+ Post New Thread
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 61
General Chat Thread, Retirement Age being scrapped in General; Originally Posted by Disease I can give you just as many examples where the reverse is true. Source. NAtional Statistics ...
  1. #16

    localzuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Minehead
    Posts
    17,652
    Thank Post
    516
    Thanked 2,443 Times in 1,891 Posts
    Blog Entries
    24
    Rep Power
    831
    Quote Originally Posted by Disease View Post
    I can give you just as many examples where the reverse is true.


    Source. NAtional Statistics Office which showed that unemployment was down and vacancies are up. You are assuming that Millions will be kicked off of incapacity.

    I know loads of young people who would not consider working at ASDA or Tesco stacking shelves and rather stay on the dole. I also know a load of people who should be kicked off of incapacity benefit and told to look for work. If I had my way they would get no financial support at all.
    I'm sorry but your own source shows there aren't enough jobs to go around!! 2.47million people unemployed, 486k job openings!! What point are you trying to make?!

  2. #17
    Disease's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    1,092
    Thank Post
    117
    Thanked 70 Times in 48 Posts
    Rep Power
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by jamesb View Post

    Which does not mean that all young people fall into this class. On top of which there's the consideration that some of these people would potentially be getting less money overall in return for their work. There are people who do cheat the system, but saying:

    Displays a willing ignorance of the subject and prejudice against young people.
    You will find that the word I used is 'most' not all and most can mean anything from 50.0000001% upwards, nowhere did I say all as you are implying so please check your facts.

    So why in your enlightened opinion do you think there was a sharp rise in youth (under 25) employment under the previous government? Could it be because they encouraged more people to go to uni for worthless degree's that have no functional use in the job market.

  3. #18

    localzuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Minehead
    Posts
    17,652
    Thank Post
    516
    Thanked 2,443 Times in 1,891 Posts
    Blog Entries
    24
    Rep Power
    831
    Quote Originally Posted by Disease View Post
    You will find that the word I used is 'most' not all and most can mean anything from 50.0000001% upwards, nowhere did I say all as you are implying so please check your facts.
    Please check your 'facts' too... You're basing your entire opinion on hearsay and anecdotes. Show me evidence. Facts, as you say, rather than random numbers and things made up on the spot. Your entire argument is based upon a platform of ageism to be honest.

    So why in your enlightened opinion do you think there was a sharp rise in youth (under 25) employment under the previous government? Could it be because they encouraged more people to go to uni for worthless degree's that have no functional use in the job market.
    1. Recession.
    2. More people in university education
    3. Less jobs to go around

  4. #19
    Disease's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    1,092
    Thank Post
    117
    Thanked 70 Times in 48 Posts
    Rep Power
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by localzuk View Post
    I'm sorry but your own source shows there aren't enough jobs to go around!! 2.47million people unemployed, 486k job openings!! What point are you trying to make?!
    Thats the available jobs in 3 months, obviously a large amount of those should get filled and a similar amount would be generated in the next quarter. You would need to analyse the amount of long term unemployed rather than the total figure which would include those who maybe unemployed for 3 weeks and now back in employment. You would find that long term unemployed is around half of the 2.4 mill and I can bet you that te majority of those would be people who do not want to work around 1 million say.

  5. #20
    Disease's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    1,092
    Thank Post
    117
    Thanked 70 Times in 48 Posts
    Rep Power
    56
    Funny that you accuse me of ageism when the entire premise of the OP is based on ageism.

  6. #21

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Surrey
    Posts
    2,168
    Thank Post
    98
    Thanked 319 Times in 261 Posts
    Blog Entries
    4
    Rep Power
    112
    Quote Originally Posted by Disease View Post
    You will find that the word I used is 'most' not all and most can mean anything from 50.0000001% upwards, nowhere did I say all as you are implying so please check your facts.
    No, you are implying, or even stating, that most (i.e. over half as you so sharply point out) young people are simply lazy. I dispute that statement - based on the fact that 'most' young people are in employment of some kind. You make no point about it being purely the unemployed who are lazy, and even if you were I would want to see your references for over half of unemployed young people (not inactive) being willingly so.

    So why in your enlightened opinion do you think there was a sharp rise in youth (under 25) employment under the previous government? Could it be because they encouraged more people to go to uni for worthless degree's that have no functional use in the job market.
    Mixture of things - partly the fact that many did go to university, and coming out were unable to find jobs in their chosen field. Given the student loan it is even easier to fall into the benefits trap, since yet more of your income is taken from you. Not only that, but having chosen to study for several years someone is at a disadvantage over those who have been gaining employment experience.

    So yes, the push to get everyone into university was a mistake, but blaming the people who were pushed into this decision by the expectations placed on them is entirely missing the point.

  7. #22

    localzuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Minehead
    Posts
    17,652
    Thank Post
    516
    Thanked 2,443 Times in 1,891 Posts
    Blog Entries
    24
    Rep Power
    831
    Quote Originally Posted by Disease View Post
    I can bet you that te majority of those would be people who do not want to work around 1 million say.
    Will you please stop with your 'betting' and other conjecture. Show me facts! Your comments about long term unemployment are irrelevant - if there are 2.47mill unemployed, that means that there are 2.47mill people unemployed. Without 2.47million jobs for them to go into, there aren't enough jobs.

    Quote Originally Posted by Disease View Post
    Funny that you accuse me of ageism when the entire premise of the OP is based on ageism.
    I haven't given an opinion on the OP. Every post of yours in this has pretty much attacked young people. I am a young person, and a recent poll on this site gives the impression that the majority of the people working in our line of work are also young people. What is it about young people that you dislike so much that you feel that they should be attacked in the way you are doing?

    Ageism is bad, be it against the young or the old. However, a mandatory retirement age is not about ageism - it is about managing the economy and keeping employment stable. We don't allow under 16s to work in the same way as we do over 16s, so would that be ageism? Or would it be there to protect those children?

  8. #23
    Disease's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    1,092
    Thank Post
    117
    Thanked 70 Times in 48 Posts
    Rep Power
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by localzuk View Post
    Will you please stop with your 'betting' and other conjecture. Show me facts! Your comments about long term unemployment are irrelevant - if there are 2.47mill unemployed, that means that there are 2.47mill people unemployed. Without 2.47million jobs for them to go into, there aren't enough jobs.



    I haven't given an opinion on the OP. Every post of yours in this has pretty much attacked young people. I am a young person, and a recent poll on this site gives the impression that the majority of the people working in our line of work are also young people. What is it about young people that you dislike so much that you feel that they should be attacked in the way you are doing?

    Ageism is bad, be it against the young or the old. However, a mandatory retirement age is not about ageism - it is about managing the economy and keeping employment stable. We don't allow under 16s to work in the same way as we do over 16s, so would that be ageism? Or would it be there to protect those children?
    You keep asking for facts yet I have also noticed that you have failed to provide any hard evidence to counter my claims. In the same way as you say I cannot just post with as you put it 'betting and conjecture' you can not counter my claims with more of the same. You are assuming that the 2.47 million unemployed all want to work which you can be totally assured is not true.

    You say what is it about young people you do not like when you do not know how old I am.

    I will tell you what I don't like about people, I don't like the fact that people moan about not getting a job yet when you offer them a job at McDonalds they say I am not working there, a job is a job and in my experience there are plenty of them. There is no excuse for being unemployed.

  9. #24
    e_g_r's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Rochdale
    Posts
    460
    Thank Post
    51
    Thanked 26 Times in 17 Posts
    Rep Power
    24
    Didn't Logans run have the ultimate solution to this

  10. 2 Thanks to e_g_r:

    tmcd35 (29th July 2010), ZeroHour (29th July 2010)

  11. #25

    localzuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Minehead
    Posts
    17,652
    Thank Post
    516
    Thanked 2,443 Times in 1,891 Posts
    Blog Entries
    24
    Rep Power
    831
    Quote Originally Posted by Disease View Post
    You keep asking for facts yet I have also noticed that you have failed to provide any hard evidence to counter my claims. In the same way as you say I cannot just post with as you put it 'betting and conjecture' you can not counter my claims with more of the same. You are assuming that the 2.47 million unemployed all want to work which you can be totally assured is not true.
    The onus of proof is on you to prove your statements, not for me to disprove them. Otherwise, I can say 'I think there is a secret race of people that live on a planet 2 trillion light years from here' - I must be right if you can't prove me wrong... My base is one of not knowing either way. I make no claims about the laziness of our unemployed population, you are the one doing that.

    You say what is it about young people you do not like when you do not know how old I am.
    What has your age got to do with anything? Young people can dislike other young people, old people can dislike their own age bracket also...

    I will tell you what I don't like about people, I don't like the fact that people moan about not getting a job yet when you offer them a job at McDonalds they say I am not working there, a job is a job and in my experience there are plenty of them. There is no excuse for being unemployed.
    Your experience has been shown, in VERY simple figures to be nonsense though. Lets swap age with colour here - what if you were claiming that all coloured unemployed people were lazy? That would be racist, and I'm pretty sure that unless you could back it up with hard figures, you wouldn't go around saying it. So why do it with age?

  12. #26

    SYNACK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    11,078
    Thank Post
    853
    Thanked 2,677 Times in 2,271 Posts
    Blog Entries
    9
    Rep Power
    769
    Quote Originally Posted by localzuk View Post
    I can say 'I think there is a secret race of people that live on a planet 2 trillion light years from here'
    Shhhh, its supposed to be a secret...

  13. #27

    teejay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    3,174
    Thank Post
    284
    Thanked 773 Times in 583 Posts
    Rep Power
    335
    Quote Originally Posted by Disease View Post
    Funny that you accuse me of ageism when the entire premise of the OP is based on ageism.
    No it's not. The post is about the retirement age being removed, would you say it's ageist if I didn't agree with the minimum working age being removed as I don't believe 5 year olds should be working?

    Within the working ages limits, I have no qualms about what age the person is, it's whoever is best for the job. What I am querying is whether this upper age limit should be removed, I personally don't think it should.

  14. #28

    ZeroHour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Edinburgh, Scotland
    Posts
    5,644
    Thank Post
    895
    Thanked 1,314 Times in 798 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    444
    I tbh can feel the pain for employers due to this reversal. I think a middle ground needs to be found but needs to be a way to encourage some in/out of jobs.
    I am not saying people 65 years old and a day are worthless, far from it but the problem with blanket rules/non rules is there a lack of common sense.I know someone for example runs a construction firm and he has employee's who are far less capable due to age but since they have been employed for years, in times of rescission he has had to use a last in first out policy to deal with redundancies otherwise he fears being taken to court for ageism. He couldnt apply common sense of who was fully fit for the job as the older employees, although slower and struggling more with construction (I am trying to be as PC as possible ) had been there longer and would attempt to sue for ageism. Before this reversal he at least had a way to clear the way for new employees at a certain point without huge bills. Now though at 65 he will have to offer a golden handshake or the likes to clear the way for newer, faster employees who are more capable of the job or hire new staff and keep staff on he cant use.
    I just think better approach should be taken which applies common sense to the entitlement to work in your specific job when over 65 (fit for task) if not in general tbh. If your working on a PC you can be as agile as a 25 year old but when it comes to moving bricks and mortar I think no one could say the average 65 year old would be better suited (not to say *exceptions* dont occur)

  15. #29

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Surrey
    Posts
    2,168
    Thank Post
    98
    Thanked 319 Times in 261 Posts
    Blog Entries
    4
    Rep Power
    112
    Quote Originally Posted by teejay View Post
    No it's not. The post is about the retirement age being removed, would you say it's ageist if I didn't agree with the minimum working age being removed as I don't believe 5 year olds should be working?

    Within the working ages limits, I have no qualms about what age the person is, it's whoever is best for the job. What I am querying is whether this upper age limit should be removed, I personally don't think it should.
    The problem comes in with average lifespan increasing, since each year someone lives after retirement they are using money without generating it. In most cases that's a pension, which then becomes a zero-sum game, which works for everyone. As life expectancies rise though the amount people put aside will not increase proportionally, as they will be spending a greater amount of time in retirement.

    So if someone lives to be 105, and starts their pension at 25, they then work for forty years. If they want a reasonable pension they then need to put away enough to provide them support for another forty years. Not an easy task.

    There are other considerations as well. Working later in life has been correlated with reducing or delaying dementia, and any reduction here would save a lot (not only money but suffering). Many people do want to continue working after retirement as well.

    I'm unsure whether I agree or disagree with the idea, just wanted to put forward a few more arguments on the matter.

  16. #30
    gizmo2005's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Cornwall
    Posts
    243
    Thank Post
    81
    Thanked 19 Times in 14 Posts
    Rep Power
    17
    one of the onlya ways i could see this working is bringing back service for your country, that way the younger people get experiance and taught a trade and the elderly people get to continue working, we will be adding value to the country.

SHARE:
+ Post New Thread
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. NewSID Retirement TODAY
    By fooby in forum O/S Deployment
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 3rd November 2009, 03:48 PM
  2. Retirement Gift
    By westleya in forum General Chat
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 14th July 2009, 10:05 AM
  3. Retirement!
    By GrumbleDook in forum General EduGeek News/Announcements
    Replies: 50
    Last Post: 20th January 2009, 08:43 AM
  4. [Joke] Quite looking forward to retirement now...
    By OutToLunch in forum Jokes/Interweb Things
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 3rd April 2008, 12:26 PM
  5. Retirement looms...
    By RoyG in forum General Chat
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 25th March 2008, 10:06 AM

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

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