Norway: Start-ups Say Ja to Socialism

[Loki]

I take it you have no interest in an honest discussion of this topic?

[RandBlade]

Just figuring that out?

[GGT]

I responded to that, we pay people not to work. I work as an employer and a general rule of thumb is that for everyone you interview from the JobCentre (unemployed claimaints) 50% don't turn up to the interview, 50% who do will deliberately fail the interview (11am drivers interview and they've already been drinking), 50% who do and get the job don't bother turning up to their first shift, 50% who start will walk out within a month and 50% who don't will ensure they get fired (unreliability, lateness etc).

I can not tell you either the number of times I've heard people bluntly say "I don't want the job, I'd rather my benefits" or "I can't work more than 16 hours or I'll lose my benefits" or "I can't work more than 30 hours or I'll lose my benefits".

I've been shouted at, sworn at and spat at by people for 'wasting their time' because I didn't say sooner that the job was not "Cash in Hand" so they'd lose their benefits. First thing I say now to anyone enquiring about a vacancy is that pay is paid directly into people's bank account and the number of times people just hang up immediately, turn around and walk away immediately, or just make their excuses and never hand in an application ...

Don't know how much experience you've got in this but in my six years now in this job I've meant hundreds and hundreds of benefit cheats. So I consider myself a bit of an expert in calling BS on your pretence the only reason people are unemployed is that there are no jobs. Your figures don't show how many are deliberately not working, or how many are doing so illegally while also fraudulently benefits. That's without even contemplating the idea of those involved in organised crime.

Wait, which thread is this again?

Rand, you're in a food service sector that attracts mostly young-ish unskilled workers for minimum wage. Right? You can't really compare your experiences hiring people, those from the Jobs Center, those who don't want to lose benefits....to overall un/employment. Of the 8 millions jobs lost in the US, there aren't 8 million jobs now available. Skill sets don't match up, but plenty of middle manager types did end up flipping burgers or mopping floors. Or they left the job market and returned to school.

The fact remains; more people are looking for work than there are jobs.

[RandBlade]

I hire skilled and unskilled workers in a variety of job positions and pay both "low" and higher rates of wages, but every set of wages comes above the UK's minimum wage. I have never in my life paid anyone just minimum wage.

So what if a middle-manager-type ended up "flipping burgers" or "mopping floors"? Better to have a job than no job, this is the problem with too many in society, they turn their nose up and think they're better than other people. They're too good for some jobs. Being too good for a job is no excuse to be unemployed. Same with returning to school, nothing wrong with that either. Spin it around, why should someone "flipping burgers or mopping the floor" be paying taxes to support those so much better than them that they don't need to do that?

I've not seen any source for how many jobs are available right now, it is not something that can be easily measured for one thing.

[Aimless]

I've not seen any source for how many jobs are available right now, it is not something that can be easily measured for one thing.

Er, but why are you then making claims about there being more than enough jobs for everyone?

[RandBlade]

Er, but why are you then making claims about there being more than enough jobs for everyone?

Because I genuinely believe it. Because those who stay unemployed are not those who genuinely seek to get a job (any job if necessary), but those who either don't care, don't try or view themselves to self-important. Because even with 8% unemployment, 92% are still employed. Because there are plenty of companies (including my own) always hiring. Because of those 92%, there's probably about 8% who have 2 jobs too! Because the long-term unemployed stay unemployed while those who lose their jobs very swiftly can get new ones.

[Loki]

I think talking about the "number of jobs available" is a misnomer. The current unemployment rate reflects the number of people who cannot jobs given their wage demands and willingness to travel/move. It might very well be possible that if everyone was willing to accept low enough wages and was willing to move far enough, that very few would be unemployed (there will always be some who've been jailed, are drug addicts, have various disabilities, can't function in a work environment, etc.). Whether it's reasonable to expect people to do those two things is an altogether different matter.

It's also odd to talk about the number of people applying for a given job, seeing that each person doesn't just apply to one job. For example, if there were 100 jobs, and 100 people applied for each job, that wouldn't mean that 99 will remain unemployed. In fact, if each person applied to 100 jobs, there would technically be a job for everyone. Not that I believe this is the case.

[Aimless]

I think talking about the "number of jobs available" is a misnomer. The current unemployment rate reflects the number of people who cannot jobs given their wage demands and willingness to travel/move. It might very well be possible that if everyone was willing to accept low enough wages and was willing to move far enough, that very few would be unemployed (there will always be some who've been jailed, are drug addicts, have various disabilities, can't function in a work environment, etc.). Whether it's reasonable to expect people to do those two things is an altogether different matter.

[GGT]

I think talking about the "number of jobs available" is a misnomer. The current unemployment rate reflects the number of people who cannot jobs given their wage demands and willingness to travel/move. It might very well be possible that if everyone was willing to accept low enough wages and was willing to move far enough, that very few would be unemployed (there will always be some who've been jailed, are drug addicts, have various disabilities, can't function in a work environment, etc.). Whether it's reasonable to expect people to do those two things is an altogether different matter.

But that's all the 'expert' economists and political scientists give us, in numbers and charts. Some of the higher-end jobs can't be filled by citizens, because our educational system hasn't produced enough engineers (or x,y,z). Enter H1B visa immigrants, another topic of contention. The other variable holding us back is the housing market---all those people with underwater mortgages, or homes they can't sell, in order to move where the jobs are.

There's been so much criticism of people who "won't move down the income ladder and take available jobs and give up unemployment insurance benefits".....but who can blame the degreed CEO with a mortgage (and kids in school) for not short selling/foreclosing/walking away.....to move 500 miles for an entry level position at half-pay?

Good to see you've come around to agreeing with how we collect and analyze employment data should be revamped, though.

It's also odd to talk about the number of people applying for a given job, seeing that each person doesn't just apply to one job. For example, if there were 100 jobs, and 100 people applied for each job, that wouldn't mean that 99 will remain unemployed. In fact, if each person applied to 100 jobs, there would technically be a job for everyone. Not that I believe this is the case.

There's also the Underemployment rate, and the U-6. Maybe better to look at employment agencies, job fairs, head hunters, the kind of thing where a Fortune 500 company advertises for 100 management positions, and 5,000 people show up.

[Being]

I've not seen any source for how many jobs are available right now, it is not something that can be easily measured for one thing.

The monthly payroll survey by BLS provides those numbers here in the US. I'd be surprised if the UK doesn't have something similar.

And it sounds like your business has a high turn-over/attrition rate; you're not hiring for ever increasing number of positions. You are hiring to replace people who left so it doesn't at all speak to the number of jobs available.

[GGT]

Er, but why are you then making claims about there being more than enough jobs for everyone?

Because I genuinely believe it. Because those who stay unemployed are not those who genuinely seek to get a job (any job if necessary), but those who either don't care, don't try or view themselves to self-important. Because even with 8% unemployment, 92% are still employed. Because there are plenty of companies (including my own) always hiring. Because of those 92%, there's probably about 8% who have 2 jobs too! Because the long-term unemployed stay unemployed while those who lose their jobs very swiftly can get new ones.

Rand, you're also posting very UK-centric. There aren't enough jobs in Ireland or Italy, that's why young people are leaving those countries. There aren't enough jobs in certain US states, that's why entire cities are going bust. People are either drawing benefits, or trying to leave but can't.....

Purely hypothetical (and anecdotal) but what would you do if your employer declared limited bankruptcy and closed up shop in the UK? You've just bought a house, and a car. You can't really sell your house unless you want to lose several thousands of dollars to the mortgage company, because the housing industry is messed up. And because that would be a black mark on your credit, and you couldn't get a new loan for housing or a car.

Would you take ANY job at 1/3 or 1/2 of your income and default on your mortgage, just because taking ANY job is better than using some gov't assistance? How far would you go to take ANY job....moving out of country? Would Columbia or Costa Rica fit that bill?

There are jobs all over the world available. How far would you go to be employed?

[RandBlade]

I think talking about the "number of jobs available" is a misnomer. The current unemployment rate reflects the number of people who cannot jobs given their wage demands and willingness to travel/move. It might very well be possible that if everyone was willing to accept low enough wages and was willing to move far enough, that very few would be unemployed (there will always be some who've been jailed, are drug addicts, have various disabilities, can't function in a work environment, etc.). Whether it's reasonable to expect people to do those two things is an altogether different matter.

It's also odd to talk about the number of people applying for a given job, seeing that each person doesn't just apply to one job. For example, if there were 100 jobs, and 100 people applied for each job, that wouldn't mean that 99 will remain unemployed. In fact, if each person applied to 100 jobs, there would technically be a job for everyone. Not that I believe this is the case.

All true and I'd say yes it is reasonable. It is more reasonable to take a lower-paid job than to take no job and expect someone lower-paid to support you instead.

But that's all the 'expert' economists and political scientists give us, in numbers and charts. Some of the higher-end jobs can't be filled by citizens, because our educational system hasn't produced enough engineers (or x,y,z). Enter H1B visa immigrants, another topic of contention. The other variable holding us back is the housing market---all those people with underwater mortgages, or homes they can't sell, in order to move where the jobs are.

There's been so much criticism of people who "won't move down the income ladder and take available jobs and give up unemployment insurance benefits".....but who can blame the degreed CEO with a mortgage (and kids in school) for not short selling/foreclosing/walking away.....to move 500 miles for an entry level position at half-pay?

Me and every other tax-payer.

Or he can live off his savings, unemployment insurance if he's bought any or anything else. Or he can go bankrupt. But he shouldn't expect someone else to pick up the bill for his mortgage just because he's failed to budget accordingly. Should someone 500 miles away on an entry-level position at half-pay, struggling to pay his rent on his studio apartment and barely able to dream about getting a mortgage be getting taxed so that the former CEO can live the high life on his work, not worrying about his mortgage on his lovely house?

The monthly payroll survey by BLS provides those numbers here in the US. I'd be surprised if the UK doesn't have something similar.

And it sounds like your business has a high turn-over/attrition rate; you're not hiring for ever increasing number of positions. You are hiring to replace people who left so it doesn't at all speak to the number of jobs available.

How many are on unemployment benefits is an easy number to measure, how many vacancies there are is not.

5 years ago my company had 1 location and 20 employees. Now I have 9 locations with about 250 employees and am looking to bump that up to about 350-400. So no, attrition is one issue but we're ever-expanding. I now have more people on at the same time in one location than I would have had on the books total (not even all on the same time) in 2 locations 4 years ago. One reason I don't say who I work for publicly, because I'm responsible for hundreds of employees currently and have been responsible for probably over a thousand individuals over the last 5 years.

Rand, you're also posting very UK-centric. There aren't enough jobs in Ireland or Italy, that's why young people are leaving those countries. There aren't enough jobs in certain US states, that's why entire cities are going bust. People are either drawing benefits, or trying to leave but can't.....

Move then.

Purely hypothetical (and anecdotal) but what would you do if your employer declared limited bankruptcy and closed up shop in the UK? You've just bought a house, and a car. You can't really sell your house unless you want to lose several thousands of dollars to the mortgage company, because the housing industry is messed up. And because that would be a black mark on your credit, and you couldn't get a new loan for housing or a car.

Good question. I would:

1: Try to find a new job, ideally either the same or better.
2: Try to find a temporary job to help pay the bills in the mean-time.
3: Try to reduce my living expenses.
4: Try to find a lower-paid job if necessary.
5: Use up my rainy day savings as required.
6: Sell up if necessary.
7: If I couldn't make ends meet I'd eventually have to go bankrupt.

Even if I struggled to find a job that matches my current one, I'd seek to ASAP get at least a part-time temporary job, whether it was something as menial as a data-entry clerk or whatever to assist with paying the bills for as long as necessary. Anyone who gets a mortgage that they'd struggle to pay if they go through a little hardship is a fool.

Would you take ANY job at 1/3 or 1/2 of your income and default on your mortgage, just because taking ANY job is better than using some gov't assistance?

What choice would I have? I'd sooner have half my income than no income!

Would Columbia or Costa Rica fit that bill?

There are jobs all over the world available. How far would you go to be employed?

I'd start looking anywhere in the UK. I've never lived in the same house for 4 years.

[Being]

How many are on unemployment benefits is an easy number to measure, how many vacancies there are is not.

That's not how unemployment numbers are counted. In the US unemployment rate is a monthly phone survey of 60,000 households (it has absolutely nothing to do with the number of people collecting benefits) and jobs number is a monthly phone survey of 5,000 businesses. It's as easy to get the jobs number as it is the unemployment rate.

[RandBlade]

That's not how unemployment numbers are counted. In the US unemployment rate is a monthly phone survey of 60,000 households (it has absolutely nothing to do with the number of people collecting benefits) and jobs number is a monthly phone survey of 5,000 businesses. It's as easy to get the jobs number as it is the unemployment rate.

No it's not. Households are more alike, businesses are not. One business in one industry may be hiring, another may be shedding, another may not be doing anything. One business can be dealing with large numbers, another business potentially small ones. 60,000 households is still more likely to have a far more accurate sampling than just 5,000 businesses.

A business can have 2 people in it or thousands, a household will rarely be outside the range of 1-10 people if that high.

[Being]

I don't know for certain but I'd guess the ratio of businesses to households is near the ratio of the two surveys (5,000/60,000), so...basically your arguing against the validity of the statistics. In theory, the payroll survey is just as accurate as the household survey.

[GGT]

All true and I'd say yes it is reasonable. It is more reasonable to take a lower-paid job than to take no job and expect someone lower-paid to support you instead.
Me and every other tax-payer.

Or he can live off his savings, unemployment insurance if he's bought any or anything else. Or he can go bankrupt. But he shouldn't expect someone else to pick up the bill for his mortgage just because he's failed to budget accordingly. Should someone 500 miles away on an entry-level position at half-pay, struggling to pay his rent on his studio apartment and barely able to dream about getting a mortgage be getting taxed so that the former CEO can live the high life on his work, not worrying about his mortgage on his lovely house?
How many are on unemployment benefits is an easy number to measure, how many vacancies there are is not.

5 years ago my company had 1 location and 20 employees. Now I have 9 locations with about 250 employees and am looking to bump that up to about 350-400. So no, attrition is one issue but we're ever-expanding. I now have more people on at the same time in one location than I would have had on the books total (not even all on the same time) in 2 locations 4 years ago. One reason I don't say who I work for publicly, because I'm responsible for hundreds of employees currently and have been responsible for probably over a thousand individuals over the last 5 years.
Move then.
Good question. I would:

1: Try to find a new job, ideally either the same or better.
2: Try to find a temporary job to help pay the bills in the mean-time.
3: Try to reduce my living expenses.
4: Try to find a lower-paid job if necessary.
5: Use up my rainy day savings as required.
6: Sell up if necessary.
7: If I couldn't make ends meet I'd eventually have to go bankrupt.

Even if I struggled to find a job that matches my current one, I'd seek to ASAP get at least a part-time temporary job, whether it was something as menial as a data-entry clerk or whatever to assist with paying the bills for as long as necessary. Anyone who gets a mortgage that they'd struggle to pay if they go through a little hardship is a fool.
What choice would I have? I'd sooner have half my income than no income!
I'd start looking anywhere in the UK. I've never lived in the same house for 4 years.

Just a reality check about how you define "hardship". Assuming your parent company went bust and took your investment down with them, could you pay your new mortgage on minimum wage? With no help from your mate or parents or generous friends? What if you can't find an equal-paying job, or a temporary bill-paying job?

Say you've gone through your savings, reduced your living expenses, found a temporary minimum wage job (or two) and can't "sell up".

As for the Principles of money management, can we assume you'd rather first declare personal bankruptcy or foreclose on your home before you'd use Unemployment benefits (that your employer and/or government supplemented)?

[RandBlade]

I don't know for certain but I'd guess the ratio of businesses to households is near the ratio of the two surveys (5,000/60,000), so...basically your arguing against the validity of the statistics. In theory, the payroll survey is just as accurate as the household survey.

Disagreed, as businesses are not as uniform as households are. Statistically, it is less important to get a larger sample than it is to get a balanced one. I am curious how they can possibly get a balanced sample of businesses.

Just a reality check about how you define "hardship". Assuming your parent company went bust and took your investment down with them, could you pay your new mortgage on minimum wage? With no help from your mate or parents or generous friends? What if you can't find an equal-paying job, or a temporary bill-paying job?

Say you've gone through your savings, reduced your living expenses, found a temporary minimum wage job (or two) and can't "sell up".

We have more than 25% equity in our house, so the house could fall in value by 25% without us falling into negative equity. We could struggle through and pay our bills with half our current income. Do away with luxuries like Sky TV, gym membership etc and I could probably pay my mortgage on a full time minimum wage job.

Before buying the house I planned for worst case scenarios. What if I lose my job? What if the interest rate goes up dramatically? Etc

As for the Principles of money management, can we assume you'd rather first declare personal bankruptcy or foreclose on your home before you'd use Unemployment benefits (that your employer and/or government supplemented)?

No, don't be silly.

[GGT]

Disagreed, as businesses are not as uniform as households are. Statistically, it is less important to get a larger sample than it is to get a balanced one. I am curious how they can possibly get a balanced sample of businesses.

How can you get a balanced sample without getting a large sample?

Personally, I've never liked polls or surveys that rely on phones. In the "old days" that meant whoever answered the phone, in the "new times" that means land lines over cell/mobile phones. Exit polls don't mean much either....if they've voted it's already a subset with particular values.

We have more than 25% equity in our house, so the house could fall in value by 25% without us falling into negative equity. We could struggle through and pay our bills with half our current income. Do away with luxuries like Sky TV, gym membership etc and I could probably pay my mortgage on a full time minimum wage job.

Before buying the house I planned for worst case scenarios. What if I lose my job? What if the interest rate goes up dramatically? Etc
No, don't be silly.

Uhm, I was asking on behalf of others who thought they'd planned quite well. The people who had MORE than 25% equity in their homes and found they were underwater two years later. Maybe I didn't ask the right question.

If you find your home has lost so much in value that you've lost 50% equity, and you can't sell your home, and you've lost your job, what would you do?

[Being]

Disagreed, as businesses are not as uniform as households are. Statistically, it is less important to get a larger sample than it is to get a balanced one. I am curious how they can possibly get a balanced sample of businesses.

Well let me correct myself and then provide a link to the actual survey and see if it makes any difference to you. The actual number of businesses surveyed each month for the payroll survey is 140,000 not 5,000 (sorry, I was going from memory which I will try to refrain from doing here on out). Here you can find detailed information on how the survey provides the most reliable information collected concerning jobs.

Current Employment Statistics (CES) It used to be called the Payroll Survey.

Each month the Current Employment Statistics (CES) program surveys about 140,000 businesses and government agencies, representing approximately 410,000 individual worksites, in order to provide detailed industry data on employment, hours, and earnings of workers on nonfarm payrolls.

[RandBlade]

How can you get a balanced sample without getting a large sample?

I said larger. Big difference between 5k and 140k.

Personally, I've never liked polls or surveys that rely on phones. In the "old days" that meant whoever answered the phone, in the "new times" that means land lines over cell/mobile phones. Exit polls don't mean much either....if they've voted it's already a subset with particular values.

Both are good points. In the UK, political pollsters KNOW they never get a balanced sample, so dramatically weight the respondents accordingly to artificially attempt to make it balanced.

Uhm, I was asking on behalf of others who thought they'd planned quite well. The people who had MORE than 25% equity in their homes and found they were underwater two years later. Maybe I didn't ask the right question.

If you find your home has lost so much in value that you've lost 50% equity, and you can't sell your home, and you've lost your job, what would you do?

What do you expect me to say? I'd have to attempt to cross that bridge, but it'd be my responsibility.

[RandBlade]

How can you get a balanced sample without getting a large sample?

I said larger. Big difference between 5k and 140k.

Personally, I've never liked polls or surveys that rely on phones. In the "old days" that meant whoever answered the phone, in the "new times" that means land lines over cell/mobile phones. Exit polls don't mean much either....if they've voted it's already a subset with particular values.

Both are good points. In the UK, political pollsters KNOW they never get a balanced sample, so dramatically weight the respondents accordingly to artificially attempt to make it balanced.

Uhm, I was asking on behalf of others who thought they'd planned quite well. The people who had MORE than 25% equity in their homes and found they were underwater two years later. Maybe I didn't ask the right question.

If you find your home has lost so much in value that you've lost 50% equity, and you can't sell your home, and you've lost your job, what would you do?

What do you expect me to say? I'd have to attempt to cross that bridge, but it'd be my responsibility.

[GGT]

Am I seeing double?

[GGT]

[...]
What do you expect me to say? I'd have to attempt to cross that bridge, but it'd be my responsibility.

I'd like you to post honestly, that's all.

Millions of Americans are in the hot spot I outlined: homes with mortgages well underwater, some 50% less value than when they bought, now unemployed and looking for work.

[Aimless]

I don't understand why the [low-income] taxpayers should be so outraged. It's a pact. Any one of them stand to benefit from it

[RandBlade]

I'd like you to post honestly, that's all.

Millions of Americans are in the hot spot I outlined: homes with mortgages well underwater, some 50% less value than when they bought, now unemployed and looking for work.

And? That's the risk you take when you get a mortgage.

[GGT]

And? That's the risk you take when you get a mortgage.

Of course, but I was asking YOU what YOU would do. Hypothetically, but a reality for millions of Americans.

I'll add another layer of hypothetical.....say you've lost your franchise job, it's all gone kaput. You've applied for similar jobs and been turned away. You're approaching 90 weeks of unemployment, and your unemployment insurance has run out. Your parents can't help out, because they're facing a similar situation. Your mate can't help, because she's also unemployed and can't find a job. You've reduced all expenses, cancelled services for phone and tv.

What do you do now?

[Hazir]

Does that kind of feedback happen frequently over here? Do employers even bother with it? And if they do, do people really lose their benefits? Just curious here about how our system works.

Quite a bit yes, and people are followed a lot more closely than they used to. I see punitive sanctions slapped on people for less.

[RandBlade]

Of course, but I was asking YOU what YOU would do. Hypothetically, but a reality for millions of Americans.

I'll add another layer of hypothetical.....say you've lost your franchise job, it's all gone kaput. You've applied for similar jobs and been turned away. You're approaching 90 weeks of unemployment, and your unemployment insurance has run out. Your parents can't help out, because they're facing a similar situation. Your mate can't help, because she's also unemployed and can't find a job. You've reduced all expenses, cancelled services for phone and tv.

What do you do now?

What are you getting at? If I can't pay my bills ultimately I lose my home, right? I know that, I accept that, it's fair.