Illiterate school-leavers and workless households are destabilising UK economy

[andy w]

So we should not continue to pay the poor to be poor and lower the asking price of the reserve pool of unemployed labour?

Cancel all benefits and promote the inherent contradictions of capitalism and encourage class consciousness?

Sack all the social workers, outreach and health workers after all, who cares about abused children, pregnant mothers, cancer patients, people with addictions?

So you believe the sticking plaster of the welfare state is improving the lives of the poorest by keeping them where they are?
As for the reserve pool of unemployed labour, employers need only to advertise in the eastern european countries to fill their vacancies which for some strange reason they struggle to fill with such high unemployment in this country.

 

[tek-monkey]

We pay better than western europe, its hardly surprising they come here. The latest generation do seem incredibly lazy though, and stupid too! Anyone who believes going to Ocean Finance will somehow solve their money problems* needed to learn earlier in life how to add up. We wouldn't have what we call a recession if people hadn't got too used to the finer things in life, you can still live very well on not a lot of money if you try. I save a fortune on food by buying short dated stuff and grabbing the bargains when I see them. I then have an expensive drink habit which eats all those savings back up though, attached to a gadget obsessed nature that sees me spend a fortune on shiny crap. But hey, at least I can afford my problems!

*Although, thats my generation too. Damn.

 

[United57]

Today in the left wing Telegraph Eric Pickles: Problem families must accept blame.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/9325262/Eric-Pickles-Problem-families-must-accept-blame.html

 

[Alan B'Stard]

I think there's a lot to be said for not paying the poor to procreate and making themselves even poorer in the long run.

Did you read a lot of Dickens at your school?

 

[Alan B'Stard]

So you believe the sticking plaster of the welfare state is improving the lives of the poorest by keeping them where they are?
As for the reserve pool of unemployed labour, employers need only to advertise in the eastern european countries to fill their vacancies which for some strange reason they struggle to fill with such high unemployment in this country.

Without the welfare state, the poorest would be even poorer and any poverty trap is a reflection of low wages and not high benefits.

And before anybody asks, yes I work and pay a substantial amount of tax each month and I am happy to do so, to support a welfare state, NHS, Education and (shock, horror) aid to underdeveloped countries as well.

Employers don't really need to advertise overseas, word of mouth seems to work quite well from my experience.

Overseas workers will be, by their very definition, more fluid and responsive to the work market as one town is not any different from another when you are 2000 miles away from home, it's much different when your entire family and roots are indigenous (for want of a better word, that does not evoke BNP)

 

[shoes]

It's got feck all to do with low wages - pretty much everyone starts off in a NMW job at some point and has to work their way up. It's down to laziness, lack of pride, lack of self worth and generally being a scrote. Wahhhhhh I can't walk into a £30k job so I'll stay on benefits as working won't make me better off.

That point of view is exactly what is wrong with this country - people who are on benefits for no reason other than they cannot be arsed to find a job should be treated a common thieves - I don't see them as any better frankly.

I didn't read a lot of Dickins at school, no.

 

[United57]

Tory vilification campaign against the poor is so clever

David Cameron will oversee the worst child poverty record for a generation. Yet he is winning the public argument on cuts

Excellent article in the Guardian made me think !

www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jun/11/tory-vilification-poor-child-poverty?INTCMP=SRCH

 

[shoes]

Ah so it basically boils down to people having kids regardless of whether they can afford them or not (irrespective of whether they're working).

Those of us who aren't predisposed with ridiculously cretinous viewpoints knew that already though, didn't we?

 

[henryscat]

Yet he is winning the public argument on cuts

Excellent article in the Guardian made me think !

www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jun/11/tory-vilification-poor-child-poverty?INTCMP=SRCH

Perhaps part of the reason the Tories have some support for their insane programme of cuts is that fewer and fewer people have a grasp of economics. Teaching of economics declined massively under the Thatcher government. I'm sure that the government to an extent relies on an ignorance of understanding of economics. If it was widely taught then more people may have drawn the conclusion how insane it all is..... Sadly people believe the Daily Fail instead.

 

[henryscat]

I didn't read a lot of Dickins at school, no.

Daily Mail?

Daily Mail Calls Right-wingers Stupid

 

[andy w]

Perhaps part of the reason the Tories have some support for their insane programme of cuts is that fewer and fewer people have a grasp of economics. Teaching of economics declined massively under the Thatcher government. I'm sure that the government to an extent relies on an ignorance of understanding of economics. If it was widely taught then more people may have drawn the conclusion how insane it all is..... Sadly people believe the Daily Fail instead.

I can grasp the fact that this government is spending £120 billion more than it is bringing in even after those 'savage cuts'!
Your post mirrored alot of comments in the guardian article that they blamed peoples ignorance for supporting the torys, don't you think it's patronising and fails to accept that people interpt things differantly

 

[henryscat]

I can grasp the fact that this government is spending £120 billion more than it is bringing in even after those 'savage cuts'!

The question being, if they cut £120bn more, would that be a good thing....?

Your post mirrored alot of comments in the guardian article that they blamed peoples ignorance for supporting the torys, don't you think it's patronising and fails to accept that people interpt things differantly

No, I don't think its patronising. There are very different schools of thought in economics as with a lot of subjects. In my view economics is a very important subject and the huge decline in its teaching is not a good thing. Economics is a pretty fundamental part of society and economic policy is a massive part of what governments do... If more people understood economics in detail, I think more people would challenge the governments thinking. Equally, some may still draw the conclusion they concur with current government policy. Whatever your view, I don't think ignorance of economics (unexciting as it may be to some) is a good thing.

 

[My Name is URL]

Blah, blah, blah.....support for their insane programme of cuts

I may regret raising this.... but anyway...

If I understand it correctly:

a) The country was (is) in a sh*t load of trouble because we were spending more than we earned.
b) because of the above we cut our spending
c) You think the above is "insane"?

If you think that making an effort to sort out a debt problem is insane, i'd love to see how you run your own finances, and wish you luck with bankruptcy proceedings in future.

 

[tek-monkey]

The generous welfare state coupled with easy credit seems to have bred a sense of entitlement, where the luxuries once only purchased by the few are now expected by the majority. I'd never like a return to what it was, I grew up on benefits under Thatcher and it wasn't a cushy life, but I do think we've gone too far the other way now. Why work, if you can get what you want without doing so? The safety net has turned into a life choice. Knock out a few kids and the need to work seems minimal.

Of course we need to look at job distribution, stop immigration unless the person is needed etc. Someone shouldn't have the choice of not working if a local job is available. The government should open more nurseries themselves, employing staff and also offering free childcare around jobs people get under certain conditions related to wage. Remove the childcare issue and I think you remove a number of reasons for people sitting at home.

Anyone who turns down a job they could do should obviously be cut off from benefits, but I think we do need to keep the jobs in house. Immigration is stupid with unemployment, surely relocation packages to those willing to relocate for work would be a better use of funds. I'd also like to see asylum centers for all, no reason to put them up at the taxpayers expense until we know if they should be here. Anyone truly claiming asylum would prefer this to being deported, and no benefits should ever be paid to to asylum seekers that do not register at such a centre at their earliest opportunity.

In general, we need to get selfish. Sort ourselves out, then worry about the rest of Europe.

 

[United57]

We often complain about those on benefits getting too much money but is the real issue working people are not paid enough?

 

[henryscat]

I may regret raising this.... but anyway...

If I understand it correctly:

a) The country was (is) in a sh*t load of trouble because we were spending more than we earned.
b) because of the above we cut our spending
c) You think the above is "insane"?

If you think that making an effort to sort out a debt problem is insane, i'd love to see how you run your own finances, and wish you luck with bankruptcy proceedings in future.

Thing is... Cutting back so severely clearly hasn't worked and so far we've printed rather a lot of money in the form of quantitative easing. The economy is affected by multiplier effect... so cutting back public spending means: the public sector cuts a lot of jobs so all those redundant people suddenly stop spending money in their local economy, which in turn means shops / businesses close, so more redundant people spend less money and round it goes. Also, the public sector spends a large amount in the private sector, so for instance - spending on building new infrastructure (say roads) is cut, then construction contractors lay people off, who in turn stop spending. And so on.

The economy could be stimulated by putting more money in the short term, which would then stimulate spending (this isn't the same as people living beyond their means). Also bear in mind that now is a good time to do this since the UK can borrow money at very low cost at the present time compared to some of the Euro zone countries who have hit ridiculous interest rates for their borrowing.

 

[henryscat]

is the real issue working people are not paid enough?

Yep, its a huge issue.

 

[My Name is URL]

Thing is... Cutting back so severely clearly hasn't worked and so far

Ahh but how can anyone say that without the cuts, things wouldn't have been much worse, either now or in the future...

Crystal ball time...

 

[Gadget]

Unless you are rich, can you ever truley afford to have kids? Also, (this is not my view but a tongue in cheek reference to something else, aka a joke) should anyone be having children when the kids homes are full of them......:p
No one, that can learn to, should be allowed to leave education untill they can read and write, what ever it takes this should be a priority. It's all very well insisting that kids stay in education untill they are 18 and then encouraging them to go to uni, but unless they are learning something relevant, it just becomes an excercise in keeping the unemployment figures down.
G

 

[Withnail]

If you can't read 'n' write you can't accept a place in secondary education.

That really is an 'end of' kind of statement - personally i would agree to holding people back from secondary schools until a certain degree of literacy could be demonstrated. Much of what you 'do' at secondary level is "Turn to p.250 and..." etc - it seems a little, if not a lot, pointless to say that to someone who turns to p.250 and sees 'wugahumpftamuff'.

From personal experience i realised early on the myth upon which our education 'system' is based when two friends of mine left school at 16 - how did they get on in the world-of-work?

Case Study 1: Good academically, finished school with a good set of 'O' levels, went in to a (what was still called then) 'clerical' role earning ~ £100 a week - sounds shit but a pint was ~ 50p - reasonable but not wowing.

Case Study 2: Crap academically, finished school with nothing to speak of, admittedly on shakier ground here but he might have scraped a couple of 'CSE's together, went into a building job as a brick-layer, earned-while-he-learned, and was making ~£300 a week in the same time-span.

I have long thought that part of the problem is that our educators fill us with their own dreams as to what is desirable. Given that they inevitably come from an academic background, they tend to sell to us the idea that academia is the road to redemption when it can be demonstrably shown that it is not. This is not entirely their fault.

I was on the dole for a while back in the 'Something's' and they started to get all arsey and put people on 'courses' if they had been signing on for a certain amount of time. One of the things i had to do was complete a *checks * 'psychometric test',which confirmed that - in short - i am more 'wordy' than i am 'handy'. This i already knew, of course, but i suppose it was in some way nice to be 'confirmed'.

Much as i don't like to be the kind of person who prefixes their statements with statements such as 'it beggars belief that...', but it really does beggar belief that we can't do this kind of thing a bit earlier and tailor people's educational experience accordingly.

Sort of thing.