed to go bust through not actually wanting to pay fair wages.

If you've been paying attention, you know that I've been saying that the government should provide money to people to become trained.

And this is why education should be free to all without strings.

The government does in fact know what skills are needed. It tracks these things. And no, I never said it was the employee's responsibility to get training. I said it was the individual's responsibility. They aren't an employee until AFTER the training and have no employer for that position before then.

So it's the individual's responsibility to be trained on the offchance a job might be availale. And the company doesn't have a responsibility to make sure it has a workforce that's trained in doing the job it needs done?

 

[Maxperson]

Actually this was a leading question for you. I'm glad you've got half a clue and realise that claiming it's the individual's responsibility to get training is (a) silly and (b) impractical.

It's not silly at all. It is very much the responsibility of the individual. Not every is capable of meeting that responsibility is all.

Which doesn't make it the government's responsibility to ensure that the employees that corporations need are trained.

It's certainly not the responsibility of the companies. Since the government has chosen to step in to help the poor, helping the poor meet their training responsibility is a part of that.

No it's not. It's about whether companies should base their training programs on government handouts or whether they should either be allowed to play chicken with the welfare system or be allowed to go bust through not actually wanting to pay fair wages.

Training the poor has nothing to do with a company other than to help the poor person get a job. It's not about welfare chicken. It's not about corporate welfare.

And this is why education should be free to all without strings.

Through high school, sure. The wealthy, even the middle class, should not be given a free ride. They don't deserve it as it is their responsibility to become trained post high school. Only the poor are disadvantaged to the point where they are unable to meet their responsibility.

So it's the individual's responsibility to be trained on the offchance a job might be availale. And the company doesn't have a responsibility to make sure it has a workforce that's trained in doing the job it needs done?

If the person is too stupid to look up what jobs are out there, that person deserves what he gets.

 

[Neonchameleon]

It's not silly at all. It is very much the responsibility of the individual. Not every is capable of meeting that responsibility is all.

And here you were saying that actually affording training was a problem for poor people.

It's certainly not the responsibility of the companies.

The companies are the ones who claim that workers need training. And the ones that profit because the workers are trained. But mysteriously the costs required for this aren't something that the companies should ever shoulder - instead they should be given all they want on a silver platter.

Since the government has chosen to step in to help the poor, helping the poor meet their training responsibility is a part of that.

Because the government has decided to do something it must do everything you can think of? Riiiight. Your logic is not earth logic.

If the person is too stupid to look up what jobs are out there, that person deserves what he gets.

If a company is too cheap to pay market rate for wages and too stupid to train its own workers it deserves what it gets.

 

[Maxperson]

The companies are the ones who claim that workers need training. And the ones that profit because the workers are trained. But mysteriously the costs required for this aren't something that the companies should ever shoulder - instead they should be given all they want on a silver platter.

It's not a claim. It's a fact.

Because the government has decided to do something it must do everything you can think of?

Are you seriously saying that the government should pay several times more to someone than it would cost to train him, in order to avoid training him? What sense does that make?