Should all 25 year olds be given a £10,000 helping hand from the government?

First topic message reminder :

Its a possibility....good idea or bad?

"A minimum inheritance of £10,000 should be available for 25-year-olds in the UK, a think tank has suggested.
Tax reforms and a sell-off of some assets including the Government stake in RBS could help create a Citizens' Wealth Fund, the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) said.
The fund could be worth £186 billion by 2029/30, if started from 2020/21, a report by the left-of-centre think tank's Commission on Economic Justice concluded.
The proposal could help address what the think tank described as growing inequality in the UK, "giving everyone a stake and a say in the economy".




https://www.mirror.co.uk/money/25-year-olds-should-10000-12289850

OP, yes maybe the gov't should.

But it won't.

Cos we simply cannot afford it, even if the money is restricted to a small % of 25 year olds.

It's all gone wrong, wrong, wrong and the future of generation Y and subsequent ones has been royally fvked up by the generations preceeding them.  

So unfair!!

veya_victaous wrote:

Syl wrote:

That's a typical 'straw man' argument.

It's a paraphrase of Winston Churchill


“Any man under 30 who is not a liberal has no heart, and any man over thirty who is not a conservative has no brains.”

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/7441607-any-man-under-30-who-is-not-a-liberal-has

Yeah, I was being cleverly witty, (so clever no one got it) No brain = the strawman = the scarecrow in the Wizard of Oz, the one with no brain.

If such a scheme was started, what about those who are already over 25 when it starts? What about people in their 50s who don't have a job or savings (largely their own fault IMO but hey)? I don't think that anyone under 25 should have an unfair advantage, and the money has to come from somewhere - a tax on those who do actually work no doubt, or by plundering the pensions of those who worked for years to provide for their old age.

The idea of a "Sovereign (National) Wealth Fund" basically turns on the principle of re-directing some of the funds generated by a country's national "common wealth" assets/resources (e.g. royalties and licensing fees from sale of oil, minerals and natural gas, rent from commonwealth lands, gov't owned patents and designs, government owned businesses (e.g. universities teaching foreign & full-fee-paying students, gov't mint..), even a portion of annual tax revenue) into a central fund,  where the accumulated funds would be invested into reasonably conservative investments,  and then in a couple of decades the government would then start drawing on the dividend from that "National Wealth Fund" to help subsidise such essential government services the likes of aged pensions, aged care, disability pensions, hospitals, health cover, education, and even extended into such areas as student loans and small business 'strart-up' loans if a country is wealthy enough...

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/sovereign_wealth_fund.asp

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_wealth_fund

While some corporatist/anti-welfare small gov't twonks will obviously be opposed to such community-centric plans,  several countries and states already have such schemes in place,  the likes of Sovereign Wealth funds in Norway, Kuwait, Abu Dhabi, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Qatar,  China, even the US sate of Alaska.

https://www.cnbc.com/2015/07/17/the-worlds-biggest-sovereign-wealth-funds.html

https://www.thebalance.com/sovereign-wealth-funds-3305969

The very idea of simply giving cash handouts to citizens on their 25th birthday really doesn't seem to fit the actual concept of just why a country would create such a fund in the first place.

https://www.swfinstitute.org/sovereign-wealth-fund/

And then, of course, there is also the minor matter of just how Britain could ever afford such a Sovereign Wealth Fund these days, after watching its Aristocracy, Royals, and merchant classes, squandering all that national wealth over the centuries  ???        

Raggamuffin wrote:If such a scheme was started, what about those who are already over 25 when it starts? What about people in their 50s who don't have a job or savings (largely their own fault IMO but hey)? I don't think that anyone under 25 should have an unfair advantage, and the money has to come from somewhere - a tax on those who do actually work no doubt, or by plundering the pensions of those who worked for years to provide for their old age.

Lots of pension pots have already been plundered, many people get a fraction of what they should be receiving.
OAP's who still work may be required to restart paying NI ...so there's another way to garnish the pot.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:If such a scheme was started, what about those who are already over 25 when it starts? What about people in their 50s who don't have a job or savings (largely their own fault IMO but hey)? I don't think that anyone under 25 should have an unfair advantage, and the money has to come from somewhere - a tax on those who do actually work no doubt, or by plundering the pensions of those who worked for years to provide for their old age.

Lots of pension pots have already been plundered, many people get a fraction of what they should be receiving.
OAP's who still work may be required to restart paying NI ...so there's another way to garnish the pot.

State pension pots? They haven't been plundered yet. I don't see why OAPs shouldn't pay NI actually - minus the portion which goes towards the state pension, if they can work out what that is. There is still the NHS and benefit system to be paid for, and OAPs use those as much as anyone.

That would be ok for people on pensions that can afford it, many on basic pension can hardly afford to live now. If you have a works pension or a personal pension you already pay income tax on that , where does that go?.

I see the brainless bitter and twisted, old bat club cannot see the merit in this

Its going to help all people eventually, as those young people will be old one day and will start out in life, as all other people with beneficial help. Sadly like bitter people, some cannot see that and think they are being badly done so, by the idea, that a fund, is put aside for the future of people

It does not mean they wont then not work hard, its there to provide a future for the next generations of people

All I see is the bitter and twisted moan about this, as if they are model examples of how to live a life

Let me break this down or you, none of you are and to begrudge the next generation. Is to me, bitter and twisted, when we should be doing everything to ensure they do have a future.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

Lots of pension pots have already been plundered, many people get a fraction of what they should be receiving.
OAP's who still work may be required to restart paying NI ...so there's another way to garnish the pot.

State pension pots? They haven't been plundered yet. I don't see why OAPs shouldn't pay NI actually - minus the portion which goes towards the state pension, if they can work out what that is. There is still the NHS and benefit system to be paid for, and OAPs use those as much as anyone.

No, private pensions not state pensions.

I dont think OAP,s who carry on working should pay NI stamps, they have presumably paid in till they reach retirement age, and many have to carry on working past retirement age because they cant afford to retire. They will still pay tax if they exceed the allocated tax allowance, but they wont be entitled to certain workers benifits.

Didge wrote:I see the brainless bitter and twisted, old bat club cannot see the merit in this

Its going to help all people eventually, as those young people will be old one day and will start out in life, as all other people with beneficial help. Sadly like bitter people, some cannot see that and think they are being badly done so, by the idea, that a fund, is put aside for the future of people

It does not mean they wont then not work hard, its there to provide a future for the next generations of people

All I see is the bitter and twisted moan about this, as if they are model examples of how to live a life

Let me break this down or you, none of you are and to begrudge the next generation. Is to me, bitter and twisted, when we should be doing everything to ensure they do have a future.

What a complete load of babble!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:

Didge wrote:I see the brainless bitter and twisted, old bat club cannot see the merit in this

Its going to help all people eventually, as those young people will be old one day and will start out in life, as all other people with beneficial help. Sadly like bitter people, some cannot see that and think they are being badly done so, by the idea, that a fund, is put aside for the future of people

It does not mean they wont then not work hard, its there to provide a future for the next generations of people

All I see is the bitter and twisted moan about this, as if they are model examples of how to live a life

Let me break this down or you, none of you are and to begrudge the next generation. Is to me, bitter and twisted, when we should be doing everything to ensure they do have a future.

What a complete load of babble!!!

Wow, Tommy with one of his stupidly ridiculous replies, neglecting the fact that we already do set aside countless tens of thousands for children, through education and health. Just as he had, to have that extra help and start in life. Neglecting this would just be another to help ensure people have a better chance of a future

You will never have by the time you retire, pay back what the state has paid out, in order that you had a future in this country. It proves what an ungrateful and selfish twat that you are

Raggamuffin wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

Cobblers.  Of course you can get a job without a degree.   There's many Uni graduates that end up working as baristas in Starbucks because the degree they studied for hasn't opened the doorways they thought it would.    Anyone would think the world was populated with wannabe brain surgeons and rocket scientists.   The world runs on those who perform more mundane jobs.   The people working in industry, in bars and shops and nursing homes, in keeping out streets clean, in running public transport, in cleaning our hospitals, people who build homes, plumbers, electricians, bakers, the food industry, factories, street cleaners.   You'd soon be moaning if the sewage plants closed down and your shitter backed up because Rupert Farquar's degree didn't cut the mustard.

Why would they employ someone without a degree when even the Barista has one? You need a degree and 5 years experience for an entry level role
Half of those jobs you mentioned will barely pay rent 
Or require Apprenticeships which more people would take as an option if they were on offer. But there is no profit in training someone

Is that how it is in Australia? It's not like that here. People with degrees do those jobs but they didn't need the degree to get the job.

Really?    in the Uk they will give a job to someone that has been unemployed for 3 years over some that has been studying for 3 years
It's the spiral, why give the person not 'smart' enough to go to uni a job when for the same money you can get someone that at least did good at school. Thus competition for barista jobs include have a degree to be better than 'the other guy'.

veya_victaous wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Is that how it is in Australia? It's not like that here. People with degrees do those jobs but they didn't need the degree to get the job.

Really?    in the Uk they will give a job to someone that has been unemployed for 3 years over some that has been studying for 3 years
It's the spiral, why give the person not 'smart' enough to go to uni a job when for the same money you can get someone that at least did good at school. Thus competition for barista jobs include have a degree to be better than 'the other guy'.

Oh, I thought you meant that someone had to have a degree just to get an interview. I think companies give jobs to people who they think will fit in, or to people they like. If it's a relatively unskilled job, they don't need someone with a list of qualifications anyway. I have a degree but I don't think I've had any jobs where that was required or where it made a huge difference.

veya_victaous wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Is that how it is in Australia? It's not like that here. People with degrees do those jobs but they didn't need the degree to get the job.

Really?    in the Uk they will give a job to someone that has been unemployed for 3 years over some that has been studying for 3 years
It's the spiral, why give the person not 'smart' enough to go to uni a job when for the same money you can get someone that at least did good at school. Thus competition for barista jobs include have a degree to be better than 'the other guy'.

It's well known that degrees are not what they used to be. Let's face it, once you start charging people large amounts of money for their education, you're going to make sure they get that qualification come hell or high water. And that's exactly what's going on. They've lowered the bar. So just because you have a degree doesn't necessarily mean you're super smart, ultra intelligent or more likely to get the job. Some of these kids come out of Uni and they can't even fucking spell. I used to type up dissertations, and the appalling grammar and spelling took my breath away. It was me who corrected it all. Unemployment in the UK is the lowest it's been for decades.



Nick Hillman, director of the Higher Education Policy Institute (Hepi), said the situation needs close monitoring.

"There are valid questions about whether growing competition between universities is encouraging grade inflation and also whether the external examiner system is fit for purpose in every respect," he said.

"After all, it is in no-one's interests - not government, employers or universities - for people to think students are having an easier ride than in the past.”

As the number of students obtaining top degrees has increased annually - with three in four students now graduating with a 2:1 or better - a growing number of employes have refocused their selection criteria to focus on work experience over academics qualifications.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2017/01/12/one-four-students-now-obtain-first-class-degrees-employers-voice/

Vintage wrote: That would be ok for people on pensions that can afford it, many on basic pension can hardly afford to live now. If you have a works pension or a personal pension you already pay income tax on that , where does that go?.

If someone is still working whilst drawing a state pension, I don't see how they can't afford National Insurance - like anyone else.

Personal pensions are taxable, but those who paid into a personal or works pension had tax relief at the time - ie, money paid into their pension by the Government, so where did the money for that come from?

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

State pension pots? They haven't been plundered yet. I don't see why OAPs shouldn't pay NI actually - minus the portion which goes towards the state pension, if they can work out what that is. There is still the NHS and benefit system to be paid for, and OAPs use those as much as anyone.

No, private pensions not state pensions.

I dont think OAP,s who carry on working should pay NI stamps, they have presumably paid in till they reach retirement age, and many have to carry on working past retirement age because they cant afford to retire. They will still pay tax if they exceed the allocated tax allowance, but they wont be entitled to certain workers benifits.

As I said to Vintage, if they carry on working, why shouldn't they pay NI? They still use the NHS don't they? NI doesn't just cover the state pension.

I don't have a problem with people who work past pension age or those with private/work pensions continuing to pay N.I. although they are still contributing already with income tax. I wouldn't like to see those on basic pension having to pay anything, they are struggling now.
I still pay N.I. although I've passed my pensionable age, as I'm classed as self employed.

Vintage wrote:I don't have a problem with people who work past pension age or those with private/work pensions continuing to pay N.I. although they are still contributing already with income tax. I wouldn't like to see those on basic pension having to pay anything, they are struggling now.
I still pay N.I. although I've passed my pensionable age, as I'm classed as self employed.

Why are you still paying NI just because you're self employed?

That's the rules apparently. I get nervous with tax and figures, I just pay what my accountant tells me. I should be more interested really.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Vintage wrote:I don't have a problem with people who work past pension age or those with private/work pensions continuing to pay N.I. although they are still contributing already with income tax. I wouldn't like to see those on basic pension having to pay anything, they are struggling now.
I still pay N.I. although I've passed my pensionable age, as I'm classed as self employed.

Why are you still paying NI just because you're self employed?

I'm self employed and pay my own NI. You have to in order to get the full state pension.

Vintage wrote:That's the rules apparently. I get nervous with tax and figures, I just pay what my accountant tells me. I should be more interested really.

I've done my own books for years. Since they introduced the on line tax return it's made it so much easier. Piece of cake. Having said that their system does get glitches which sometimes means it looks as though you've not paid. I copped a £100 fine for late payment when I'd sent the return in on time. I appealed and got it back.

Vintage wrote:I don't have a problem with people who work past pension age or those with private/work pensions continuing to pay N.I. although they are still contributing already with income tax. I wouldn't like to see those on basic pension having to pay anything, they are struggling now.
I still pay N.I. although I've passed my pensionable age, as I'm classed as self employed.

That might have to do with if you opted out of SERPS in the 1980s. That means you're behind with full payment for a full state pension. Once you've paid in the full 35 years, you should be ok.

Already done that, I was part time for five years, then back to full time so I paid a lump sum to bring my contributions up to the full amount to qualify me for full pension.
Why employed people don't have to pay when pensionable and still working I don't know.

Maybe so far the government has thought that people who have reached retirement age have paid enough in NI.
Many worked from age 15 to 65...women 60, though now obviously that's been extended.
Retired people cant claim unemployment if they carry on working and are made redundant, not sure if they can claim sick pay.

If OAP's who carry on working DO have to start paying NI, obviously their benefits should be equal to what others are entitled to.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Didge wrote:I see the brainless bitter and twisted, old bat club cannot see the merit in this

Its going to help all people eventually, as those young people will be old one day and will start out in life, as all other people with beneficial help. Sadly like bitter people, some cannot see that and think they are being badly done so, by the idea, that a fund, is put aside for the future of people

It does not mean they wont then not work hard, its there to provide a future for the next generations of people

All I see is the bitter and twisted moan about this, as if they are model examples of how to live a life

Let me break this down or you, none of you are and to begrudge the next generation. Is to me, bitter and twisted, when we should be doing everything to ensure they do have a future.

What a complete load of babble!!!

Quote Didge ...

'...Its going to help all people eventually, as those young people will be old one day...'





What a load of babble!!!

HoratioTarr wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Why are you still paying NI just because you're self employed?

I'm self employed and pay my own NI.   You have to in order to get the full state pension.

I've always paid my own NI being self employed as well, I assume you haven't reached pension age yet, I have but still have to pay NI because I am self employed, if you are employed by someone and have reached pensionable age but continue to work, you cease paying NI and you have to fill a form to that effect. Why that should be so I don't know, I would have thought anyone still employed or self employed would continue to pay NI. There seems to be a lot of anomilies in tax law.

HoratioTarr wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Is that how it is in Australia? It's not like that here. People with degrees do those jobs but they didn't need the degree to get the job.

Really?    in the Uk they will give a job to someone that has been unemployed for 3 years over some that has been studying for 3 years
It's the spiral, why give the person not 'smart' enough to go to uni a job when for the same money you can get someone that at least did good at school. Thus competition for barista jobs include have a degree to be better than 'the other guy'.

It's well known that degrees are not what they used to be.   Let's face it, once you start charging people large amounts of money for their education, you're going to make sure they get that qualification come hell or high water.    And that's exactly what's going on.  They've lowered the bar.   So just because you have a degree doesn't necessarily mean you're super smart, ultra intelligent or more likely to get the job.  Some of these kids come out of Uni and they can't even fucking spell.    I used to type up dissertations, and the appalling grammar and spelling took my breath away.    It was me who corrected it all.   Unemployment in the UK is the lowest it's been for decades.  



Nick Hillman, director of the Higher Education Policy Institute (Hepi), said the situation needs close monitoring.

"There are valid questions about whether growing competition between universities is encouraging grade inflation and also whether the external examiner system is fit for purpose in every respect," he said.

"After all, it is in no-one's interests - not government, employers or universities - for people to think students are having an easier ride than in the past.”

As the number of students obtaining top degrees has increased annually - with three in four students now graduating with a 2:1 or better - a growing number of employes have refocused their selection criteria to focus on work experience over academics qualifications.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2017/01/12/one-four-students-now-obtain-first-class-degrees-employers-voice/

So what does that say about the kids that didn't make it through Uni?

and like I said you need a degree and 5 years experience for an entry level role in the traditional degree requiring careers now days. making it just about impossible, driving those that really want it (and can afford to do it) into unpaid internships that can go on for years

veya_victaous wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

It's well known that degrees are not what they used to be.   Let's face it, once you start charging people large amounts of money for their education, you're going to make sure they get that qualification come hell or high water.    And that's exactly what's going on.  They've lowered the bar.   So just because you have a degree doesn't necessarily mean you're super smart, ultra intelligent or more likely to get the job.  Some of these kids come out of Uni and they can't even fucking spell.    I used to type up dissertations, and the appalling grammar and spelling took my breath away.    It was me who corrected it all.   Unemployment in the UK is the lowest it's been for decades.  



Nick Hillman, director of the Higher Education Policy Institute (Hepi), said the situation needs close monitoring.

"There are valid questions about whether growing competition between universities is encouraging grade inflation and also whether the external examiner system is fit for purpose in every respect," he said.

"After all, it is in no-one's interests - not government, employers or universities - for people to think students are having an easier ride than in the past.”

As the number of students obtaining top degrees has increased annually - with three in four students now graduating with a 2:1 or better - a growing number of employes have refocused their selection criteria to focus on work experience over academics qualifications.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2017/01/12/one-four-students-now-obtain-first-class-degrees-employers-voice/

So what does that say about the kids that didn't make it through Uni?

and like I said you need a degree and 5 years experience for an entry level role in the traditional degree requiring careers now days. making it just about impossible, driving those that really want it (and can afford to do it) into unpaid internships that can go on for years

That's not really what you said before. You were talking about relatively unskilled jobs, and now you're talking about traditional degree-requiring careers.

veya_victaous wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

It's well known that degrees are not what they used to be.   Let's face it, once you start charging people large amounts of money for their education, you're going to make sure they get that qualification come hell or high water.    And that's exactly what's going on.  They've lowered the bar.   So just because you have a degree doesn't necessarily mean you're super smart, ultra intelligent or more likely to get the job.  Some of these kids come out of Uni and they can't even fucking spell.    I used to type up dissertations, and the appalling grammar and spelling took my breath away.    It was me who corrected it all.   Unemployment in the UK is the lowest it's been for decades.  



Nick Hillman, director of the Higher Education Policy Institute (Hepi), said the situation needs close monitoring.

"There are valid questions about whether growing competition between universities is encouraging grade inflation and also whether the external examiner system is fit for purpose in every respect," he said.

"After all, it is in no-one's interests - not government, employers or universities - for people to think students are having an easier ride than in the past.”

As the number of students obtaining top degrees has increased annually - with three in four students now graduating with a 2:1 or better - a growing number of employes have refocused their selection criteria to focus on work experience over academics qualifications.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2017/01/12/one-four-students-now-obtain-first-class-degrees-employers-voice/

So what does that say about the kids that didn't make it through Uni?

and like I said you need a degree and 5 years experience for an entry level role in the traditional degree requiring careers now days. making it just about impossible, driving those that really want it (and can afford to do it) into unpaid internships that can go on for years

It tells you the kids without a degree had just as much chance of getting a job as the ones with. Like I keep repeating, UK unemployment is at the lowest it's been for a long time.

Raggamuffin wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

It's well known that degrees are not what they used to be.   Let's face it, once you start charging people large amounts of money for their education, you're going to make sure they get that qualification come hell or high water.    And that's exactly what's going on.  They've lowered the bar.   So just because you have a degree doesn't necessarily mean you're super smart, ultra intelligent or more likely to get the job.  Some of these kids come out of Uni and they can't even fucking spell.    I used to type up dissertations, and the appalling grammar and spelling took my breath away.    It was me who corrected it all.   Unemployment in the UK is the lowest it's been for decades.  



Nick Hillman, director of the Higher Education Policy Institute (Hepi), said the situation needs close monitoring.

"There are valid questions about whether growing competition between universities is encouraging grade inflation and also whether the external examiner system is fit for purpose in every respect," he said.

"After all, it is in no-one's interests - not government, employers or universities - for people to think students are having an easier ride than in the past.”

As the number of students obtaining top degrees has increased annually - with three in four students now graduating with a 2:1 or better - a growing number of employes have refocused their selection criteria to focus on work experience over academics qualifications.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2017/01/12/one-four-students-now-obtain-first-class-degrees-employers-voice/

So what does that say about the kids that didn't make it through Uni?

and like I said you need a degree and 5 years experience for an entry level role in the traditional degree requiring careers now days. making it just about impossible, driving those that really want it (and can afford to do it) into unpaid internships that can go on for years

That's not really what you said before. You were talking about relatively unskilled jobs, and now you're talking about traditional degree-requiring careers.

Because the people that want traditional degree-requiring careers (and have completed the study for them) are stuck accepting relatively unskilled jobs because they can't get a foot into the careers they are trained for. that's why the Barista has a degree, he didn't want to be a barista but whatever he wanted and trained to be wasn't hiring.

HoratioTarr wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

It's well known that degrees are not what they used to be.   Let's face it, once you start charging people large amounts of money for their education, you're going to make sure they get that qualification come hell or high water.    And that's exactly what's going on.  They've lowered the bar.   So just because you have a degree doesn't necessarily mean you're super smart, ultra intelligent or more likely to get the job.  Some of these kids come out of Uni and they can't even fucking spell.    I used to type up dissertations, and the appalling grammar and spelling took my breath away.    It was me who corrected it all.   Unemployment in the UK is the lowest it's been for decades.  



Nick Hillman, director of the Higher Education Policy Institute (Hepi), said the situation needs close monitoring.

"There are valid questions about whether growing competition between universities is encouraging grade inflation and also whether the external examiner system is fit for purpose in every respect," he said.

"After all, it is in no-one's interests - not government, employers or universities - for people to think students are having an easier ride than in the past.”

As the number of students obtaining top degrees has increased annually - with three in four students now graduating with a 2:1 or better - a growing number of employes have refocused their selection criteria to focus on work experience over academics qualifications.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2017/01/12/one-four-students-now-obtain-first-class-degrees-employers-voice/

So what does that say about the kids that didn't make it through Uni?

and like I said you need a degree and 5 years experience for an entry level role in the traditional degree requiring careers now days. making it just about impossible, driving those that really want it (and can afford to do it) into unpaid internships that can go on for years

It tells you the kids without a degree had just as much chance of getting a job as the ones with.   Like I keep repeating,  UK unemployment is at the lowest it's been for a long time.

but under-employment is higher than ever
No one is denying you can get a relatively unskilled job with a zero hour contract, but THAT DOESNT PAY THE BILLS


And If there are so many good jobs available in the UK... there goes half the argument for Brexit then doesn't it

veya_victaous wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

It tells you the kids without a degree had just as much chance of getting a job as the ones with.   Like I keep repeating,  UK unemployment is at the lowest it's been for a long time.

but under-employment is higher than ever
No one is denying you can get a relatively unskilled job with a zero hour contract, but THAT DOESNT PAY THE BILLS


And If there are so many good jobs available in the UK... there goes half the argument for Brexit then doesn't it

What's Brexit got to do with anything?

veya_victaous wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

That's not really what you said before. You were talking about relatively unskilled jobs, and now you're talking about traditional degree-requiring careers.

Because the people that want traditional degree-requiring careers (and have completed the study for them) are stuck accepting relatively unskilled jobs because they can't get a foot into the careers they are trained for. that's why the Barista has a degree, he didn't want to be a barista but whatever he wanted and trained to be wasn't hiring.

That's because everyone has a degree these days. You can buy them on line, FFS! They mean fuck all in many cases. Britain needs to up the minimum wage and offer more apprenticeships with a subsidised wage. That £10K per person would be put to better use to offer school leavers the choice of an apprenticeship with a decent wage. I've yet to meet a poor plumber/electrician/joiner/plasterer.


Not all blue collar work is poorly paid. Train and tram drivers in the UK earn £50K a year. That's more than a degree toting barrister or judge who only earn £44K per annum. Crane drivers earn £33K per year. Radiographers with their degrees earn £32K per annum. Rail travel assistants earn on average £31K per year. Podiatrists with their bachelor's degree that took four years to obtain - £28K per annum. A bricklayer earns more than an optician. You need a degree to be a teacher, yet they get paid less than a secretary.

Less than 30% of real-world jobs here in Oz actually need a degree...

Another 30% or so jobs will require trade or semi-professional certificates from technical/trade school type institutions, business colleges and private training colleges; (which may also lead onto uni' studies later on, for those aiming to move into management or research areas..).

That leaves over 40% that don't require prior education (though they will still need to gain various licences and tickets to progress onto more skilled positions..).


Two big problems in today's employment market :

* Many greedy, selfish and slack-arsed employers no longer employ apprentices and trainees --  preferring to poach tradesmen off other businesses;  leading to increased competition among school leavers in a shrinking pool of vacancies, and eventually to the current shortages of tradesmen and skilled workers in many fields..

*  Many of the "entry-level" labouring and (so-called) "menial" jobs have disappeared over the past two or three decades --  making it that much harder for school leavers and the unemployed to find genuine openings into many industries.

Exacerbated even further by the rapid rise in such usurious and bloody-minded corporatist practices as 'casualised' workforces, forced part-time hours, and the criminally-inspired "zero hour contracts" infesting the employment landscape.        

My son is a scaffolder, he has all the qualifications he needs and it's a very well paid job.

Unfortunately, in the past he (and the rest of the workforce) have been made redundant and replaced by a foreign workforce, who can afford to work cheaper but unfortunately are not as qualified.....sometimes it's false economy.

Nurses, doctors, builders, service industry often recruit from abroad instead of the UK.

Brexit doesn't have much to do with discussion, but perhaps it'll put a stop to firms advertising jobs abroad instead of recruiting local workers.

+10000.

Syl wrote:My son is a scaffolder, he has all the qualifications he needs and it's a very well paid job.

Unfortunately, in the past he (and the rest of the workforce) have been made redundant and replaced by a foreign workforce, who can afford to work cheaper but unfortunately are not as qualified.....sometimes it's false economy.

Nurses, doctors, builders, service industry often recruit from abroad instead of the UK.

Brexit doesn't have much to do with discussion, but perhaps it'll put a stop to firms advertising jobs abroad instead of recruiting local workers.

You make it sound as if employers had a choice.

They certainly didn't as far as NHS was concerned.
 
Building trade and service industry?... yes employers did have a choice but then these jobs are extremely unattractive to Brits - hence they were traditionally filled by Irish, Polish & further abroad.

Everything happens for a reason.

Jules wrote:

Syl wrote:My son is a scaffolder, he has all the qualifications he needs and it's a very well paid job.

Unfortunately, in the past he (and the rest of the workforce) have been made redundant and replaced by a foreign workforce, who can afford to work cheaper but unfortunately are not as qualified.....sometimes it's false economy.

Nurses, doctors, builders, service industry often recruit from abroad instead of the UK.

Brexit doesn't have much to do with discussion, but perhaps it'll put a stop to firms advertising jobs abroad instead of recruiting local workers.

You make it sound as if employers had a choice.

They certainly didn't as far as NHS was concerned.
 
Building trade and service industry?... yes employers did have a choice but then these jobs are extremely unattractive to Brits - hence they were traditionally filled by Irish, Polish & further abroad.

Everything happens for a reason.

The reason there are fewer British nurses is down to cuts in training.   It takes £70K to train a nurse in the UK over three years...the same amount  could hire three qualified foreigners on an average salary of £23,000.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2878312/80-000-UK-students-told-t-train-nurse-Thousands-t-courses-despite-four-five-new-NHS-workers-foreign.html

HoratioTarr wrote:

Jules wrote:

You make it sound as if employers had a choice.

They certainly didn't as far as NHS was concerned.
 
Building trade and service industry?... yes employers did have a choice but then these jobs are extremely unattractive to Brits - hence they were traditionally filled by Irish, Polish & further abroad.

Everything happens for a reason.

The reason there are fewer British nurses is down to cuts in training.   It takes £70K to train a nurse in the UK over three years...the same amount  could hire three qualified foreigners on an average salary of £23,000.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2878312/80-000-UK-students-told-t-train-nurse-Thousands-t-courses-despite-four-five-new-NHS-workers-foreign.html

Yes I know the reason. It's always money of course, like you said.

veya_victaous wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

That's not really what you said before. You were talking about relatively unskilled jobs, and now you're talking about traditional degree-requiring careers.

Because the people that want traditional degree-requiring careers (and have completed the study for them) are stuck accepting relatively unskilled jobs because they can't get a foot into the careers they are trained for. that's why the Barista has a degree, he didn't want to be a barista but whatever he wanted and trained to be wasn't hiring.

I agree with that, but that's completely different to saying that you need a degree to be a barista, which is what you implied earlier. It's also not true to say that a company will always choose someone with a degree over someone who does not have a degree when hiring for relatively unskilled jobs. They will pick who they think will do the job best/fit in well/whatever.

Jules wrote:

Syl wrote:My son is a scaffolder, he has all the qualifications he needs and it's a very well paid job.

Unfortunately, in the past he (and the rest of the workforce) have been made redundant and replaced by a foreign workforce, who can afford to work cheaper but unfortunately are not as qualified.....sometimes it's false economy.

Nurses, doctors, builders, service industry often recruit from abroad instead of the UK.

Brexit doesn't have much to do with discussion, but perhaps it'll put a stop to firms advertising jobs abroad instead of recruiting local workers.

You make it sound as if employers had a choice.

They certainly didn't as far as NHS was concerned.
 
Building trade and service industry?... yes employers did have a choice but then these jobs are extremely unattractive to Brits - hence they were traditionally filled by Irish, Polish & further abroad.

Everything happens for a reason.

HT explained why the NHS have advertised abroad....the training here was cut, so girls (and guys) who wanted to go into nursing just didn't have the chance.

The other trades mentioned certainly did have a choice.
They advertised abroad for vacancies to be filled there not here.....do you think someone put a gun to their heads to do that?
How come ...as I said, complete workforces in the building trade were made redundant, firms closed, then opened up with a completely new and foreign workforce?

Absolutely nothing to do with the Brits not wanting the jobs, that's an overused excuse from employers who don't want to pay local people a fair wage.

Mass immigration has caused the demand for more housing... then loads more immigrants came with building skills because of the surge in building more housing and the demand for labor to build the housing... but the new arrivals caused even more demand for even more housing... and even more immigrants came with building skills... creating even more demand... attracting even more immigrants... creating even more demand... etc etc...


It's madness really when you think about it...!

Mass immigration has caused the demand for more housing... then loads more immigrants came with building skills because of the surge in building more housing and the demand for labor to build the housing... but the new arrivals caused even more demand for even more housing... and even more immigrants came with building skills... creating even more demand... attracting even more immigrants... creating even more demand... etc etc...


It's economic madness really when you think about it...!

Plenty came over from Europe to work in the building trade but they didn't need houses Tommy, they didn't intend to put down roots, but to work and take advantage of the work going, many lived in rooms, a few together, so their costs were very low, they could afford to be paid less than others living here full time.

Who could blame them? It was the greedy employers who were to blame for lots of the redundancies and unemployment in the building trade.

It doesn't happen as much now as it did a few years ago, perhaps because in undercutting, the work was not done to the same standards.....that certainly happened in the scaffolding trade......couldn't say for sure about other trades.

Good evening HT...


You are right about wages for building trades here in London and surrounding areas... day rates for sparks/chippies/brickys/plumbers are between 180-220... price work can pay 250+ if good and quick...!


Even sparks mates can get 140 easily a day on agency contracts...!!!


It was labour govt that told kids that they must all go to uni to get worthless degrees, and now most do shitty jobs for shit money, eg PPI call centres or some other such shit for 20k a year etc and hardly a back bone between them...

Evening Syl... yes but they still need to live somewhere, and have been occupying housing that others could have had, and had much cheaper...


Therefore still creating shortage and the demand for more housing...!!!


(When I say 'housing', I mean any form of regular accommodation, not necessarily 'houses')

As we have seen, and as I have said many times before... since 1997 labour opened doors to mass immigration... has caused massive rise in costs of living (ie rent/housing costs through mass increase in demand) while wages/wage rises have faced the suppressive force of the over supply of the cheap immigrant labor...!!!


"Supply/demand" basic fundamental principle of 'economics'... Even GCSE economics students know about the basic principle of "supply/demand"...!!!

Jules wrote:

Syl wrote:My son is a scaffolder, he has all the qualifications he needs and it's a very well paid job.

Unfortunately, in the past he (and the rest of the workforce) have been made redundant and replaced by a foreign workforce, who can afford to work cheaper but unfortunately are not as qualified.....sometimes it's false economy.

Nurses, doctors, builders, service industry often recruit from abroad instead of the UK.

Brexit doesn't have much to do with discussion, but perhaps it'll put a stop to firms advertising jobs abroad instead of recruiting local workers.

You make it sound as if employers had a choice.

They certainly didn't as far as NHS was concerned.
 
Building trade and service industry?... yes employers did have a choice but then these jobs are extremely unattractive to Brits - hence they were traditionally filled by Irish, Polish & further abroad.

Everything happens for a reason.

In the building trade, the employers can only employ if they are able to win the contracts...


So... if 'company A' has a team of available professional UK workers to do a certain potential upcoming contract, all with homes & families to pay for, and expecting to be getting a decent rate of pay for their time & effort in doing the said upcoming contract... then 'company A' will be putting in a fairly standard quote for the contract, and pricing in the cost of the fair & regularly expected rates for the workforce to do and enjoy a fair & decent living from it etc...


Now... if 'company B' pops up with a team of cheap EU workers who all live 10 to a house etc, and 'company B' can therefore pay their team a lot less, and therefore put in a much lower quote etc...


Who do you think will get the contract...!!!???


Is that fair to the UK workers who are trying to live a regular life of supporting a family etc...?


Should UK workers have to live 10 to a house too, in order to be able to get work...?