Summations Only

It could be a job that requires a certain level of competence is required before a person can justify being paid. Or perhaps its a job that requires a certain amount of experience in another job, and the person is prepared to work for free (and so massively increase the chance of getting employment) so that they gain the necessary experience.I seem to remember I was shown a career root involving television which if I wanted a chance of climbing to the top, required a certain degree of working for free.The fact is that having experience helps getting future jobs. Starting a new career track can be difficult if you are competing with people with even as little as 6 months experience. One possible escape from this dilemma is to take on a sort of voluntary role to gain the experience so that you can compete with others for future employment because now you can justify the wage. Surely this is a little simple minded? At $7.50 an hour one only needs work 20 hours to earn $150.So an arrangement could be made: Every 40 hours you work, we'll pay you $150 and 1 hour's university credit. Does the fact that you weren't paid mean that someone is incapable of saying to future employers "He's a dedicated and hard worker."? Of course, if you are competing against people that do not have any people willing to give them references, and for whatever reason you do not have any yourself, this may be worth it.

Well not necessarily, no. But if the only way you can get employed is to work for free, for all of your life, then that's certainly an indicator that something's amiss. I'm sure it's wonderfully privileged to be in such a position that one can stick to such principles.But not everyone can, or wants to do that. And they're not fools or irrational for doing so, right?Some people might be happier to work for 6 months for free, so as to near guarantee they'd get paid employment the rest of the year rather than risk spending the entire entire year out of work. That wasn't the scenario I presented, so it can't be 'the problem' with anything I said. Of course I could have stuck to your principle and try to compete against those that didn't, but that might mean spending longer on the lower rungs on lower pay. Unless you can't have the experience because nobody will hire you without that experience (eg., if you are competing for the position with people with experience). If you're a moron who spends their days with a photographer and who only participates in coffee errands, maybe.But sensible people will observe setting up shots, trade tips for quick colour balancing, will ask questions about exposure settings and learning the justifications for each. They'll learn how to approach clients and drum up business, how to sell their work, what work sells quick, what work sells high. Self teaching yourself a trade might work. But it is risky. There's plenty of risk enough becoming self-employed, some people want to learn to avoid mistakes that could ruin them. Sometimes people don't want to learn everything the hard way, and instead seek instruction, tutelage, education and mentoring.Take college for example. I did that, I did work and nobody paid me for it. I designed circuits, troubleshooted faulty appliances and various other tasks that, not only did I not get paid for - I had to pay to do. A bland reference is better than no reference. And if you excel at what you do, you might get a glowing reference. I didn't feel like writing a long example reference that one might get. My point was something you didn't address. Let me go over it again. You said:

quote:

---

References - references are people you've worked for, so by definition nobody at a job where you're not getting paid can be much of a reference.

---

And I'm challenging your (hidden) premise that references are people you've been in the paid employ of. You can get references from people for whom you have worked even if they didn't pay you. One can use references from volunteer work that you've done.For instance: You want a job in training. You work as a legal secretary. You decide to teach disadvantaged kids, or maybe doing vocational training for adults at the local college.Even though you didn't get paid to do the work, it would be pertinent to a job application to include whoever managed your work as a reference if you were applying for a training job.I was merely asking why it was impossible for someone to provide a reference when they didn't pay the person for the work they did.So you'll find your digression into why my reference wasn't really worth working for free for, is entirely irrelevant. If you want, read what I said but insert the most inspiring glowing reference it is possible for you to conceive of, that's relevant for whatever jobs you are imagining while remaining credible...in place of what I said. I simply couldn't be bothered to dream such a reference up, and then type it all.

Indeed it does. I'm not saying that unpaid work is right for everyone, I'm just contesting that it is not right for anyone. The main thrust of the topic is about people who are not getting employed at all. And instead of parents paying the bills, its the government. They do exist. And its not always a privilege. My point all along has largely been that it depends on factors you haven't mentioned.Let's say you've been looking for work for two years unsuccesfully. Perhaps a few menial jobs here and there to survive, but nothing that matches your qualifications or long term aspirations. You've received feedback that your main problem is your lack of experience. One employer says they will take you on in unpaid capacity which will also serve as a long interview and training. They say they can't guarantee paid employment (vagaries of business, your unknown competence etc), but suggest that it would strongly increase their probability of getting employed in the role they want.I wouldn't blame a person for turning it down, but likewise I can perfectly understand them taking it. It depends on the job, and the kind of experience employers are looking for. Right, and one way to gain that experience is to do the job. And if you can't persuade someone to pay you to do it, you might be able to
persuade them to let you do it for free for a while. Different people learn in different ways. Some people learn better when they figure stuff out on their own. Some people do better by talking out their questions with an expert, watching them work and instead of stumbling on trade secrets, acquire them directly. Others like to learn by reading. And sometimes people choose different ways of learning based on the situation. Right, and if you want experience handling a commercial database in a working environment your going to need to get into the workplace to get that experience. You can learn all you want about database theory, but if you find yourself constantly competing for such a role with people with experience actually doing the work - you're going to struggle. How is it a false promise? One will quite literally experience working in one's vocation, the exact experience one is seeking. I fail to see the practical difference. In both instances you are performing labour with no renumeration. Therefore in both cases you are doing the work for reasons other than getting paid. If we're talking shelf-stacker, we're talking about someone at the bottom of the employment rung. In that case, all they might be looking for in a reference is someone who will vouch that they turn up on time every day. That way they can provide evidence to a potentially paying employer that they are as good a shelf-stacker as they can be expected to be. They might not shine against others with reference, but at least they'll have better odds than a person with no references at all. Nobody is being forced to do low-return menial labour for free.They have a choice:Find a paying job.
OR
Collect welfareAs ever, that welfare is conditional. The condition is: you must try and get a paying job.If after several years of looking for a job, you haven't found one then there is a problem. Either you are trying to avoid getting a job, or are somehow unemployable. You now have a choice:Find a paying job
OR
Do 6 months 'unpaid' work experience in an attempt to increase your employability, get you back into the habit of working and you will continue to receive welfare.
OR
discontinue receiving welfare and find some way to get by without normal sources of income.If you've been looking for work for years, what more productive thing were you planning to do in those six months? And nobody is forcing you, society is just saying 'We're not going to keep paying you to not work without doing everything conceivable to get you into regular employment.'Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

I'm sure nobody has been able to explain that. Largely because nobody has been arguing that's the reason to do unpaid work. We intend to, as long as they keep legitimately trying to find work, and will take steps to ensure they are employable. Downside: risk as initial capital is often needed, there's no guarantee you'll make any money, you might end up bankrupt, meaning getting future loans is difficult etc.If you want to suggest that a solution to being unemployed is for the jobless to become self-employed and somehow know what they're doing. Given we're talking about long term unemployed people we're likely talking about people with poor education and minimal business and financial expertise. Most websites simply don't attract enough attention for that plan to work. Furthermore, you might be interested in maintaining an already existing database, rather than having the capacity to design one from scratch, drum up business to get people using it, website design to keep those you attract and all the other skills needed to get something like this up and running.If you're fortunate enough to be so skilled, finding work is probably not a problem. If you do not possess those skills you canPay for training
Work in exchange for training.
Self-teachYou make it out like the only smart thing to do is self-teach. Maybe that works for you, but I fail to see why we should expect that it is universal. But it isn't like once you are unemployed you are permanently unemployed until that balance shifts. More likely it means something like for every 50 years a person spends in employment, they'll spend 10 years looking for work. It wouldn't necessarily be expected, unless you were simply unemployable, for you to spend several years in a row without a job.I'd rather the bottom of the bottom is employable enough to work six months in every five years rather than just let them build up ever larger difficult to explain gaps in their CV. That problem already exists with people on welfare.

I don't follow.

I don't see where it says that these schemes address 'low aggregate demand'. Instead I see these schemes as being useful to address some specific groups of unemployed people: The Long term unemployed and the young. The relative risks are dependent on specific situations. Those persistent, unrecoverable effects on a person's career that the scheme intends to partially ameliorate. The idea is to try and get them back into the cycle. Nobody disagrees with that. I don't see that as really being the topic here though. This isn't about cutting the rate of the unemployed, as great a goal as that is. It's about managing the present unemployed. I'm sure that's what we'll find. How is it relevant to what I was talking about? Is this more simple mindedness?People lose their jobs every day. As business decide to cut their workforce for whatever reasons. Also every day, other businesses decide to expand their workforce. Furthermore there is natural attrition as people quit, get fired, go on long term leave etc., It's an invisible hand, not a mandated turnaround.Some people lose a job, and pick another one up within six months. Great stuff. Others find themselves languishing in unemployment. Once there, the chances of getting employed start to plummet, so you're out of that cycle.There are several possible ways we can try and manage unemployment. We can let it be, let the invisible hand do what it will so to speak. The result of that system appears to be that some fraction of the unemployed become almost unemployable due to their lack of relevant and recent work experience.Another way to do it would be to try and distribute the overall 'unemployment time' between a larger number of people. Move heaven and earth, within the law, to get people who are in danger of becoming long term unemployed back into work - even if their only payment for a while is in welfare benefits. The downside to this seems to me to be a greater number of people in medium term unemployment. Why would their welfare cheques get smaller?Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

It depends on what an employer considers employable. For some 'low-end' jobs that might be as simple as 'Can show that they turn up on time every day, aren't constantly off sick and don't get fired within a few months.'And of course, if you work particularly well, you might even have evidence that you are a particularly eager and bright worker, whose clever idea about where to leave the collapsed boxes saved the company 500 man-hours each year.This of course will only work if you are in fact a decent hard working person. It affords them an opportunity to show others that they have recently experienced working life and that they are willing to work hard for future employers.In some cases someone who has done some recent work is considered 'more employable' than someone who hasn't been in a recent work place for 3 years.As a universal scheme - I have no idea if in practice it is of net benefit. But I see no reason to suppose that it is a bad idea for all people under all circumstances.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

But they're not trying to get rid of unemployment. This policy is aimed at certain demographics within the unemployed such as the young and the unemployed who find it difficult to get work because they lack recent relevant or any work experience.They are trying to break the catch-22 of not being able to get work because they haven't had any recent work.This probably won't cut unemployment, but it might mean that some individuals stay unemployed for less time. I have no idea if the specific policy as it is instituted actually has that effect, and there are other arguments still that point to other effects entirely (such as while the person is working they cannot get training or seek paid employment as easily...they have less time).But you seem to be of the opinion that it is never a solution in any individual's situation. I'm not proposing a rotating system. That would be absurd. How silly you must think I am. The numbers were just arbitrary. Let me rephrase it to workaround your over literal mind:I'd rather the bottom of the bottom is employable enough to get at least some work every now and again so as to remain at least somewhat employable, rather than just let them build up ever larger difficult to explain gaps in their CV. A business cutting its workforce is part of the unemployment cycle. It's a part that makes people who were previously employed, unemployed. Yes they do. Just go job hunting. Lots of new jobs being advertised. Did I say that an equal number of jobs are somehow magically created as are uncreated? No I didn't. I simply said some jobs are lost, some jobs are created.Some people find them selves in a cycle of getting a job, losing a job. Some people fall out of this cycle and stay without a job. These people are then competing against those within the cycle for the same kinds of jobs. The people within the cycle have recent work experience, recent references and so on. They will shine above someone who hasn't worked for 18 months. And so that person's unemployment continues, and they're powerless. They simply cannot compete with those cycling in and out of work. Why not do both, knowing that you can never complete the project 'reduce unemployment' and that you will often fail, that seems a most prudent course to me. Why on earth did you bring this up?These people earn x a week for job seeker's allowance.
They get put in an unpaid job role.
Now they earn x a week for their allowance and they are working full time.The spending power of the person has not changed. So how is this related to the topic? How is it a plus or a negative in this debate?Other policies determine what x is, sure, but I fail to see why a different policy that you might think is ill conceived is relevant to why you think the workfare policy is ill conceived.

How to Become a Professional Photographer (with Pictures)

quote:

---

Start out by speaking to other professionals in the field. They are normally willing to give advice to individuals interested in their field. Besides if you speak to the right people they will tell you the pitfalls and upsides right from the start. Ask if you can follow them around for a day of work.

---

emphasis mine, 5 seconds on google. It seems we're not alone at least in thinking that might be a good idea. And if you're drilling someone for information, it would only be polite to make the occasional coffee run. After all, they're busy trying to make money and helping you out.

Yes, and I've even gone so far as to say it that way.

quote:

---

Some people find them selves in a cycle of getting a job, losing a job. Some people fall out of this cycle and stay without a job. These people are then competing against those within the cycle for the same kinds of jobs. The people within the cycle have recent work experience, recent references and so on. They will shine above someone who hasn't worked for 18 months. And so that person's unemployment continues, and they're powerless. They simply cannot compete with those cycling in and out of work.

---

It's not about increasing their experience so that someone else has the least experience. I'm not such a moron that I can't see that there will always be someone with the least amount of experience.At this point I feel I'm just repeating myself, and it's not really a difficult concept.Let's say there are 100 jobs. And 110 unemployed who want to work. Sometimes jobs disappear sometimes they are created. In this economy, for simplicity, we'll say it maintains on average, 100 jobs.One way to structure things would be to employ 100 people permanently as possible. That is when their job is lost, they pick up the next one that is created. And we let 10 people become permanently unemployed - until we solve unemployment.OrWe can try and structure things so that all 110 people get their fair share of the work that's available. Everybody takes their turn in the unemployment queue, but hopefully never so long that they basically end up unable to get employment ever again despite the new job opportunities that open up.This is an oversimplified example to help you grasp the rudiments of my point. Try not to read too much into it. Because despite our efforts we don't ever completely address unemployment and if we don't manage it then some poor bastards fall out of the cycle and can't get meaningful employment. Not a designed system that is mandated by a higher power. But a naturally existing system that is already in place. Where some jobs go and some jobs come. Why are you asking me to repeat myself? Can't you figure this out? It's happening right now!Some businesses are expanding. So they hire more people.
Some people die.
Some people get long term sick
Some people get promoted
And so on. Why would anyone need to sign up for it? That's like saying you have to get people to sign up for gravity. Not really. I mean one business has to 'force them' to become unemployed I suppose. And the need for money 'forces them' to seek future employment. We don't need to create the employment/unemployment cycle. It's there. All that is left is to see if we can manage it so that as many people as possible keep cycling and as few as people as possible are left languishing for long periods with no job at all. That's because its an orthogonal issue. The mental health act doesn't address this issue either, do you criticize that on those grounds too? This scheme, like almost all others, is not designed to increase the spending power of the unemployed.The workfare scheme is designed to address the problem of the long term unemployed by trying to get them back into the cycle. The workfare scheme is not designed to stimulate the economy by giving the long term unemployed larger welfare cheques.

If you don't consider fetching coffee, carrying camera bags and so on work, then fair enough. Obviously not all arrangements involve any work at all, but some might 'Sure, I'll show you the ropes, as long as you carry my lenses around.' I'm not sure why you think that was necessary to repeat. I have never contested that practice is important, especially in something like photography. But there are some things you can't easily learn by practice, just as there are some things you can only learn through practice. Glad to see you reach this position. I knew you already held it, but your stated position was quite different earlier. Earlier when CS suggested following a photographer around:

quote:

---

You could follow around a photographer and get them coffee n'stuff without getting paid but get the invaluable experience of watching how they do their job and better your own performance so that you can end up getting paid to do it.

---

You scoffed and said

quote:

---

nobody's opinion of your photography skills is going to be improved by your "experience" of getting coffee for photographers.

---

So now you agree that there might be value in following a photographer around can you see that some people might consider there to be sufficient value to pay for it by being a coffee boy or lens caddy for a day. I believe I have argued this myself. Are you still under the impression somehow that I'm in disagreement? But nobody suggested that one gains experience as a photographer by following a photographer around in exchange for favours. That would be moronic and so easily demolished it seems barely worth the time. I think they call them strawmen don't they?What has instead been suggested is that there are things one can learn from a professional photographer. From watching how they organise their work, find locations all the way to asking them direct questions to fill specific knowledge gaps.As a random example, I don't know if this is actually the kind of advice a pro photographer would give:

quote:

---

Whatever you do - don't do a wedding until you've been doing this for a couple of years at least. If you screw up a wedding your client will rightly not take that silently, your reputation will suffer tremendously.

---

Now you could learn that through the experience of screwing up a wedding and ruining your own reputation. But I'm not sure that's a good way to go. I don't disagree with the source. The source says there is value in following a professional, in contrast to your derision of the notion earlier. It also says that practical experience is important, which is in harmony with both of our positions.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

And you stating that my position is that you can learn photography by fetching coffee is a misrepresentation. As I said, that's not my claim its your strange interpretation of my claim. My claim was that spending time with a photographer affords you the opportunity to learn the ropes from someone who knows the vagaries of the business. And that some people believe that this opportunity is worth selling their labour to run a few errands for the person who is helping them out. The source also says that one way to help you make it as a professional is to learn from the professionals. Exactly as I have been saying all along. And we both agree it would be a foolish exchange to agree to so much work that there is no time spent learning from a pro. Where the lines are drawn probably depends on your estimation of the value of learning from said pro. If they've made millions, you might tolerate more grunt work to gain their inside knowledge. But it is an experience, and one experiences it. One experiences seeing someone setting up a shoot the way a seasoned pro only knows how. You experience receiving answers to your questions. You experience learning stuff.You said:

quote:

---

Can you pick up some helpful tips from watching the pros work? Absolutely.

---

That's what we're talking about! We're talking about picking up helpful tips from watching a pro. Something that you said you could do. It's strange to see you arguing against this position.You gain the experience of watching a pro, from which you can pick up helpful tips. Some people might regard this is an invaluable experience.It is not experience taking pictures. It is not gaining experience being a photographer. It is gaining the experience of seeing a pro do it, and grilling them as much as you can. And you pick up tips via the experience of watching a pro work. Exactly as you said. No. You are getting terribly confused over experience. CS actually said

quote:

---

invaluable experience of watching how they do their job

---

The experience here is not 'being a photographer' but 'watching how they do their job'. The former is essential to being a pro photographer and we're not denying that just because we are trying to show there is value in the latter experience too.Which you have agreed with at least once. My position is that you've done a lot of completely misunderstanding what I am saying where others are finding it clear. You may be coming round to the idea that I'm not taking the positions you say I have been and this causes you to think that I'm changing my mind. As I said originally:

quote:

---

But sensible people will observe setting up shots, trade tips for quick colour balancing, will ask questions about exposure settings and learning the justifications for each. They'll learn how to approach clients and drum up business, how to sell their work, what work sells quick, what work sells high.

---

I've not been talking about gaining experience as a photographer. I've been talking about gaining the experience of learning from a photographer the various ins and outs of the trade. Fine, so do you agree that in some cases there may be enough value to justify doing some labour to get it? There's no need to pretend, as quoted above from my second post in this thread - I've been of that position from the outset.Heres more from my third post:

quote:

---

Some people do better by talking out their questions with an expert, watching them work and instead of stumbling on trade secrets, acquire them directly.

---

Here I am talking about learning trade secrets, watching them work. Still not claiming that this gives you direct work experience as a photographer. Really just saying that it is a potentially valuable experience.I dropped it for a little while and then came back with Still talking about the experience of acquiring knowledge from a pro in exchange for errands.I think it might be worth you taking another look at things. I'm away for the weekend, so you can take your time.

Yes that would be nice. But I'm stipulating facts about a hypothetical world and in that world we're stuck with 100 jobs on average. You were characterising it as essentially firing people (or having them voluntarily leave) when its 'their turn'. But I'm not talking about that.A person's 'turn' comes up naturally when a business sheds some of its positions or the person gets fired or whatever. Like I've been saying all along. And as I've explained already, that's exactly not what I'm talking about. People don't voluntarily become unemployed, they lose their jobs. I know, some people quit with no job lined up, but that serves as a counter example to your argument against a strawman. But what you are tragically failing to understand is the most rudimentary point of all: People lose their jobs. They become unemployed. They seek employment. Hopefully they get it. Later they lose their job again and so the cycle goes.You seem to think I'm proposing mandatory unemployment But I have time and again said that's not what I'm saying.Let's go back to my simple example, in a world where crashfrog doesn't have the solution to unemployment.100 jobs, 10 long term unemployed.
Then suddenly, one business shrinks its workforce
99 jobs, 10 long term unemployed and 1 short term unemployed.
Another business fills the gap left by the shrinking company and opens a new job position. All things being equal (which they are) the short term unemployed gets the job as they have recent work experience in their belt.
100 jobs, 10 long term unemployed.Wouldn't it be more ideal to have 100 jobs, 10 short to medium term unemployed?Now I'm not saying we should start mandating that a company must employ someone whose been out of work for a long time, but if you can find work arounds to the problem: such as getting the long term unemployed some relevant and recent work experience, you might be able to influence the distributions. Bad luck, poor decisions, ill health, I'm sure there are many stories out there Manage it, not promote it. Just like we manage an economy in other areas. There are some who say we shouldn't manage the economy, that we should let the invisible hand do its bidding. But I say the compassionate thing to do is to try and tame or at least steer the hand. The feelings mutual. I'd be keen to see you start attacking my actual argument rather than the strange ideas you are inventing in your mind. If you don't understand, ask me - don't just make stuff up, it's very frustrating.I am going to agree with one thing: The strawman version of me you are fighting with is an idiot that's all over the place. You should try and give me some credit and consider that you are for some reason misunderstanding what I am saying.

It's not a word game, its just a word and you were getting tripped up on it.CS was talking about a valuable experience.You interpreted him to mean 'an experience working as a photographer' which would be a valuable, mandatory even, experience, but he was talking about a different experience. And now you know what experience we were talking about, I hope that clears it all up. No. You are insisting we're talking about it, but we keep saying that (in the photography section of this discussion) we're not. CS was simply coming up with a simple scenario where one might do a bit of work for free: to acquire the valuable experience of seeing a pro at work and asking them questions and what have you.This subthread is in the context of learning from a pro when considering becoming self employed in certain fields. In some contexts maybe you can, but even if we presume not its unimportant. What you get is real, useful experience.In the other subthread, where we're talking about long term unemployed doing workfare specifically, that's where I'm highlighting the importance of actual experience doing the job especially when applying for a new job especially in certain marketplaces.Even in my job, insurance, shadowing an expert in a field for a day is a marketable experience it can lead to pay rises and promotions. Did you somehow think that workfare is designed for photographers? That exchanging being a coffee boy for learning useful tips of the trade was comparable to having to do six months work in order to continue collecting job seeker's allowance?Workfare is a separate issue than the aside we're having here.Here we're just trying to persuade you that there is any situation at all where doing unpaid work might be to your benefit. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

And the example that CS gave was of a person gaining experience that will help them turn professional. He said it quite a while ago:

quote:

---

I don't really want to derail this thread into a discussion about the unpleasantness of your responses.

​

...

​

You spun my photographer assistant analogy six ways from sideways. You completely twisted the example away from its point towards supporting your own position.

---

That's in reference to you focusing on the unpaid work aspect (ie getting coffee) rather than the valuable experience you can get between coffee runs. And acquiring tips is a useful experience. But you can get real valuable experience that helps you sell work and keep paying the bills if you plan to freelance as many photographers do. Yes, I'm sure he didn't mean 'priceless' and instead meant 'extremely useful'. Under normal circumstances we could just ask him, but you'd only accuse him of being a liar or something.Getting valuable tips is the experience we're all talking about. Except you. And its causing you chronic problems understanding our positions and is now forcing you to proclaim all and sundry as being liars and misrepresenting you. But it didn't become a marketable activity because I was being paid for it. I could still use it in an interview for example even if I didn't get paid to follow someone around. You said that you can't gain relevant and useful experience by working for free.CS offered a counter example where one gets a valuable experience. He was explicit what experience he was talking about:

quote:

---

of watching how they do their job

---

I later expanded with some more examples of the kinds of things you might pick up, and CS seems to agree that I had understood his position well enough. Because we aren't talking about the workfare scheme. The main thread is the one where we are discussing that. This is an aside to that as it is not completely on topic where as that almost is.See Message 147 for the last post in that subthread.