Argument: This policy is good for EU economies.

If the government is employing people then it is going to be boosting the economy. Providing a fiscal boost by spending money is one of the most accepted ways of boosting the economy. In this case spending money on temporary workers is good in several ways.

First it is a fiscal boost to the economy. The government will be paying the temporary workers. These workers will have more money to spend and will probably mostly spend it rather than saving. This in turn boosts demand for other goods and services so meaning there needs to be more output with the result that some jobs will be made permanent. There is therefore a positive feedback loop.

The second way in which this helps the economy is that it is investment. It is investment because the government is paying for young people to gain experience and for companies to be training these temporary workers. The result of this is a more skilled workforce who in the long term will be more productive.

There is a final possible benefit. With government paying for workers they are effectively subsidizing firms. Even if they are new trainees the young temporary workers will be providing output for companies at next to no cost. This then makes that firm more competitive against its global competitors.

Candidate 1: "Guaranteeing a temporary job for young people is a temporary solution. Having a job for a short period of time will not guarantee more permanent employment. Britain’s Mandatory Work Activity scheme does some of this proposal by having very short term unpaid job placements however a study has shown that having this placement had zero benefit when it comes to getting a job. [1] Even if it did impact on those who took part in the scheme it is no help if it does not increase the number of permanent jobs as there will be the same number of young people in the same small pool. A more long term solution is necessary. This would require more jobs, and more training to ensure that skills fit the jobs that are available.

[1] Malik, Shiv, ‘Mandatory work scheme does not improve job chances, research finds’, 13 June 2012, http://www.theguardian.com/society/2012/jun/13/mandatory-work-scheme-government-research"
Candidate 2: "These placements will only be for six months. This combined with the intent not to make the program too expensive means that the benefit will be limited in terms of the fiscal boost provided. Those who are getting a salary only for six months are not likely to feel rich from getting that money so will probably try to save any they can.

Also, these roles would be most likely to be unskilled. The benefit in terms of investment would therefore not be particularly great. Yes the young people involved are getting experience but this is different from providing them with technical skills that make them competitive in a global marketplace."
Candidate 3: "While there is a benefit to diversity it does not have to be obtained by employing younger people but instead by having racial and gender diversity.

Companies have the right to choose their own recruitment practices. It is up to them, and them alone, who they choose to recruit. If they believe in such benefits and that they outweigh any other priorities then they will already be recruiting young people. That they are not doing so shows that businesses do not believe the benefits are as high as they are made out to be. Government should not be compelling business to employ people government should only be interfering with business in order to create a level playing field between companies."
Candidate 4: "Age ‘discrimination’ runs both ways. Many companies operate policies of age discrimination against older workers. Older employees are often likely to have more out of date skills. According to a survey of businesses, the reasons for not hiring older workers are their lack of flexibility and unwillingness to learn new techniques, lack of foreign languages, little knowledge of technology and a dislike of change [1] . Those who are nearing the end of their career and are just as likely to be unable to find a news job because of these problems and are therefore likely to find themselves forced into early retirement.

When this happens these people will no longer be counted among the statistics for unemployment so much older unemployment is hidden. If a ‘lack’ of experience is a good reason for the government to provide a job then having the ‘wrong’ experience should be just as good a reason. Focusing just on youth would be wrong.

[1] Daskalova, Nadezhda, ‘Company attitudes towards employing older workers’, EWCO, 10 July 2009, http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/ewco/2009/05/BG0905019I.htm"

These placements will only be for six months. This combined with the intent not to make the program too expensive means that the benefit will be limited in terms of the fiscal boost provided. Those who are getting a salary only for six months are not likely to feel rich from getting that money so will probably try to save any they can.

Also, these roles would be most likely to be unskilled. The benefit in terms of investment would therefore not be particularly great. Yes the young people involved are getting experience but this is different from providing them with technical skills that make them competitive in a global marketplace.
