Benefit scrounging parasites from Europe

[Mich the Tester]

Touche. Never the less, nobody has been able to counter my argument. If jobs become obselete through efficiency saving these people will eventually be deployed elsewhere to utilise the freed up resources from the efficiency savings

Wrong. It's quite possible that jobs lost in one sector or area are compensated by jobs gained in another sector or area, but that doesn't mean that 'these people will eventually be deployed elsewhere'; many people who lost their jobs in coal, steel, shipbuilding and other heavy industries never found a job again, even though many of them tried very hard.

[Robinho]

Wrong. It's quite possible that jobs lost in one sector or area are compensated by jobs gained in another sector or area, but that doesn't mean that 'these people will eventually be deployed elsewhere'; many people who lost their jobs in coal, steel, shipbuilding and other heavy industries never found a job again, even though many of them tried very hard.

Yes they did.

Unemployment was ~6% when Maggie started, peaked at about 12%, and was down to 7% when she left office.

[Mich the Tester]

Yes they did.

Unemployment was ~6% when Maggie started, peaked at about 12%, and was down to 7% when she left office.

Read what I said; you said 'these people'. I contest that. While net employment grew (although 6% and 7% wouldn't suggest that), it wasn't necessarily the people who'd lost their jobs who took on the new jobs, and some areas of industrialised countries have never recovered. New employers will tend to hire young people fresh from school or with a couple of years work experience; very few in some new, growing sector will hire middle aged people who've spent their working lives in a sector that has gone into decline.

[Robinho]

Read what I said; you said 'these people'. I contest that. While net employment grew, it wasn't necessarily the people who'd lost their jobs who took on the new jobs, and some areas of industrialised countries have never recovered. New employers will tend to hire young people fresh from school or with a couple of years work experience; very few in some new, growing sector will hire middle aged people who've spent their working lives in a sector that has gone into decline.

So, why does it matter if one person is unemployed in place of another?

[Mich the Tester]

So, why does it matter if one person is unemployed in place of another?

False dichotomy.

You need to refresh your ideas about economics. Even Adam Smith was not so religious in his belief in markets, and besides, modern science is showing that the ideas of the classical school and Austrian school were based on some misunderstandings which have since been exposed. Start by reading this;

Economics Is Not Natural Science | Conversation | Edge

[Mich the Tester]

parents sacrifice everything for their children's education.

...and some still end up raising idiots.

[Robinho]

Answer the question

[Mich the Tester]

Answer the question

I did; I said the question is a false dichotomy. Economics is not a zero-sum game.

[sasguru]

Yes they did.

Unemployment was ~6% when Maggie started, peaked at about 12%, and was down to 7% when she left office.

How naive. The Tories changed how unemployment was measured 31 times (!) while in office.
A better stat is what proportion of the working age population is actually working - this fell into the 60s under Thatcher and has remained there with occassional forays into the 70s.
That tells you that the "real" unemployment rate is about 30% - of these some are supported by spouses but quite a few are long term unemployed.

[Robinho]

I did; I said the question is a false dichotomy. Economics is not a zero-sum game.

That's not an answer to the question.

Answer the question, or concede your point is irrelevant.