Good things in life are for free ? Or seriously ?http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/9397570.stmAny comments ?

*Disclaimer: I've not watched the film and just had a quick read but my 2P is as follows*I'd love to believe it - there are no doubt a lot of people out there who just want to sponge - but it seems like a dramatic oversimplification of the issues.For example, I listened to a story on the radio last week about an unemployed carpenter who had gone to extraordinary lengths to try to find work. He’d tried all the usual channels, had minimal help from the Job Centre and had eventually stood in the middle of the city centre with a sandwich board - on which he had listed his qualifications and experience. The media then got hold of the story and he appeared as a guest on radio. He was genuinely quite bright and clearly wanted to work. If you were looking for things to criticise, you could argue that his lisp might not help him in a customer-facing environment. By the end of the radio programme he still hadn’t been offered a job – and he was willing to do anything to support his family.At the most holistic level it might be true that there’s work out there if you want it REALLY badly – BUT, should our carpenter friend expect to have to relocate to London or wherever to do it and how does he cope with moving costs? What happens if he’s in a negative equity position? As a secondary thought, assuming that it is true now, for how long will it continue to be the case that there will be jobs for people who REALLY want it badly enough? It’s going to cost up to £27k just to be taught for three years in university. How many would-be students will now join the labour pool instead? And what of the public sector; how many jobs will be lost here? A hundred thousand? More? And these quandaries come before other questions like how you deal with someone who has worked in manufacturing in a hands-on job for thirty years and is now suddenly expected to transfer to a service or knowledge-based role?Don’t even get me started on the issues surrounding this guy’s ‘vox pop’ sample…If you are looking for a good case-interview question, perhaps try “How do we sort this #%&@!!] mess out?” Just don’t ask me... actually I think I could make a good case for global depopulation but that might be a difficult political issue to sell.

I hate all this oversimplification. Getting a job nowadays is very hard unless you are both very experienced in a given field and also well qualified. In the 1990s any plonker could get a job in IT, but now it is really tough. To get a job with one of the top IT firms you have to be sh*t hot and know your specialisation inside out. Not sure if MC is the same but I suspect it is. I have a reached a relatively senior position through a lot of trial and error and some massive humiliations, but I persevered doggedly until I reached my goal. Unfortunately a lot of people simply don't have this drive and they will lose heart after many disappointments. I feel for them because I've been in that situation myself in the past.

Tell us more about these "massive humiliations", Marcus. Please be detailed and descriptive. We wish to know more, much more.

Marcus – please keep posting – you make me laugh! Quote: “I hate all this oversimplification.”Quote 2: (one line later!!!) “In the 1990s any plonker could get a job in IT”Are you actually old enough to remember the nineties? The late 80’s and early 90’s had massive unemployment, a housing crash (lots more negative equity issues than today!) and 200 people applying for every job in the City.It's also a huge over-simplification to say that you need to be good to get a job in IT these days. I work every day with client IT managers who are barely competent.

My favourite line in Marcus' note is this one...."Getting a job nowadays is very hard unless you are both very experienced in a given field and also well qualified", suggesting that the inverse of this should be good for hiring....."Yes, I've got very little content knowledge, however I also have very little qualification relevant to the role too"....

This is so ignorant. Are they really suggesting that there are too few applicants for jobs so we need to force more people to apply?Surely the problem is too few jobs? Perhaps stimulating investment might help?

"Marcus – please keep posting – you make me laugh!Quote: “I hate all this oversimplification.”Quote 2: (one line later!!!) “In the 1990s any plonker could get a job in IT”Are you actually old enough to remember the nineties? The late 80’s and early 90’s had massive unemployment, a housing crash (lots more negative equity issues than today!) and 200 people applying for every job in the City.It's also a huge over-simplification to say that you need to be good to get a job in IT these days. I work every day with client IT managers who are barely competent. "-------------------------------------------------------Before offshoring became a craze there was a boom in IT back in the mid-late 90s - do you not remember Y2K compliance and dot com boom? Then came the dot com crash and it all went belly-up. Offshoring to India then started big time and IT went downhill and has never recovered.

jj, the 'problem' isn't too few jobs, its jobs that don't pay 'enough'. the obvious problem is that many on benefits cannot be bothered to work as it isn't worth their time, as it were. Thus a solution is to get them to work and use the fact that they are working as a criteria for paying their benefits shortfall. If their salary is less than what they received in benefits, benefits can be used to top up their salary to the previous level.Outcome: less unemployed, less spent on benefits.Surely a winning outcome??

>the 'problem' isn't too few jobs, its jobs that don't pay 'enough'.Actually the statistics are pretty clear. Latest figures show 500K vacancies (including 34K temporary census jobs). This compares to 2.5m unemployed.Even if all the 500K vacancies are not paying enough, there are still 2m less vacancies than unemployed people.http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/lmsuk0211.pdf

If people get paid not to work they will not work. Why not stop paying them? If I ran the country the only accomodation paid for by the governemnt would be hostels with bunk beds. Benefits would only cover basic food and clothing. I wouldn't even give uneployed couples separate rooms. If you can't work you shouldn't fk either. Not at my expense anyway. A few years of Polish Plumber's capitalism and you'll see foot massages and cheap restaurants opening everywhere, Bangkok style. Yay!

JJ,Good to see the stats ! My 2pence of advice is that even these '500K vacancies' wont be anywhere near to the geographical location of the 'unemployed population'. So even if people genuinely wanted to take up these 500k jobs they wont take it as : 1. Its not within commuting distance and Johnny wants to have a personal/social life after work.2. Cost of relocation is very high.3. Hey I wont leave this council house, I have made friends here.4. I know everyone in this town's pub. I dont want to start everything fresh in a new location.5. Why should I take a pay cut (i.e, the cheque I receive doing nothing is MORE than the cheque I get for working. Moreover I can have a beer anytime of the day, and that too fully sponsored by the jerk who commutes daily for 2 hrs, works like a dog in the office, and who makes compromises on his/her personal life.)6. Why should I care ? I am unemployed and on benefits and am having a chilled beer reading this stupid blog :-) (fun intended)

Polish Plumber,You could even provide work in your dormitories with the bunk beds. We could call them "workhouses".I seem to recall we once had something similar in Victorian times......those were the days.....everyone lived in massive houses and had teams of servants.