Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

A couple of other things I'd spotted over the holiday that haven't come up:

Some NHS hospitals in England have had to cancel all non-emergency care, including day patients, started using mixed-sex wards and turning away ambulances, all due to being completely over loaded due to chronic funding issues. One doctor even apologised publicly for the 3rd world conditions in the corridors.

Apparently foreign diplomats owe about £11m in congestion charge fees / fines. It baffles me slightly as (a) they aren't obliged to pay taxes (which the CC is), and (b) they have total immunity even so couldn't be made to pay anyway. So I just don't understand why diplomatic cars (which usually have a special registration format) aren't just whitelisted so we don't waste money sending out fines and tracking it.

Herzlos wrote:
Some NHS hospitals in England have had to cancel all non-emergency care, including day patients, started using mixed-sex wards and turning away ambulances, all due to being completely over loaded due to chronic funding issues. One doctor even apologised publicly for the 3rd world conditions in the corridors.

The Express knows who to blame - front page today - "Health Tourism Scandal - Foreign mums in £16m NHS rip-off". Given the reputed wealth of Richard Desmond, £16m is pretty much a rounding error to him, never mind the NHS budget. It's almost as if he treats his readers with utter, utter contempt.

I listened to the BBC version of the report, which I think said it was £11 million not £16.

Without a baseline, though, figures like these are meaningless.

It's quite normal for x% of pregnant women to go into labout unexpectedly early, and therefore need medical help from someone other than their scheduled maternity service provider.

We have no idea of the £11M or £16M represents a scandal, or actually a lower than expectable rate of expenditure on medical services for vulnerable infants and mothers.

That isn't the point, though. The point is to focus resentment on foreigners, and deflect attention from the real problems the UK is facing.

It puts the £350M a week in perspective.

Well, everybody can stop worrying about the NHS, or cold, dark, January.

I can reveal that Britain is no longer a cold, wet island in the North-Atlantic.

We are now a tropical paradise in the South Pacific.

Britain is in informal talks to join the TPP.

It seems that geographical location is no barrier to membership.

Let us extend the trading hand of friendship to our brothers and sisters in Vietnam and Peru...and other countries!

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jan/03/britain-in-talks-to-join-the-tpp-to-boost-trade-after-brexit

 Darkjim wrote:

Herzlos wrote:
Some NHS hospitals in England have had to cancel all non-emergency care, including day patients, started using mixed-sex wards and turning away ambulances, all due to being completely over loaded due to chronic funding issues. One doctor even apologised publicly for the 3rd world conditions in the corridors.

The Express knows who to blame - front page today - "Health Tourism Scandal - Foreign mums in £16m NHS rip-off". Given the reputed wealth of Richard Desmond, £16m is pretty much a rounding error to him, never mind the NHS budget. It's almost as if he treats his readers with utter, utter contempt.

The numbers are truly shocking, so in one year that's about 1 birth per hospital. Given the number of tourists each year I wouldn't be surprised if a fair proportion of them are just early arrivals (and the overall cost is trivial). I think a better title for the article would be:-

"Shock - Our Editors and Writers don't understand how giving birth works!"

As for the NHS there is both an underfunding issue but I think also that there are precautionary emergency measures being put in place. The flu this year appears to be quite a nasty strain (with deaths already reported in Ireland). The last thing you want is a brutal version to get into hospitals and have a large outbreak. Hence they are cancelling routine operations as it brings less people in and less people will be put in more vulnerable positions, less visitors; stopping people at the door unless they are really sick and so on.

That's not to say there aren't huge funding issues, but some of these actions would have likely been taken anyway up to the point where everyone had their own isolated rooms. We are due for a massive and costly flu outbreak, it's only a matter of time. It is unlikely that any health service could cope with a massive outbreak.

Of course we also have reports that we now need a third world charity to step in to take care of childrens teeth where they can't get treatment which is solely a continuing financing issue.

It's a good idea to try and join existing trade blocs rather than set up completely new arrangements from scratch.

However, the TTP idea does show the folly of leaving the EU in the hope that we can do better deals elsewhere. The UK's exports to Germany are significantly larger than our exports to all the TPP countries put together.

This also ignores the point that the EU can do a deal with the TPP.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It's a good idea to try and join existing trade blocs rather than set up completely new arrangements from scratch.

However, the TTP idea does show the folly of leaving the EU in the hope that we can do better deals elsewhere. The UK's exports to Germany are significantly larger than our exports to all the TPP countries put together.

This also ignores the point that the EU can do a deal with the TPP.

I don't deny that we export more to Germany, but as you know, Asia is the future of global trade, and will eventually take a larger slice of the global trade pie.

By all means keep trading with Germany, but we have an opportunity here to get in bed with Vietnam, Japan, Malaysia, Peru, Australia et al.

That's the future. Send forth the cargo ships to the Pacific.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Well, everybody can stop worrying about the NHS, or cold, dark, January.

I can reveal that Britain is no longer a cold, wet island in the North-Atlantic.

We are now a tropical paradise in the South Pacific.

Britain is in informal talks to join the TPP.

It seems that geographical location is no barrier to membership.

Let us extend the trading hand of friendship to our brothers and sisters in Vietnam and Peru...and other countries!

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jan/03/britain-in-talks-to-join-the-tpp-to-boost-trade-after-brexit

Yeah 8% of exports go to these countries. Should make a huge impact...

Realistically though the UK will be signing up to something that it has never had any say in how it operates so I wouldn't expect too much benefit. This isn't an individually negotiated deal, it's the government trying to show desperately that it is doing 'something' because every other trade discussion approach is not going as planned. If you like Chilean wine though you might be happy.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It's a good idea to try and join existing trade blocs rather than set up completely new arrangements from scratch.

However, the TTP idea does show the folly of leaving the EU in the hope that we can do better deals elsewhere. The UK's exports to Germany are significantly larger than our exports to all the TPP countries put together.

This also ignores the point that the EU can do a deal with the TPP.

I don't deny that we export more to Germany, but as you know, Asia is the future of global trade, and will eventually take a larger slice of the global trade pie.

By all means keep trading with Germany, but we have an opportunity here to get in bed with Vietnam, Japan, Malaysia, Peru, Australia et al.

That's the future. Send forth the cargo ships to the Pacific.

On worse terms than the EU have with them already.

Thumbs Down.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


By all means keep trading with Germany, but we have an opportunity here to get in bed with Vietnam, Japan, Malaysia, Peru, Australia et al.

That's the future. Send forth the cargo ships to the Pacific.

The EU already has a trade deal with Japan. Any trade deal with developing countries will support cheap imports rather than our own exports. There is also a distance issue to consider. It costs vastly more to send a manufactured car to Australia than it is just to build it in that location in the first place (which already has vast stockpiles of the raw goods needed) or send it to Europe. What effectively you are proposing is that we import the raw material from these countries, build something and then ship it back to them. Why wouldn't you just build it at location.

 Whirlwind wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Well, everybody can stop worrying about the NHS, or cold, dark, January.

I can reveal that Britain is no longer a cold, wet island in the North-Atlantic.

We are now a tropical paradise in the South Pacific.

Britain is in informal talks to join the TPP.

It seems that geographical location is no barrier to membership.

Let us extend the trading hand of friendship to our brothers and sisters in Vietnam and Peru...and other countries!

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jan/03/britain-in-talks-to-join-the-tpp-to-boost-trade-after-brexit

Yeah 8% of exports go to these countries. Should make a huge impact...

Realistically though the UK will be signing up to something that it has never had any say in how it operates so I wouldn't expect too much benefit. This isn't an individually negotiated deal, it's the government trying to show desperately that it is doing 'something' because every other trade discussion approach is not going as planned. If you like Chilean wine though you might be happy.

That we only do 8% of trade with the biggest population base on Planet Earth tells its own story.

If we do sign up for TPP, I doubt freedom of movement and a TPP version of the ECJ, will be demanded as the price of joining.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Whirlwind wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


By all means keep trading with Germany, but we have an opportunity here to get in bed with Vietnam, Japan, Malaysia, Peru, Australia et al.

That's the future. Send forth the cargo ships to the Pacific.

The EU already has a trade deal with Japan. Any trade deal with developing countries will support cheap imports rather than our own exports. There is also a distance issue to consider. It costs vastly more to send a manufactured car to Australia than it is just to build it in that location in the first place (which already has vast stockpiles of the raw goods needed) or send it to Europe. What effectively you are proposing is that we import the raw material from these countries, build something and then ship it back to them. Why wouldn't you just build it at location.

I could be wrong, I usually am, but logic tells me that Japan will be shifting its focus away from Europe and closer to emerging markets on its own doorstep.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It's a good idea to try and join existing trade blocs rather than set up completely new arrangements from scratch.

However, the TTP idea does show the folly of leaving the EU in the hope that we can do better deals elsewhere. The UK's exports to Germany are significantly larger than our exports to all the TPP countries put together.

This also ignores the point that the EU can do a deal with the TPP.

I don't deny that we export more to Germany, but as you know, Asia is the future of global trade, and will eventually take a larger slice of the global trade pie.

By all means keep trading with Germany, but we have an opportunity here to get in bed with Vietnam, Japan, Malaysia, Peru, Australia et al.

That's the future. Send forth the cargo ships to the Pacific.

On worse terms than the EU have with them already.

Thumbs Down.

I'm not claiming to be giant or a major player in the miniature wargames market, but my small scale operation already sells a fair chunk of miniature wargames products to Asia, so this tilt to the Pacific is right up my street.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Darkjim wrote:

Herzlos wrote:
Some NHS hospitals in England have had to cancel all non-emergency care, including day patients, started using mixed-sex wards and turning away ambulances, all due to being completely over loaded due to chronic funding issues. One doctor even apologised publicly for the 3rd world conditions in the corridors.

The Express knows who to blame - front page today - "Health Tourism Scandal - Foreign mums in £16m NHS rip-off". Given the reputed wealth of Richard Desmond, £16m is pretty much a rounding error to him, never mind the NHS budget. It's almost as if he treats his readers with utter, utter contempt.

I'm surprised that anybody still looks at the front page of that newspaper, never mind buy the thing.

The story it tells is that it's a lot easier to sell stuff to Germany than to China.

1. The Chinese are much poorer and are less interested in the stuff we sell.
2. The Germans are a better cultural fit.
3. There are no trade barriers between us and the Germans at the moment.

And so on.

None of this is going to get better through leaving the EU.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


That we only do 8% of trade with the biggest population base on Planet Earth tells its own story.

If we do sign up for TPP, I doubt freedom of movement and a TPP version of the ECJ, will be demanded as the price of joining.

Yes it tells us that distance and hence transport costs of manufactured goods is still by far the largest element impact growth of trade as well as relative spending power of the individual nations.

You get a lot more than just a trade deal by being in the EU that includes a lot of human rights, environmental and so on issues. You can have free trade with countries where the populace's rights are much worse, but then you can't complain about potential flooding from climate change when we export all our dirty industry abroad and the clap ourselves on the back for getting cleaner.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

That's the future. Send forth the cargo ships to the Pacific.

I still don't think you understand just how expensive it is to ship goods around the world. Until we invent transmats anyway.

I could be wrong, I usually am, but logic tells me that Japan will be shifting its focus away from Europe and closer to emerging markets on its own doorstep.

Wouldn't that hence make the TTP worth less to us in the future then?

I'm not claiming to be giant or a major player in the miniature wargames market, but my small scale operation already sells a fair chunk of miniature wargames products to Asia, so this tilt to the Pacific is right up my street.

And equivalently they will be able to sell their miniatures to us as well but without any trade barriers. That means they'll be able to use cheaper materials, cheaper labour to manufacture those same goods and sell them without restriction to the UK. Are you sure that will be a benefit?

Herzlos wrote:

Apparently foreign diplomats owe about £11m in congestion charge fees / fines. It baffles me slightly as (a) they aren't obliged to pay taxes (which the CC is), and (b) they have total immunity even so couldn't be made to pay anyway. So I just don't understand why diplomatic cars (which usually have a special registration format) aren't just whitelisted so we don't waste money sending out fines and tracking it.

TFL say it is not a tax, it is a road toll, which diplomats are obliged to pay. Some embassies disagree and say it is a tax and they are not obliged to pay. The question is, how do you define a tax? Is this any different to using the M6 toll or the payage in France, except that it is camera controlled rather than gate controlled? Embassies have also been known to refuse to pay parking fines and traffic volitions for the same reason, claiming it is a tax. In reality what they are saying is "You can't make us pay so we won't" and no one is willing to force the issue.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


I'm surprised that anybody still looks at the front page of that newspaper, never mind buy the thing.

How else would we know what Diana thought of the big freeze/heat wave/tornado that is going to happen next week?

 Steve steveson wrote:


How else would we know what Diana thought of the big freeze/heat wave/tornado that is going to happen next week?

You know their main office is basically just a séance room with a Ouija board in the middle...that's where they get all their news from.

On a more serious note May is now claiming the "NHS is better prepared than ever before"

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/theresa-may-claims-nhs-better-prepared-than-ever-before-despite-thousands-of-cancelled-operations_uk_5a4cc441e4b06d1621bc18eb?utm_hp_ref=uk-homepage

which is suppose is correct if you have to cancel thousands of operations just in case. Next year if they close all hospitals and doctors then they'll be even better prepared. Waiting times will be instant...from a perspective.

And back to Toby Young, Boris the Clown is now saying that what he has said is all in the name of caustic wit, so I suppose that just shows how he views the world as well.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/toby-young-boris-johnson_uk_5a4b8331e4b025f99e1d92da?kuu&utm_hp_ref=uk-homepage

and finally a former ex-treasury minister has pointed out that Gove and 'the Clown'' are clueless on world economics. I think the response to this is...we know...why are you telling us this now?

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/boris-johnson-michael-gove-liam-fox-clueless-about-world-economy-lord-oneill-of-gatley-die-welt-tpp-davis_uk_5a4c99ace4b0b0e5a7a99c05?utm_hp_ref=uk-homepage

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

That we only do 8% of trade with the biggest population base on Planet Earth tells its own story.

Yeah, that we're on the wrong end of the planet to trade with them, and they don't want that much of our stuff.

 Whirlwind wrote:


which is suppose is correct if you have to cancel thousands of operations just in case. Next year if they close all hospitals and doctors then they'll be even better prepared. Waiting times will be instant...from a perspective.

In the same way that I occasionally threaten to turn off my teams phones, because our job would be much easier without all those annoying customers...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-london-42556079/parasites-invading-houses-of-parliament

I’ll leave you to make your own joke.

 Steve steveson wrote:

 Whirlwind wrote:


which is suppose is correct if you have to cancel thousands of operations just in case. Next year if they close all hospitals and doctors then they'll be even better prepared. Waiting times will be instant...from a perspective.

In the same way that I occasionally threaten to turn off my teams phones, because our job would be much easier without all those annoying customers...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-london-42556079/parasites-invading-houses-of-parliament

I’ll leave you to make your own joke.

Oooh so many ideas...

I propose putting a magic money tree inside a bug-zapper - problem solved in a few minutes.

OK serious issue. When you make a cup of tea do you ever ask them whether they want it mediocre?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFm8YTl3KiA

or a subtle hint to what they think of the PM?

Personally it’s the only way I know how to make it.

Ketara wrote:I might not have been clear. Doing those things isn't the lucky part. The lucky part is finding that one manager who's got five minutes to talk and the independent scope to give you an trial shift (you won't find many bank managers that'll do it, for example). By all means, doing the above is increasing your odd of success, but jobsearching is always ultimately based on luck. You can do everything you've suggested and fail miserably whilst a couch potato happens to be getting their groceries at the moment the local off license manager has a breakdown and shout that they'll hire the next person they see.

But finding that manager who has five minutes isn't anywhere near that difficult in my experience. Managers will seldom just fob somebody off outright, most will at least come to a desk etc. Even if say you walk into the reception of a hotel or an office and hand in a CV, you still have an opportunity to make an impression on the reception staff who will ultimately probably be asked "what were they like?". Being professional looking, acting, and having a nicely formatted CV makes a massive difference vs being in a tracksuit, chewing gum and looking at your phone, and having a scrap of handwritten paper as your CV. Ultimately all these individual efforts and touches stack up. To sweep them under the rug as being secondary to luck is a highly dubious line of argument.

I can’t talk for small businesses where the owner has a lot of leeway, but in medium and large businesses a CV handed in is going to go in the bin. If someone internal came to me and was interested in joining my department I would talk to them. If it was someone random I wouldn’t even talk to them, and neither would any of my colleagues. Unless you are looking for menial high turnover work or have very specialist skills and dealing with a small business you need to apply for a job.

 Steve steveson wrote:
I can’t talk for small businesses where the owner has a lot of leeway, but in medium and large businesses a CV handed in is going to go in the bin. If someone internal came to me and was interested in joining my department I would talk to them. If it was someone random I wouldn’t even talk to them, and neither would any of my colleagues. Unless you are looking for menial high turnover work or have very specialist skills and dealing with a small business you need to apply for a job.

The company I work for was a large company. Medium and large businesses sometimes put CVs in a draw of death, but especially given data protection laws they're unlikely to just be thrown in a nearby bin. No large company I have ever worked for has done this. If you get enough then they're a good source of applicants without having to go through the expense of posting a job advert.

bouncingboredom wrote:

Ketara wrote:I might not have been clear. Doing those things isn't the lucky part. The lucky part is finding that one manager who's got five minutes to talk and the independent scope to give you an trial shift (you won't find many bank managers that'll do it, for example). By all means, doing the above is increasing your odd of success, but jobsearching is always ultimately based on luck. You can do everything you've suggested and fail miserably whilst a couch potato happens to be getting their groceries at the moment the local off license manager has a breakdown and shout that they'll hire the next person they see.

But finding that manager who has five minutes isn't anywhere near that difficult in my experience. Managers will seldom just fob somebody off outright, most will at least come to a desk etc. Even if say you walk into the reception of a hotel or an office and hand in a CV, you still have an opportunity to make an impression on the reception staff who will ultimately probably be asked "what were they like?". Being professional looking, acting, and having a nicely formatted CV makes a massive difference vs being in a tracksuit, chewing gum and looking at your phone, and having a scrap of handwritten paper as your CV. Ultimately all these individual efforts and touches stack up. To sweep them under the rug as being secondary to luck is a highly dubious line of argument.

Why is it dubious?

bouncingboredom wrote:

Ketara wrote:I might not have been clear. Doing those things isn't the lucky part. The lucky part is finding that one manager who's got five minutes to talk and the independent scope to give you an trial shift (you won't find many bank managers that'll do it, for example). By all means, doing the above is increasing your odd of success, but jobsearching is always ultimately based on luck. You can do everything you've suggested and fail miserably whilst a couch potato happens to be getting their groceries at the moment the local off license manager has a breakdown and shout that they'll hire the next person they see.

But finding that manager who has five minutes isn't anywhere near that difficult in my experience. Managers will seldom just fob somebody off outright, most will at least come to a desk etc. Even if say you walk into the reception of a hotel or an office and hand in a CV, you still have an opportunity to make an impression on the reception staff who will ultimately probably be asked "what were they like?". Being professional looking, acting, and having a nicely formatted CV makes a massive difference vs being in a tracksuit, chewing gum and looking at your phone, and having a scrap of handwritten paper as your CV. Ultimately all these individual efforts and touches stack up. To sweep them under the rug as being secondary to luck is a highly dubious line of argument.

It is likely different in various sectors. You wouldn't get anywhere with a local authority submitting a CV because of the strict method of employing people (everyone gets asked the same questions, with the same panel). There's no walking around the campus to get a feel if they like the person or not. It is formal process all the way and as long as it doesn't give an individual an advantage from a personal perspective.

On the other hand I could assume that a CV and a walk round a premises might work if you are looking for a bouncer at a night club. A programming company might accept a CV and then ask you to write some code and so on. We are probably all looking at things from our own anecdotal view and I'm not sure anyone is right or wrong on this.

I'd agree with that. Practically every single High Street chain these days routes their job applications through a central HR department, and managers have no discretion for any casual 'You wanna try a shift' approaches. Building sites though? I used to know a guy who did odd work on building sites all the time by lurking around them.

For your average wet behind the ears teen though, the high street is the first place you go to apply for unskilled labour. You don't see too many female psychology grads hanging around trying to get work as bouncers, y'know?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
[Why is it dubious?

Because their is a decent body of evidence that being presentable, having a decent looking CV (in terms of its formatting and layout) and being pro active in job searching works a lot better than sitting on your backside and applying for the odd job online with a poorly designed CV. Being pro active in the job market works. Being professionally presented works. It works no matter where you go in the country and no matter who you apply it to. You take someones CV, tart it up a bit, put them in some more professional looking clothes and send them out to actively hunt for jobs in the local area and you will get better results than if they just apply for 1 or 2 jobs online per day. If it's all down to luck, then how is it that a pro-active approach always seems to work so much better? There will be the odd person who strikes a lucky break, but it is simply disingenuous to assert that people who are willing to look for work, try hard and do a bunch of positive things to find work are wasting their time, or that when they find it then it was just down to luck.

Showing up with a CV isn't going to help if you're looking for a Marine Engineering job, though such specialised companies usually have a contact point for people who want to put a CV in by e-mail for example for future reference. But putting yourself out there is a much better option than sitting at home on Google and hoping something comes up. A big portion of jobs are inside what's called the hidden job market, where companies ask around among their staff before going to the expense of putting out job adverts. People who are knocking on doors, e-mailing or posting CVs and this kind of thing have a much greater chance of tapping into that market than the person waiting at home for a job advert that is never coming.

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:I don't deny that we export more to Germany, but as you know, Asia is the future of global trade, and will eventually take a larger slice of the global trade pie.

By all means keep trading with Germany, but we have an opportunity here to get in bed with Vietnam, Japan, Malaysia, Peru, Australia et al.

That's the future. Send forth the cargo ships to the Pacific.

What would be the benefit of leaving the EU when the same EU already has agreements with some countries in Asia? Was the whole process somehow impossible while in the EU? Couldn't the UK keep selling to Germany (and the rest of the EU) and Asia while staying in the EU?

Or on a more basic level: Why would the UK need to leave the EU to trade with asian countries?

Kilkrazy wrote:1. The Chinese are much poorer and are less interested in the stuff we sell.

I'm not so sure about that. I read a few years ago that China's middle class is growing nicely (while ours is not exactly doing that). Their middle class might not have the same level of disposable income as European countries but if I remember correctly at the time of the article their middle class was already over 100 million people (more than the whole population of Germany; poor, middle class, and rich).

bouncingboredom wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
[Why is it dubious?

Because their is a decent body of evidence that being presentable, having a decent looking CV (in terms of its formatting and layout) and being pro active in job searching works a lot better than sitting on your backside and applying for the odd job online with a poorly designed CV. Being pro active in the job market works. Being professionally presented works. It works no matter where you go in the country and no matter who you apply it to. You take someones CV, tart it up a bit, put them in some more professional looking clothes and send them out to actively hunt for jobs in the local area and you will get better results than if they just apply for 1 or 2 jobs online per day. If it's all down to luck, then how is it that a pro-active approach always seems to work so much better? There will be the odd person who strikes a lucky break, but it is simply disingenuous to assert that people who are willing to look for work, try hard and do a bunch of positive things to find work are wasting their time, or that when they find it then it was just down to luck.

Showing up with a CV isn't going to help if you're looking for a Marine Engineering job, though such specialised companies usually have a contact point for people who want to put a CV in by e-mail for example for future reference. But putting yourself out there is a much better option than sitting at home on Google and hoping something comes up. A big portion of jobs are inside what's called the hidden job market, where companies ask around among their staff before going to the expense of putting out job adverts. People who are knocking on doors, e-mailing or posting CVs and this kind of thing have a much greater chance of tapping into that market than the person waiting at home for a job advert that is never coming.

You're shifting your goalposts. You said that it was dubious to claim that effort was secondary to luck, and now you're explaining why it's dubious to claim that effort has no influence.

bouncingboredom wrote:
There will be the odd person who strikes a lucky break, but it is simply disingenuous to assert that people who are willing to look for work, try hard and do a bunch of positive things to find work are wasting their time, or that when they find it then it was just down to luck.

I think there's a failure of communication going on here, because that's not quite what I'm saying. Let me try again.

Luck is the everpresent counterpart to any kind of un-predetermined action you or I take. If I search for a job, my odds of becoming employed go up. If I buy a nice suit, the odds probably nudge slightly upwards again. If I take twice as many job interviews, the odds of one employer liking me go higher still.

But in any given instance of my job search, I can still fail. And because of how life works, I can do all of those things and still fail continuously. I reduce the odds of that happening by doing what you're saying, but I don't eliminate it. Luck is ever present.

To put it into gaming terms, I need a 6 on a D6 to get a job. If I do all the things you're saying, I can work it down to a 4+. But at the end of the day, each time I roll the dice, I still just have a 50% chance of missing what I need, and the last roll doesn't affect whether or not I win the next roll. So in the same way some jammy bastard might be able to roll 5 6's in quick succession (and needs a 6+ because he's a lazy git and does nothing you've said), I might still end up getting a 1, then a 3, then a 1 again, then a 2, then a 3 four times, and so on. Luck is always there. You can do your best to weight the odds when jobhunting, but it never leaves you.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:You're shifting your goalposts. You said that it was dubious to claim that effort was secondary to luck, and now you're explaining why it's dubious to claim that effort has no influence.

I'm genuinely baffled how you've come to this conclusion. "There will be the odd person who strikes a lucky break, but it is simply disingenuous to assert that people who are willing to look for work, try hard and do a bunch of positive things to find work are wasting their time, or that when they find it then it was just down to luck."

Ketara wrote:Luck is always there. You can do your best to weight the odds when jobhunting, but it never leaves you.

It all depends on how we define "luck". Luck isn't really a thing. It's a phrase we use to describe a series of events, such as when we describe someone as being lucky or unlucky based on a series of outcomes. We can argue in a sense that unless something is 100% guaranteed then there is an element of good or bad luck involved, but really in the context of what we're talking about I would argue that people are using "luck" in this thread as a way of saying that finding a job is basically just a coin toss, or everybody rolling a D6 (regardless of what actions they take) and that anyone that rolls a six gets a job. In reality the "odds" if we want to call it that are much, much better for the person taking all the active measures they can. To imply that someone who does all these things and ends up getting a job vs someone who doesn't do any of them and doesn't get a job is down to effectively the blind luck of a cosmic coin flip is wrong.