Full employment

[jondwhite]

Chancellor George Osborne calls for full employment

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/mar/31/george-osborne-full-employment-britain-inflation

Quote:

George Osborne has tried to bury one of the most toxic Tory legacies from the Thatcher and Major eras by pledging to create full employment in Britain.  In a direct repudiation of the famous declaration by Norman Lamont that unemployment was a price "well worth paying" to bring down inflation, the chancellor said that "mass unemployment is never a price worth paying".  Speaking at Tilbury Port on Monday, the chancellor highlighted the scale of his ambition by saying that he would like to ensure Britain has more people in work as a proportion of the population than any other G7 country.  Osborne said: "Today I'm making a new commitment, a commitment to fight for full employment in Britain – making jobs a central goal of our economic plan."  The chancellor added: "There is no reason why Britain shouldn't aim to have the highest employment rate of any of the world's leading economies, to have more people working than any of the other countries in the G7 group.  "That's my ambition: the best place in the world to create a job, to get a job, to keep a job, to be helped to look for another job if you lose one."  The chancellor disowned the declaration by Lamont, John Major's first chancellor, who famously told MPs in 1991: "Rising unemployment and the recession have been the price that we have had to pay to get inflation down. That price is well worth paying." Osborne, who believes that Lamont's words helped to feed an impression that the Tories were uncaring, said: "Jobs matter – mass unemployment is never a price worth paying."

Left Unity might welcome this!

[ALB]

This seems like a return to the election promises of yesteryear. Up until the 1970s unemployment in Britain was about 2%, as this article from the November 1971 Socialist Standard pointed out:http://www.marxists.org/archive/hardcastle/fullemployment.htmEconomists had preached that it could be kept at around 3%, but when it rose to 4% in the 1970s this was regarded as a disaster.  To explain this economists developed the concept of the "natural rate of unemployment" as the rate above which the general price level would rise (what they called "inflation").  Apparently this is not incompatible with a rate of unemployment of as high as 4%, which can even be regarded as "full employment":

Quote:

Sometimes the natural rate is known as the full employment level of unemployment

At one time economists were saying that it was 6%. Some still do:http://www.clevelandfed.org/about_us/annual_report/2011/unemployment.cfmMost people will probably understand "full employment" to exist when the unemployment rate is at 2-3% as it was in the 20 or so years after 1945.So it would be interesting to know what level Osborne considers to be the "full employment level of unemployment". 2%? 3%? 4%? 6%. In Britain the level of unemployment is currently 7%.Or is he just being a demagogue? Don't all answer at once.

[james19]

Good topic. I posted this myself, elsewhere.  I got back, IMF say that the UK  economy is set to grow by 2.9%. That Osborne is doing something right?I also got a response, asking how working without wages, would work? I lost the will to live a bit….. Suffering from a head cold. As yet , I 've not responded. So some help  would be appreciated.  FYI, I got 350 views. 

[alanjjohnstone]

"asking how working without wages, would work?""Tell them like those in the non- state organisation, the RNLI, voluntarily and without recompense risking their lives in storms at sea for the welfare of others and the common good of society. And there exists a waiting list of suitable applicants to join it, recruitment is not a problem 

[james19]

Thanks for that AJJ. 

[ALB]

james19 wrote:

I got back, IMF say that the UK  economy is set to grow by 2.9%. That Osborne is doing something right?

Nothing to do with Osborne's policy. Sooner or later capitalism always spontaneously recovers from a slump, so this will happen anyway. He'll just claim the credit for something over which the government has no control as governments can't control the way capitalism works. It's the other way round: governments have to react and accomodate themselves to what capitalism does.

[steve colborn]

Is'nt it a fun game to play! Everything going peachy in the Asylum, Capitalism most assuredly is and claims from governments, that it's all down to their "brilliant" management of the economy, abound.Things go "tits up", in the Capitalist economy, which happens frequently, regardless of the "superhuman efforts" of arseholes like Cameron, Brown etc and they abjure any and all responsability, for the same! Now theres ironic duplicity for you!!!

[james19]

RNLI ,  this vacuous minded troll, claims it to be the "exception"?  I  also used the Olympics.  I also said; "motherhood, as mothers  are not  paid",  which he's ignored oddly? Apart from him, good general discussion. Got some good feedback.  I have come across SPEW member, who doesn't "debate" but just claims; I"'m not a socialist"? Irony is lost on complete idiots. Ps, it went downhill after I  posted the Joe Brand joke, about being asked to join the SWP(only in this instance, Militant, trots) , and saying: no thanks,  I don't want a paper round".  I was set upon by another SPEW member (friend?) who claims he isn't a member? Then attacked the me, for not being on the picket line, or where workers are? If instead of me, you put SPGB, If that wasn't a dead give away I don't know what is?  Thank for your input.     

[james19]

The vacuous  troll, also mentioned the IMF and Osborne.I looked it up on the BBC, and scanned the replies. I found this; the IMF failed to see the financial crisis in 2008. It didn't see the colllapse of Spain and Greece". 

[jondwhite]

I think what you are saying is SWP membership is like having a paper round, and the SPEW are workerist and even less interested in debate or intellectual thought. On those points, I can agree. I'm not sure if what I posted is a duplicate of topic on this site's forum, I'm happy for this to be pointed out if so.

[james19]

I was called a member  of the "….. party of …. …." by the Militant member (who has their logo as his profile picture) which is used by as a term of abuse trots?! In reply, I said: to call someone a reformist was an insult once, not now, it's become a badge of honour"!I have pointed out in a few posts, their (Militant)  utter dishonesty,  in calling themselves the Socialist Party, when a Socialist Party already exists! Of course, and that they had nothing whatsoever to do with socialism!All good, I was a user on  another site, and to mention Socialism, resulted in lengthy diatribes, on why millions die of starvation in Africa, and I could do  nothing ever to change it?! From an angry elderly user. The site owners policy of mutual respect, no  intectual abuse or personal  insults, and no flaming, was ignored, with he's "old"?  I did get a few posts in agreement. 

[jondwhite]

what is "….. party of …. …."? Where did a Militant member (who has their logo as his profile picture) call you this?

[james19]

I'd rather not repeat it here. Facebook. 

[Author]

Posts