What to do with schoolleavers

http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk...

One in five teenagers receiving their GCSE results next week could be receiving unemployment benefit by the time they are 21, a report says.
Those leaving with no qualifications are twice as likely to sign on as those with qualifications, the report adds.
The Prince's Trust and Sheffield University base their predictions on trends seen during previous recessions.
Their study suggests current 18 to 25 year olds could be the hardest hit in that age group since the 1929 crash.

What should the government do? Focus on more education and training schemes, simply wait for markets to change, or focus on job creation?

I think one very good idea would be to have those on unemployment benefits be forced to show that they are looking for work. At the moment they are simply taken on their word.

It's tragic and all, and there is no solution other than public works.

Remove all regulations that have a negative impact on employability (which is pretty much all of them).

????

Profit.

At 10/3/2009 1:25:36 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Remove all regulations that have a negative impact on employability (which is pretty much all of them).

????

Profit.

Except employers don't want to hire uneducated dolts. At least, not the successful ones. So where is the profit?

At 10/3/2009 2:05:11 PM, Volkov wrote:

At 10/3/2009 1:25:36 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Remove all regulations that have a negative impact on employability (which is pretty much all of them).

????

Profit.

Except employers don't want to hire uneducated dolts. At least, not the successful ones. So where is the profit?

If we shoot them, we save money they leech of the rich and give a boost to he armaments industry. Double win.

At 10/3/2009 2:05:11 PM, Volkov wrote:

At 10/3/2009 1:25:36 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Remove all regulations that have a negative impact on employability (which is pretty much all of them).

????

Profit.

Except employers don't want to hire uneducated dolts. At least, not the successful ones. So where is the profit?

You can pay an uneducated dolt less than an educated one. This keeps the dolt out of unemployment; whereas a minimum wage forces the dolt to be on the welfare check.

At 10/3/2009 2:08:57 PM, wjmelements wrote:

At 10/3/2009 2:05:11 PM, Volkov wrote:

At 10/3/2009 1:25:36 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Remove all regulations that have a negative impact on employability (which is pretty much all of them).

????

Profit.

Except employers don't want to hire uneducated dolts. At least, not the successful ones. So where is the profit?

You can pay an uneducated dolt less than an educated one. This keeps the dolt out of unemployment; whereas a minimum wage forces the dolt to be on the welfare check.

Except uneducated dolts will realise this and rise against their elitist oppressors, with Me, Pervrat, Volkov and Brian Eggleston as their Generals

At 10/3/2009 2:11:15 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:

At 10/3/2009 2:08:57 PM, wjmelements wrote:

At 10/3/2009 2:05:11 PM, Volkov wrote:

At 10/3/2009 1:25:36 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Remove all regulations that have a negative impact on employability (which is pretty much all of them).

????

Profit.

Except employers don't want to hire uneducated dolts. At least, not the successful ones. So where is the profit?

You can pay an uneducated dolt less than an educated one. This keeps the dolt out of unemployment; whereas a minimum wage forces the dolt to be on the welfare check.

Except uneducated dolts will realise this and rise against their elitist oppressors, with Me, Pervrat, Volkov and Brian Eggleston as their Generals

And then y'all, who prefer the violence of steeling to fund welfare over an honest living, are shot down by a band of Texans.

You can only draw unemployment if you've held a job for 6 months or so.

If he's drawing unemployment, that means he was working a job.