web analytics


By Pete Moore On November 25th, 2011

The latest futile attempt to rectify what government causes: the rest of us will be looted to subsidise jobs to jobs which would have existed without government intervention in the first place.

Under the Youth Contract, 160,000 workers aged between 18 and 24 will have half their wages paid for the first six months. The scheme will only pay half the minimum wage – worth £2,275 – to employers who will then make up the difference.

Can’t just do away with the job-destroying minimum wage, oh no. That would be an admission of their disaster.


  1. Thats true but having to bribe Employers to employ British ‘yoof’. Speaks volumes about their employability doesn’t it. I suggest when the nations educators go on strike we leave them out- permanently. Why not privatise education.


  2. Pete would I be right in assuming you think people should work for less than minimum wage?

  3. Kateyo – let me ask you this. Do you think any Government can stand against market forces? Canute like turning back the tide?

    If the job is not worth the minimum wage it either goes unfilled or is done via the black economy. Thats the reality. Deny reality long enough and you get sectioned mate.

    In any event a subtly different point to our ‘yoof’ being so unemployable that the poor old taxpayer has to bribe people to ‘gissa job’. I thoght we had gotten rid of Browns clowns.. I see they are back but now renamed Cam-er-loons.

    Whats needed to combat our stagflation is extreme Thatcherism (no more of the namby pamby stuff like last time). The sooner the better.

  4. kateyo –

    People should work for what they can get in the market.

    Some people seem to think that a minimum wage lifts the wages of those below it, meaning that some workers earn more. This is a mistaken view. The jobs affected tend to disappear because they are now no longer economically productive.

    In effect, a minimum wage outlaws work for those whose skills are below the threshold.

  5. Dog feast your chops on this…I think it answers your post.


    oh and this

    In any event a subtly different point to our ‘yoof’ being so unemployable

    check out last nights newsnight for a rather good debate on whether employers should employ British people in British jobs (even British yoof:)

  6. People should work for what they can get in the market.

    Let me genuinely ask you Pete are you in favour of British jobs for British people? Are you against say the brit govt giving car workers jobs to Germany for instance? If you are insn’t that a form of protectionism? If you favor protectionism how can you say simple market forces should prevail in Britian.

    Basically an employer should in your view pay a worker what he sees fit? So Sainsburys can pay its CEO £900,000 according to himself on question time and he is worth this amount of money – why? Because family connections come in to play as well don’t they. A lot of things are skewed against those at the bottom and what you are saying is take away what little they have to let the rich get richer…

    The market – thats an argument used against the poor when most productive forces are owned by the wealthy.

  7. kateyo –

    Who says that political slogans don’t seep into the unconscious?

    Yes, generally I’m in favour of ‘British jobs for British people’, insofar as a job can have a nationality ascribed to it. I’m in favour of it because the alternative is to have lots of unemployed Britons, which is not a good thing. I would like full employment and that implies Britons having jobs.

    What I oppose is the government looting the productive to overcome problems which are government-made in the first place. The government ill-educated youngsters, it destroyed entryist jobs via the minimum wage, it inflated the economy which markets are now trying to correct. Please, we need less governmet, not more of the insanity which created these problems. You ask:

    “Are you against say the brit govt giving car workers jobs to Germany for instance?”

    I’m not aware of this happening, but I am against the govenrment doing most of the things it does. I would oppose the government ‘giving a job’ away, first off because government shouldn’t have that influence on anyone’s job. You ask:

    So Sainsburys can pay its CEO £900,000 according to himself on question time and he is worth this amount of money – why?

    I don’t know if he’s worth it. If he said he was paid £900K he was being a little tight with the truth. I suspect the CEO of Sainsburys gets alot more than that … oh look, so he does.

    In part, it’s a bit of a scam. These people don’t have their salaries set by shareholders but by a remuneration committee which contains people just like them. By the way, remuneration committees are very much liked by government, Gordon Brown was particualrly keen, and government has long encouraged the practice.

    In truth, I suspect many top salaries are set because the recipient might be on the committee which sets the salary of the bloke who set the first top salary, and so on and your boy’s doing very well in my firm and how’s the wife these days?

    I favour shareholders setting salaries as a general move towards shareholders reclaiming a lost power over the entities they own. In general, yes, I think top salaries are out of kilter although, it ought to be recognised, if the Sainsburys CEO gets it wrong the consequences can be extremely serious, if a shelf stacker gets it wrong the baked beans are in the wrong place.

  8. A minimum wage is especially devastating as it discourages companies from employing young people thus creating a lifestyle of unemployment.

    Replace it with a negative income tax for earnings below £6000 then you’d see employment soar.

  9. Ross,

    If an employer has no need to employ staff, whether at the bottom or at the top of the hierachy, there is no hope of persauding them to do so with such promises as a negative income tax. Who needs the extra red tape involved?

    When employing youngsters, the first impression is paramount, closely followed by the applicant’s attitude, followed by the academics.

    Each employer will have his own criteria, but, at the end of the day, the ad for any vacancies, at whatever level, will only appear when the employer needs more staff, not at the request of the government.

    As to the salary offered, well that depends on the availability of folk offering their services for hire, at that time. That the cost of living is a major criteria for the job seeker is obvious, but – if he cannot find a job that pays sufficient to live on in the manner to which he is accustomed, well perhaps he, or she, might consider taking on a part-time job, in addition to the day time one! – or would that be an unthinkable invasion of his ‘human rights’?

  10. Kateyo – I read that Guardian bit and the comments. It’s horrific genuinely scary there are so many deluded lefty FOOLS out there. Reality deniers and sheer bloody militant trots. Fools, morons imbeciles. That has convinced me of the absolute need to have a good war to cull their numbers. They are not worthwhile members of any society. Oxygen thieves.

    Was that the point you were seeking to make? Successfully made.