Thread: Purgatory: Welfarism Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=000789
Posted by Solly (# 11919) on :
 
An outraged interviewee on The World at One has just asked that what will happen to the children of an unemployed person who is denied benefits for three years because he has unreasonably refused to take a job. There seems to be a presumption that the only option for someone in this situation is to languish in poverty for three years until benefits are restored. Children of course will always be protected by income related benefits but has it not occurred to the outraged that the languishers are free at any time to find themselves a job? We have become a nation addicted to the breast of universal welfare and its time we let go of the nipple and started to feed ourselves. I am entirely at odds with the ABC who by advocating continuing to feed the baby when it has grown bigger than him, appears to be opting for the short-term goal of a quiet life.

[ 10. November 2014, 19:02: Message edited by: Belisarius ]
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Solly:
has it not occurred to the outraged that the languishers are free at any time to find themselves a job?
You're really funny. I've been looking for a job for 14 months. Would that I were free to just "find" one, like looking under a rock and finding pill bugs.
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
The idea of just popping out and finding a job is indeed so utterly ludicrous that I really have only one question. What's a pill bug?
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
The insectoid cousin of the armadillo. Can roll up into a nearly perfect sphere. Hangs out in dark, damp places. Indeed, the taxanomic name of the family is Armadillidiidae!
 
Posted by Alwyn (# 4380) on :
 
Number of unemployed people in the UK: 2.45 million

Number of vacancies in the UK: 459,000
(Office for National Statistics)

Some people can get a job - but not everyone can.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
[x-posted with Alwyn]

Also, a particularly funny pair of circus bugs named Tuck and Roll in Pixar's A Bug's Life.

Apparently those two are supposed to be Hungarian. Never knew that...

[ 11. November 2010, 13:21: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
Woodlouse.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alwyn:
Number of unemployed people in the UK: 2.45 million

Number of vacancies in the UK: 459,000
(Office for National Statistics)

Some people can get a job - but not everyone can.
And indeed some jobs remain open longer than they need be, for reasons I have heard put down to perfectionism. They don't need to hire somebody and train them, if they just hold out they can hire somebody who already has all of the skills they want. I've been turned down for jobs that are still open which are such that if they had hired me when the job had first posted, they could have by now brought me up to the skill level they are (still) looking for.
 
Posted by Niminypiminy (# 15489) on :
 
I too am wondering what will happen to the children of people denied benefits. How the dire effects of living in poverty can be alleviated by thrusting them into still direr poverty I fail to understand.

And in addition to Mousethief's comments about the lack of jobs, I'd just add: and where are all the jobs that fit in with school hours and school holidays or that pay enough to fund after school/holiday care whilst leaving enough left to make you better off in work?
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
I note that Solly is posting from Sussex. Says it all, really. There must be plenty of jobs as butlers and chauffeurs and housekeepers for the rich and pampered.

It ain't like that up here. Or most other places for that matter.

An acquaintance of mine is a highly qualified but unemployed architect. Even assuming he had an interview for shelf-stacker in Tesco, do you think he would be offered a job? Far too over-qualified and liable to ask awkward questions. And what sort of life is it anyway, to be forced into a menial job which you hate as a punishment for a financial meltdown which is no fault of anybody but greedy capitalists?
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
They are meant to be in dire poverty. As an example to the rest of us to work hard and obey orders and not rock the boat. Because look what happens when you don't. What happens to the poorest is not the point - the idea is to force down wages for those still in work, and to weaken trade unions.
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
They are meant to be in dire poverty. As an example to the rest of us to work hard and obey orders and not rock the boat. Because look what happens when you don't. What happens to the poorest is not the point - the idea is to force down wages for those still in work, and to weaken trade unions.
Indeed. And it makes no economic sense (outside Toryworld, that is). Highly qualified and experienced people will be forced to take lower paid jobs that they're over-qualified for, simply out of fear of having welfare withdrawn. Talent and experience will go to waste as you begin to get people who were in relatively high-powered jobs working as shelf-stackers. The result, of course, is that wages go down, private profit goes up, and the owners, who have no experience or qualifications other than sitting on their fat arses counting their money, are the only winners in the whole mess.
 
Posted by St Everild (# 3626) on :
 
Well, somebody voted for them....and this was quite clearly going to happen when they got in.

I'll look forward to the day when politicians of whatever ilk are forced into "real" jobs.
 
Posted by Solly (# 11919) on :
 
Angloid, Why do you think there are greater employment opportunities in Sussex? I am looking for work and would love to live within reasonable travelling distance of a large town or city. The fact that I am unemployed does not change my views on welfareism and if I have to commute - so be it. Until recently, I was driving 80 miles a day to work and back.

I have volunteered at Citizens Advice for many years and know that unemployment despair is greater for some than for others, but long-term reliance on benefits kills confidence, ambition, you name it. The long-term unemployed, in most cases, do need a shove to get back into work.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
And what sort of life is it anyway, to be forced into a menial job which you hate as a punishment for a financial meltdown which is no fault of anybody but greedy capitalists?
Consequences are not the same thing as punishments.
 
Posted by five (# 14492) on :
 
I was listening to Radio 4 the other day when someone phoned in to say that she and her husband had both been looking for work for over two years, and that he had turned down jobs he had been offered because they were better off on benefits.

That's a sound family fiscal decision (I would be unlikely to take on extra hours for less pay, and I suspect most other people would be the same), and one that is quite likely to anger taxpayers who are picking up the tab for the benefit bill. My suspicion is that the cancelling of the benefits for three years is a giant stick to prevent this sort of behaviour, and equally to stop the Daily Mail perception that everyone on benefits is a workshy scrounger who prefers never having a job.

All that said, I think this giant stick is for punishment, not motivation. "You will work for less money, and you will suffer more, and we will continue to demonise you whatever you do."
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
I thought that the Universal Credit system was supposed to make it more financially attractive to be in work? Details to follow, of course...
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I note that Solly is posting from Sussex. Says it all, really. There must be plenty of jobs as butlers and chauffeurs and housekeepers for the rich and pampered.
You've never lived on a council estate in Brighton have you?

When I was a kid the unemployment rate in Brighton was about the same as that in Newcastle and higher than in places like Preston or Blackburn.

Anyway, you are confusing Sussex with Surrey and the Home Counties. [Two face]

The real south-east of England isn't quite like that - as you probably know as I strongly suspect you've seen the Medway Towns or Portsmouth...

[ 11. November 2010, 16:48: Message edited by: ken ]
 
Posted by Suze (# 5639) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Solly:

I have volunteered at Citizens Advice for many years and know that unemployment despair is greater for some than for others, but long-term reliance on benefits kills confidence, ambition, you name it. The long-term unemployed, in most cases, do need a shove to get back into work.
What the long term unemployed need are jobs - if the stats posted above are to be believed there are only sufficient vacancies in the UK to employ one fifth of the current unemployed. What will we do with the rest - strip them of benefits and leave them to beg? My hubby has been looking for a job consistently for near enough a year now with no success. Qualified, experienced and very competent yet cannot find work - not talking even about a post that matches said qualifications and experience - I'm talking about any job at all. Luckily we're coping on my salary and we're not in receipt of any benefits. Until the job market changes I think it's appalling to talk about welfare scroungers. What else are people to do when there are no jobs to be had.
 
Posted by five (# 14492) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I thought that the Universal Credit system was supposed to make it more financially attractive to be in work? Details to follow, of course...
I think that's the theory (and the devil, or angel, will be in the details). I think the real effectiveness, for what that's worth, will be in the fact that benefits will be capped to much lower levels than current and that benefits will be withdrawn or turned down.

The headlines will be "X million removed from benefit rolls" but the reality will be more entrenched poverty and what goes with it.

I'm for cutting the benefit bill, and I'm for getting people back into work,but I'm not sure this is the best way to do it. Then again, I'm not sure I have any better or more effective ideas.
 
Posted by Niminypiminy (# 15489) on :
 
There's not that much difference between what is being proposed and the principle of 'less eligibility' that underpinned the Poor Law Reform Act of 1834. Then the idea was that all poor relief should be abolished leaving only the workhouse, which should be made 'less eligible', that is so horrible, that no-one would choose to enter it if they had any other choice.

Obviously workhouses and the absolute abolition of benefits are not being proposed here, but the principle that the poor somehow 'choose' to be on benefits rather than to work does underpin Duncan Smith's welfare reforms, and it therefore follows that benefits should be set at such a low level that no-one would, in their right mind, choose them.

This will only work if unemployment really is a choice -- as so many people have pointed out, for the vast majority it obviously isn't. In that sense, 'deserving claimants' (to borrow another Victorian term) are being beaten with the same stick that is aimed at undeserving claimants.

But it also works to undermine the principle that founded the welfare state (and which also motivated many of the opponents of the Poor Law Reform Act), that poor people deserve that the rest of society support them at a level of decency simply because they are human. Whether or not they are responsible for their own poverty is beside the point: they are not responsible for their own humanity. (That principle has been chipped away at by other measures, for example the appalling and degrading treatment of asylum seekers who have lost their case, who are entitled to nothing at all.)

I don't know how to reduce the benefit bill, and I don't know what to do about people who don't look for work (for whatever reason). I wish I did. But I would think more of the coalition in pressing forward their welfare reforms (which I abhor) if they were able to be as honest about what they were doing as their nineteenth-century predeccesors, and not pretend that they can cut benefits and not put people into penury.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I thought that the Universal Credit system was supposed to make it more financially attractive to be in work? Details to follow, of course...
The devil will be in that detail, because a consequence of a single benefit will be that one claim will get the claimant all the benefits they are entitled to. That will increase the amount paid to many claimants and the Treasury won't like that. At the moment so many benefits are claimed separately that you need to be unemployed for some months before you work out what you are entitled to!

Personally, I think higher wages would do more to reduce unemployment. A bit more carrot, a bit less stick.
 
Posted by Apocalypso (# 15405) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
<<snippety>>. . . because a consequence of a single benefit will be that one claim will get the claimant all the benefits they are entitled to . . . <<snippety>>
A move which appears likely to increase the number of unemployed, as it will put claims-processors out of work . . .
 
Posted by Jessie Phillips (# 13048) on :
 
Well, when Nick Clegg and IDS say that they think the new sanctions will only be applied very rarely, I think they're right. As it is, Daily Mail readers think that people are sometimes better off on the dole than they are in work - but this can only be true if sanctions are applied so rarely as to be almost unheard of.

So, what's to say that sanctions are going to be applied under the new regime any more frequently than they currently are?

Don't forget that when sanctions are applied, you always have a right to appeal - as long as you submit your initial appeal request quickly enough. If you request an in-person tribunal hearing, and if you turn up to the hearing but the DWP doesn't, then you will almost certainly win, and be awarded your benefit back-pay. It's not unusual for the DWP to fail to send a rep to tribunal hearings; I guess this happens particularly frequently when the amount of benefit back-pay at stake is less than the cost of the legal expert that the DWP needs to defend their decision.

What's that I hear some people say? Remove the right to appeal? Hmm, can't see that happening any time soon.

But what if that does happen? What will people do if you stop their benefits? Will they beg? Or will they shoplift the supermarkets?

The government had better make sure they've got enough prison places free. I realise that, technically speaking, the workhouse isn't being reintroduced - but, in practice, I don't suppose that there's much to tell between formally acknowledged "indoor relief", and custodial sentences for shoplifting offences.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I note that Solly is posting from Sussex. Says it all, really. There must be plenty of jobs as butlers and chauffeurs and housekeepers for the rich and pampered.
Indeed, but it's different in the West Country. You just can't get the staff these days.

I have had to learn how to uncork a bottle of wine - such an indignity - that God for screw tops.

I even have to put out my own rubbish on Thursdays. Goodness knows what it does to my nice, soft hands.

I even have to dress myself these days.

'Tis outrage.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I thought that the Universal Credit system was supposed to make it more financially attractive to be in work? Details to follow, of course...
So rather than saving money on benefits because more people are in work, what we'll be doing is subsidising low-paid jobs.

Part of me thinks that work - any work - is better than unemployement. Part of me thinks that a significant proportion of this money is going to end up in some very rich people's back pockets.

If the stated aim is to make work pay, there is one simple solution: increase the minimum wage so that 48*hourly rate > benefits + housing benefit + council tax relief
 
Posted by Traveller (# 1943) on :
 
The problem is, as far as I understand a complex area of which I have no direct experience, is that the income from work is the hourly rate for the job times the hours worked. No allowance or extras for supporting a family or living costs.

The horrendously complex Benefits system is based on personal circumstances, with a very rapid taper on the withdrawal of benefits, plus the kicking in of tax and National Insurance, if the claimant starts to receive income from other sources.

This is the basis of the poverty trap, where it is financially beneficial to some people to stay on benefits rather than take a job.

There is the nub of the problem: income based on market rates for the job done or benefit based on personal circumstances (I do not want to say need). The idea of the Universal Credit would seem to be to try to bridge this divide and make it always more beneficial to be in work than not.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Maybe what's needed is a rise in the minimum wage.
 
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Alwyn:
Number of unemployed people in the UK: 2.45 million

Number of vacancies in the UK: 459,000
(Office for National Statistics)

Some people can get a job - but not everyone can.
And indeed some jobs remain open longer than they need be, for reasons I have heard put down to perfectionism. They don't need to hire somebody and train them, if they just hold out they can hire somebody who already has all of the skills they want. I've been turned down for jobs that are still open which are such that if they had hired me when the job had first posted, they could have by now brought me up to the skill level they are (still) looking for.
Yes, perfectionism is nasty. So is being turned down because you said you'd move to the employer's town instead of commuting two hours each way. That commitment indicates you aren't as disposable as they want you to be.

On the subject of the UK's job numbers, two things.

1) Involuntary Unemployment.
2) Depression. Let's use the appropriate word here.
 
Posted by blackbeard (# 10848) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Traveller:
...make it always more beneficial to be in work than not.
And this has been the avowed aim of every government coming into power that I can remember (and that goes back a long way). And that same government, when it eventually loses power, does so having failed to solve the problem.
I wish I knew - I wish anyone knew (really knew, rather than shouting a lot) - what the solution is. It's always possible, of course, that careful thought by those with knowledge of the problem could produce, if not a solution, at least an improvement. I would like to think this might happen.

(And I hugely doubt that raising the minimum wage is an answer - that will either result in fewer jobs, or result in a black economy, neither of which is helpful. No employer is going to pay more than the labour is worth. Sorry to have to point this out.)
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by blackbeard:
No employer is going to pay more than the labour is worth. Sorry to have to point this out.
I think there are plenty of examples where they do precisely this: mainly at the top end of many of the most poorly-paid sectors: banking, the arts, sports, to name just three. While I'd be overwhelmed with Mr Spielberg shovelling a lorry-load of cash my way, the 'market rate' is simply an illusion and not at all based on sound accounting.

What you're attempting to say is that there is continuous pressure to drive down labour costs for the lowest paid. Which is true. But since the tax payer picking up the tab for that, it's also true that we're subsidising such jobs and contributing to that downward pressure. We need to transfer that cost back onto the employer by raising the minimum wage. (Remember the arguments against it when it brought in, how it would ruin the country? Pfft. Didn't happen.)
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by blackbeard:
(And I hugely doubt that raising the minimum wage is an answer - that will either result in fewer jobs, or result in a black economy, neither of which is helpful. No employer is going to pay more than the labour is worth. Sorry to have to point this out.)
If they need the work done, then it's worth paying the minimum wage to get it done. Sorry to have to point this out.
 
Posted by RadicalWhig (# 13190) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Solly:
I have volunteered at Citizens Advice for many years and know that unemployment despair is greater for some than for others, but long-term reliance on benefits kills confidence, ambition, you name it. The long-term unemployed, in most cases, do need a shove to get back into work.
The problem with shoving people who are in a weak position is that it tends to make them fall over.

On this, I agree with ken. The purpose is not to help the weakest, but to make an example of them, so that the rest of us are scared into knuckling down, toeing the line, tugging our forelocks, and being gratefully subordinate to our "betters".
 
Posted by ianjmatt (# 5683) on :
 
I disagree. If there is work available, people should take it.

The number of available jobs is utterly irrelevant here. This is all about refusing work, not being unable to find work.
 
Posted by RadicalWhig (# 13190) on :
 
I think we are forgetting an important thing.

When unemployment insurance and labour exchanges were set up in the early 20th century, and when the full welfare state was rolled out after WW2, unemployment and the problems associated with it were really only an issue for the working class.

Now we have a reality of middle class and professional unemployment. So we are forcing people who might have years of education and training - as well as a certain status and self-image derived from their work - to take other jobs for which they are "over qualified", and which might seem "infra dig". I worry not only about the economic irrationality of that, but also about its psychological effects.
 
Posted by ianjmatt (# 5683) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
I think we are forgetting an important thing.

When unemployment insurance and labour exchanges were set up in the early 20th century, and when the full welfare state was rolled out after WW2, unemployment and the problems associated with it were really only an issue for the working class.

Now we have a reality of middle class and professional unemployment. So we are forcing people who might have years of education and training - as well as a certain status and self-image derived from their work - to take other jobs for which they are "over qualified", and which might seem "infra dig". I worry not only about the economic irrationality of that, but also about its psychological effects.
But that is exactly what I did this year. I was made redundant from my role of running the European division of a US-based publisher. After six months I couldn't find a job, redundancy was running out so I took a McJob (local restaurant), topped up with Working Tax Credit (which will still be part of the Universal Credit thing), and used that as the secure base to set up my consultancy that I now do full-time.

Psychological effects are over-rated.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:

Now we have a reality of middle class and professional unemployment. So we are forcing people who might have years of education and training - as well as a certain status and self-image derived from their work - to take other jobs for which they are "over qualified", and which might seem "infra dig". I worry not only about the economic irrationality of that, but also about its psychological effects.
Having all-too-personal-and-recent experience of exactly this, I have to say honestly I am not concerned at all for the psychological effects. It has probably done myself and my equally over-educated-and-underemployed husband more benefit than harm both psychologically and spiritually to be brought down a peg or two. Humility is good, even if the lesson is a painful one.

otoh, if those over-educated/qualified applicants are able to find low-paying low-skill jobs (which has not been my experience, btw-- most employers have no interest in hiring a college-educated cashier/shelf stocker who they correctly anticipate will leave the minute employment opportunities improve) then what happens to all those who would otherwise be filling those unskilled jobs?
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ianjmatt:
I disagree. If there is work available, people should take it.

The number of available jobs is utterly irrelevant here. This is all about refusing work, not being unable to find work.
Is it bollocks!

Are you really suggesting that people should reduce their effective income by working? Because with the current system that is what happens. Most benefits, as has been mentioned, taper quite rapidly, and they taper separately.

If someone received housing benefit, council tax benefit, Jobseekers allowance and income support for their dependents plus free school meals and grants or loans for school clothes, then an extra 5 quid a week earned will reduce each benefit by a couple of pounds here, a couple more there and before you know it their income will be lower than it was before thy had a job. Oh, and they will have to get to work, which probably means travel expenditure and very likely wearing smarter clothes, which cost more again.

Yes, your comment is indeed bollocks. Why should anybody have their income reduced, especially someone who doesn't have a whole lot of income in the first place?
 
Posted by ianjmatt (# 5683) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by ianjmatt:
I disagree. If there is work available, people should take it.

The number of available jobs is utterly irrelevant here. This is all about refusing work, not being unable to find work.
Is it bollocks!

Are you really suggesting that people should reduce their effective income by working? Because with the current system that is what happens. Most benefits, as has been mentioned, taper quite rapidly, and they taper separately.

If someone received housing benefit, council tax benefit, Jobseekers allowance and income support for their dependents plus free school meals and grants or loans for school clothes, then an extra 5 quid a week earned will reduce each benefit by a couple of pounds here, a couple more there and before you know it their income will be lower than it was before thy had a job. Oh, and they will have to get to work, which probably means travel expenditure and very likely wearing smarter clothes, which cost more again.

Yes, your comment is indeed bollocks. Why should anybody have their income reduced, especially someone who doesn't have a whole lot of income in the first place?
1. Because it is morally reprehensible to take money off the state when it can be earned.
2. The point of these proposals is to make sure that work always pays more. If that is achieved, and my post is assuming that, then my post is most certainly not bollocks.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ianjmatt:
1. Because it is morally reprehensible to take money off the state when it can be earned.
2. The point of these proposals is to make sure that work always pays more. If that is achieved, and my post is assuming that, then my post is most certainly not bollocks.
If I agree with point 1, how does that square with working tax credits? I'm working, yet still I'm not earning enough to be as well off as I would be on benefit, so I have to go to the state for a subsidy because my employers can get away with not paying a working wage.

If we raised the minimum wage, this problem would go away, saving the state money, and raising more in taxes.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ianjmatt:
I disagree. If there is work available, people should take it.

The number of available jobs is utterly irrelevant here. This is all about refusing work, not being unable to find work.
And how do you propose to tell the difference?
 
Posted by Apocalypso (# 15405) on :
 
What I wonder is why (on this side of the pond, at least), we have a cohort of folks rolling in inherited wealth who, though they could easily sit back and clip coupons for their daily bread, INSIST on working thereby keeping jobs from others.

Is there a moral difference between living off Daddy's (or Mummy's) pile and living off state largesse?
 
Posted by blackbeard (# 10848) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
If they need the work done, then it's worth paying the minimum wage to get it done. Sorry to have to point this out.
Not quite there.
To start with, how much does the employer want the work done? Absolutely essential, or nice-to-have?
If expanding the labour force is too expensive - how about down-sizing?
Then again. Are there other ways of doing it - expensive hi-tech solutions that employ fewer people, perhaps?
What about outsourcing - overseas, perhaps?
And finally - if the work must be done, but the employer can't afford to have it done - then bankruptcy beckons, and everyone in the firm is out of a job.
Like you, I would like to see a society in which everyone can have a job which pays decently. I expect that most people would like to see this. The question is, how can we bring it about? Latching on to a proposed solution, even one that might not work, isn't a way forward.

Nobody said this would be easy.
 
Posted by blackbeard (# 10848) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
...... it's also true that we're subsidising such jobs and contributing to that downward pressure.

Could be. Could you say just how you see this working?

quote:

We need to transfer that cost back onto the employer by raising the minimum wage. (Remember the arguments against it when it brought in, how it would ruin the country? Pfft. Didn't happen.)
Well maybe it didn't happen. Some would look at the present state of affairs and think, maybe it did happen.
Although, since the minimum wage was set at a prety low level, maybe it didn't do anything much at all, either good or bad.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by blackbeard:
Latching on to a proposed solution, even one that might not work, isn't a way forward.

Nobody said this would be easy.
Um, what else can we possibly do but try proposed solutions? Anything we try will have first to be proposed.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Maybe what's needed is a rise in the minimum wage.
Likely to be inflationary in consequences.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by ianjmatt:
I disagree. If there is work available, people should take it.

The number of available jobs is utterly irrelevant here. This is all about refusing work, not being unable to find work.
Is it bollocks!

Are you really suggesting that people should reduce their effective income by working? Because with the current system that is what happens. Most benefits, as has been mentioned, taper quite rapidly, and they taper separately.

If someone received housing benefit, council tax benefit, Jobseekers allowance and income support for their dependents plus free school meals and grants or loans for school clothes, then an extra 5 quid a week earned will reduce each benefit by a couple of pounds here, a couple more there and before you know it their income will be lower than it was before thy had a job. Oh, and they will have to get to work, which probably means travel expenditure and very likely wearing smarter clothes, which cost more again.

Yes, your comment is indeed bollocks. Why should anybody have their income reduced, especially someone who doesn't have a whole lot of income in the first place?
But isn't the whole point of what IDS is proposing is that your income won't go down - if it works, of course...
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by ianjmatt:
1. Because it is morally reprehensible to take money off the state when it can be earned.
2. The point of these proposals is to make sure that work always pays more. If that is achieved, and my post is assuming that, then my post is most certainly not bollocks.
If I agree with point 1, how does that square with working tax credits? I'm working, yet still I'm not earning enough to be as well off as I would be on benefit, so I have to go to the state for a subsidy because my employers can get away with not paying a working wage.

Or possibly they can't afford to pay you a decent wage - as is the case with me at the moment as an employer. So exactly how do you propose that cash-strapped employers pay for a higher minimum wage?

[ 12. November 2010, 08:28: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by blackbeard:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
...... it's also true that we're subsidising such jobs and contributing to that downward pressure.

Could be. Could you say just how you see this working?
It's not that difficult to join the dots.

The employer still gets the work done by the employee, and gets the profit associated with that work. The employee still gets paid a decent amount for doing that work.

The disconnect is that the employee is being partly paid by the taxpayer to put money in the pocket of the employer. The employer, knowing that they can get away with paying their employees little, because the state will top it up, has no incentive to keep productive employees by paying them enough to live on.

IDS, if you're reading this, you're contributing to this situation, and it's wrong and stupid. If you want work to pay, then tot up the amount a person gets on benefits a week, divide it by 48 (or even 40) and then add 10%. Make it so that no job pays less than that. Move the tax allowances so that no one pays tax on the first 10k they earn, and do something about NI. Integrate it into the tax system properly, please.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
Which 'person on benefits' would you like IDS to look at? There are many different levels and types of benefit. Who should be IDS' 'Man on the Clapham benefits ominibus'? And you still haven't said how this proposed hike in the minimum wage is to be paid for.

[ 12. November 2010, 08:33: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by ianjmatt:
1. Because it is morally reprehensible to take money off the state when it can be earned.
2. The point of these proposals is to make sure that work always pays more. If that is achieved, and my post is assuming that, then my post is most certainly not bollocks.
If I agree with point 1, how does that square with working tax credits? I'm working, yet still I'm not earning enough to be as well off as I would be on benefit, so I have to go to the state for a subsidy because my employers can get away with not paying a working wage.

Or possibly they can't afford to pay you a decent wage - as is the case with me at the moment as an employer. So exactly how do you propose that cash-strapped employers pay for a higher minimum wage?
Why should you expect the state to bail you out?

If the work needs doing, sorry, but you have to actually pay someone properly to do it. That means you have to charge properly for it. That means your clients, who presumably need the work doing by a solicitor, have to pay properly for the work.

That's why it's called a 'job', not volunteering'.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Which 'person on benefits' would you like IDS to look at? There are many different levels and types of benefit. Who should be IDS' 'Man on the Clapham benefits ominibus'? And you still haven't said how this proposed hike in the minimum wage is to be paid for.
At the risk of double posting...

£5.93 an hour. 48 hour week, £284.64 a week. £14,800 a year. Before tax. That's slightly more than half of the average wage. A veritable King's ransom indeed.

The employer pays for it. Not the tax payer.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
Yes, the solution is either that we all have to put our charges up - which is inflationary and so tends to wipe out the value of any increase in minimum wage - or we can't employ as many people, which feeds unemployment. So, which do you prefer - higher inflation wiping out the increase in MW, or higher unemployment? And, while we're asking questions, hands up all those who want to pay higher solicitors' fees for moving house so that unemployment comes down?

[cp - again, how do you propose the employer pays for it?]

[ 12. November 2010, 08:42: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
While my son was unemployed - and I am very grateful that it was only for a few months - he receieved £50 a week. He was living at home and didn't *need* the money, only using it for petrol and evenings out. Should he have received it when he wasn't in need? I don't know.

I do know that I have worked full time for 32 years paying taxes and this is the first time any of us have drawn the dole - so I don't feel too bad about it TBH.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Yes, the solution is either that we all have to put our charges up - which is inflationary and so tends to wipe out the value of any increase in minimum wage - or we can't employ as many people, which feeds unemployment. So, which do you prefer - higher inflation wiping out the increase in MW, or higher unemployment? And, while we're asking questions, hands up all those who want to pay higher solicitors' fees for moving house so that unemployment comes down?

[cp - again, how do you propose the employer pays for it?]
Matt - I have to assume you need another cup of coffee. Make it a strong one.

It is not inflationary to pay someone £5.93 for every hour they work. That's such a pitifully low rate (£10/hr gets you the average wage), I could reasonably argue it's actually deflationary.

I'm aware of the disbursements that need to be made during a house move. I'm also aware that when the conveyancing market was deregulated, there was yet another race to the bottom. The one time we bought a house (we're still living in it), we ponied up Proper Solicitors' fees to have the job done right. So yes. *puts hand up*

When the blokes who service my boiler and gas fire come round, I brew up, they get to work, we chat for a bit (I've known them for years - they came with the house, so to speak), they make sure we're not going to die horribly or freeze to death in the forseeable, and I pay them £80 for about 45 mins work. And they've bloody earned it.

If - and this is a big, personally costly if - we actually believe that work should pay, and we're fed up with people being better off on benefits than they are in a job, then we have to pay people properly. If we're serious, it will cost us more, but we'll pay gladly because it's important. Otherwise those who sound off about this are just a bunch of hypocrites.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
On that, I agree completely; if I was a French lawyer, I could charge about 7 times the amount I charge here for pretty much the same amount of work. In a more economically stable time, your scheme would have a much greater chance of working, but how do we persuade people ATM to part with more cash when they've already got less of it in their pockets? If I increased my fees right now, that would be commercial suicide - clients would in the main go down the road to El Cheapo Conveyancing Factory LLP in droves.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
On that, I agree completely; if I was a French lawyer, I could charge about 7 times the amount I charge here for pretty much the same amount of work. In a more economically stable time, your scheme would have a much greater chance of working, but how do we persuade people ATM to part with more cash when they've already got less of it in their pockets? If I increased my fees right now, that would be commercial suicide - clients would in the main go down the road to El Cheapo Conveyancing Factory LLP in droves.
It's difficult - but it's *not* the minimum wage's fault. I genuinely forget which stripe of government put the deregulation through, but it's just another example (as if we needed it) of the unfettered market causing more harm than good.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
So should the Law Society and SRA combine to create a Scale Fees cartel, like we had prior to (I think) 1985? In what way would that be competitive and not inflationary? (I actually like the idea in reality, but I can see those two obvious problems with it.)
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
Are you honestly suggesting that solicitors being able to pay minimum wage rates to staff is inflationary? People don't move house often enough that it gets included in the RPI like bread and milk...

It'd be better if the conveyancing factories were held to the same standards as solicitors. In the same way that accident claim factories should be. (Again, when I got run over, I had a Proper Solicitor handle my claim. I'm like that.)
 
Posted by RadicalWhig (# 13190) on :
 
Just a small insight.

A few years ago I sold a property in Luxembourg. In Luxembourg estate agents' fees are fixed (I'm not sure whether they are fixed by law or by some sort of industry-wide agreement) at 3%. That's a massive fee, considering there are estate agents in the UK who will change 0.5%, or even a fairly small fixed fee. But the upside is that, not being able to compete on low price, they were forced to compete on high quality. Price fixing, in this case, drove up standards, quality, and (I suppose) overall well-being. There was a race to the top rather than a race to the bottom.

Price fixing is also part of the reason French bread is worth eating compared to most of the rubbish that is passed off as bread in the UK. The price of a loaf was fixed according to its weight, so bakers had to compete on quality and not on price.

Bring back the guilds. (Don't worry, I'm only half serious).
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
You may be onto something there.

DocTor, no, solicitors on their own increasing their charges won't affect inflation much, but apply the same principle across the board and it will tend to have that effect.
 
Posted by blackbeard (# 10848) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
..........IDS, if you're reading this, you're contributing to this situation, and it's wrong and stupid. If you want work to pay, then tot up the amount a person gets on benefits a week, divide it by 48 (or even 40) and then add 10%. Make it so that no job pays less than that. Move the tax allowances so that no one pays tax on the first 10k they earn, and do something about NI. Integrate it into the tax system properly, please.
You make it sound so easy.
And this a variant on what every UK government has tried to do over the last umpteen years, and in each case has failed miserably.
Maybe it's not so easy.
(Or maybe every government over the last umpteen years has been terminally stupid.)

I'm still left with a suspicion that you are pinning hopes on minimum wage legislation. Matt Black explains more clearly than I can just why this won't work. Or maybe you have a scheme which will work - if so, please say how ...

I don't want to sound like the Daily Mail, and I'm not applying for a job as Telegraph leader writer. I'm aware that we (and every other nation under the sun, even if the French do it better) has a desperate problem with real people in real distress, and I'm enough of a crazy optimist to consider that careful logical thought might help ...

... and I wish IDS every success, even while I may have reservations about his approach.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Are you honestly suggesting that solicitors being able to pay minimum wage rates to staff is inflationary? People don't move house often enough that it gets included in the RPI like bread and milk...
You're being a tad disingenuous here. It wouldn't just be solicitors putting up their prices, it'd be everyone. Shops. Public transport. Pubs. Clubs. Restaurants. Cinemas. Everyone would put their prices up in order to finance the extra wage bill.

Now, you might say that's all well and good, and we as consumers should be paying the full whack for what we buy. But consider the people this scheme is supposed to be helping - the ones on minimum wage. They will be getting more pay, sure - but when they come to spend it they will be paying the same inflated prices as the rest of us. They won't see any real benefit, or increase in their purchasing power.

And it's purchasing power that really counts, not how much money you have. It doesn't matter if you have £5 or £500 - what matters is how much you can actually buy for that amount. You're better off having £5 in your pocket with bread costing 50p than having £50 in your pocket with bread costing £6.

And then there's the folk on benefits, who will also have to pay the same inflated prices as the rest of us. Which would mean that either they would be poorer in real (purchasing power) terms, or benefits would have to increase to keep pace with inflation - thus ensuring that the situation remains exactly the same as it is now.

But maybe you could write a law that says employers aren't allowed to raise prices to compensate for the increased wage bill. That would solve the purchasing power problem, but of course it would mean a lot of employers being unable to cover their costs through sales and going out of business. Or sacking staff to equalise the budget. Either way, unemployment goes up.

Simply increasing the minimum wage is a lose-lose situation. Either the inflationary effect means there's no real change for those on minimum wage (the rest of us are worse off, of course, but then I guess we don't count), or unemployment goes up. That's why, since the introduction of the minimum wage, it's always been percieved as being too low.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
You may be onto something there.

DocTor, no, solicitors on their own increasing their charges won't affect inflation much, but apply the same principle across the board and it will tend to have that effect.
*needs to get on with work!*

I don't think it will. Many, many other factors - raw materials, weather, exchange rates have a far greater impact on inflation than the labour cost of what we buy.

Seriously, if I buy a box of 80 tea bags for £1.50, how much of that do you think goes to pay the wages of the people who actually grew the tea, packed it into crates, sailed it here, drove it to the packaging plant and then on to the store? It'll be pennies at best - paying them a few pennies more isn't inflationary.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
I need to get on with work too, otherwise even more clients will desert me!

But see what Marvin has said - much the same as I've been arguing: the extra money you're asking for has to come from somewhere so either it's inflationary or will increase unemployment in the present climate
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Seriously, if I buy a box of 80 tea bags for £1.50, how much of that do you think goes to pay the wages of the people who actually grew the tea, packed it into crates, sailed it here, drove it to the packaging plant and then on to the store? It'll be pennies at best - paying them a few pennies more isn't inflationary.
It is, because the company will simply add the extra pennies onto the price. Instead of a £1.50 box with the employees getting (say) 5p, you'll have a £1.55 box with the employees getting 10p.

But, as each individual employee's share of that extra 5p is tiny, the increase in their earnings is less than the increase in the price of the box. The employees are now less able to buy the box than they were to start with.
 
Posted by dyfrig (# 15) on :
 
Just log it as "Admin", Matt. Or "Research".

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Seriously, if I buy a box of 80 tea bags for £1.50, how much of that do you think goes to pay the wages of the people who actually grew the tea, packed it into crates, sailed it here, drove it to the packaging plant and then on to the store? It'll be pennies at best - paying them a few pennies more isn't inflationary.
You forget, Doc, that business sometimes use factors that don't really cause them difficutly to raise prices - decimalisation, VAT rises and the like usually also led to business adding a little bit more on, on the assumption that no-one would notice and couldn't do a damn thing about it. When VAT went up from 15% to 17.%% in the early 90s, my nearest record store bumped it's £6.99 albums up to £7.15* as a first step, and pretty soon thereafter they went up to £7.29/£7.49 - so an actual rise of 2.2% in the total cost of the product due to the tax rise became a 4.1% rise to the consumer. Ever wondered why consumer fuel prices go up whenever there's a hike in raw fuel costs, but never seems to go down at the same rate? Even if raising the minimum wage didn't actually cause a major rise in total commitments, I suspect the business community would happily use it as an excuse to raise prices.

* One of those bizarre snippets that lodged in my brain - I noticed it when the price of "The Drill" by Wire went up after the VAT change came in.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Seriously, if I buy a box of 80 tea bags for £1.50, how much of that do you think goes to pay the wages of the people who actually grew the tea, packed it into crates, sailed it here, drove it to the packaging plant and then on to the store? It'll be pennies at best - paying them a few pennies more isn't inflationary.
It is, because the company will simply add the extra pennies onto the price. Instead of a £1.50 box with the employees getting (say) 5p, you'll have a £1.55 box with the employees getting 10p.

But, as each individual employee's share of that extra 5p is tiny, the increase in their earnings is less than the increase in the price of the box. The employees are now less able to buy the box than they were to start with.
So let's say that the overall cost of the box goes up by 5p. The result of that is everyone involves with the process gets 5p, divided by the number of workers (let's say 5, to keep the maths simple). A penny per box. Let's shift a thousand boxes a day, because people like tea. That's a thousand extra pennies a day, or £10. Or £70 a week.

Should cover an extra 5p on a box of tea bags, even if, like me, you really love tea.

And even though I should be writing a book instead of being on here - how much do you think an author gets paid? If my publisher sells a copy of one of my novels for £7.99, how much of that - as the creator of the work - do you think I get? How much do you think I should get?
 
Posted by dyfrig (# 15) on :
 
Depends who you are.

If you are the famous book writer Dan Brown, then you're clearly a very savvy businessman who has managed to get lots of people to buy very bad books.

If you, on the other hand, Simon Parke, you may be a little odd but worth reading.

[Big Grin]
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Should cover an extra 5p on a box of tea bags, even if, like me, you really love tea.
Well yes, if tea was the only thing that increase you'd have a point. But when they're added to everything those 5p increases really do add up.

quote:
And even though I should be writing a book instead of being on here - how much do you think an author gets paid? If my publisher sells a copy of one of my novels for £7.99, how much of that - as the creator of the work - do you think I get? How much do you think I should get?
I have no idea. How much does it cost the publisher to actually do their part of the process? How many staff do they have to employ? What are their overheads? How much of the price has to go to the staff/overheads of the shop that actually does the selling? Add in a little profit for the shop and the publisher (it's only fair) and what's left should go to you.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Should cover an extra 5p on a box of tea bags, even if, like me, you really love tea.
Well yes, if tea was the only thing that increase you'd have a point. But when they're added to everything those 5p increases really do add up.
Even accepting that wage costs would be passed straight to the consumer (which they're not), the amount of a product that is 'wages' is miniscule. See below.
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
And even though I should be writing a book instead of being on here - how much do you think an author gets paid? If my publisher sells a copy of one of my novels for £7.99, how much of that - as the creator of the work - do you think I get? How much do you think I should get?
I have no idea. How much does it cost the publisher to actually do their part of the process? How many staff do they have to employ? What are their overheads? How much of the price has to go to the staff/overheads of the shop that actually does the selling? Add in a little profit for the shop and the publisher (it's only fair) and what's left should go to you.
Okay. The economics work something like this: the bookshop (or Amazon, or whoever) will take somewhere in the region of 35-50% of the cover price. The publisher will take the rest: the author will earn around 5-10% of the cover price, depending on the book format (hardbacks earn more, paperbacks less) - unless the book has been discounted by either the publisher or bookseller, in which case, it's 5-10% of the net. So out of a £8 book, the bloke what wrote it gets between 40-80p, less if it's on the 3 for 2 table.

I'm not pleading poverty here (though most UK authors earn below £2000 a year, if anything at all), but paying 11,12 or even 15% wouldn't destroy the publishing industry.

But most places work like this. If I cough up a tenner for 'OMGWTF 3D', the usher who rips my ticket in two and points me to the right screen isn't getting even 1% of the entry price.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
I should add the physical cost of the book: for a mass-market paperback, printed in any quantity: less than £2, probably less than £1, depending on the print run.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Even accepting that wage costs would be passed straight to the consumer (which they're not)
Well they've got to go somewhere. Where else are businesses going to put them?
 
Posted by ianjmatt (# 5683) on :
 
Publishers explanation of the costs etc:

PPB (Print Paper Binding) for a B format paperback is about £1 average (based on a 3 - 5K print run and 192 pages). The average sales in the 1st year for all paperbacks if 3K units.
Cover Design is about £350 - £500 (or about 15p for a 3K print run).
Typesetting about £500 (15p also)
Proofreading - 1p per word - £600 for an average book (20p)
Acquisitions Editor - assuming a salary of £30K and 20 books a year (£1500 - 50p)
Copy editor - same (50p)
Marketing (£1 per projected unit sold)

This doesn't take into account sales costs, infrastructure, support staff, office costs, tax, benefits & employers NI) etc. However, this is a base cost of £3.50.

If the book has a retail cost of £8.99 it would be sold for an average of 45% so that would mean an income of £4.94.

Royalties are usually paid on net value now (since the collapse of the Net Book Agreement) at around 13% for the average author. This would be 13% of £4.94, or 64p.

So, £3.50 and 64p = £4.14 which leaves 80p to cover all other costs, produce a profit and finance expansion.
 
Posted by Moth (# 2589) on :
 
All I know about writing books is that its bloody hard work for very little money. At any rate, my allegedly successful textbook probably pays me about 10p/hour!
 
Posted by Afghan (# 10478) on :
 
I suspect that increasing the minimum wage is somewhat inflationary. People at the bottom end of the income spectrum tend to spend proportionally more of their income so you'd be pushing demand up.

But... it wouldn't be so inflationary that they wouldn't be better off in real terms. Only people at the bottom of the scale would be earning more. So the overall proportional increase in demand would be less than the particular proportional increase in their income.

You'd have to factor in the damping effect of the inflationary pressure you create but it doesn't make it impossible.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ianjmatt:
Royalties are usually paid on net value now (since the collapse of the Net Book Agreement) at around 13% for the average author. This would be 13% of £4.94, or 64p.
13%? Blimey.

*phones agent*

Yes, margins are tight all around. A friend of mine is waging a campaign to have the 3-for-2 table banned. But the fact remains that as the creator of the work sold, we see little of the cost to the consumer - as it is, mostly, in every other sector.

As to where business finds the money to pay for a little extra on the minimum wage... ooh, let's try freezing the big salaries at the top so that the drones can buy more soma. Apparently there's a recession on: the executives are hardly going to bail, are they?
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Afghan:
I suspect that increasing the minimum wage is somewhat inflationary. People at the bottom end of the income spectrum tend to spend proportionally more of their income so you'd be pushing demand up.

But... it wouldn't be so inflationary that they wouldn't be better off in real terms. Only people at the bottom of the scale would be earning more. So the overall proportional increase in demand would be less than the particular proportional increase in their income.

You'd have to factor in the damping effect of the inflationary pressure you create but it doesn't make it impossible.
But you've also got the problem of the people who were earning at the grade above ie; round about the new minimum wage will want a pay rise too - and the people above them and above them etc...
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
So wherever the minimum wage accidentally happens to be, NOW, is the best place for it to be? Or maybe we should lower it to optimize ... something?
 
Posted by NJA (# 13022) on :
 
Why oh why do all on sickness benefit get an extra £20 per week?

I can understand if a few do because they need to get taxis into town or they need a special diet of expensive foods, but for the rest, the great majority, isn't it just a joke at our expense?
People on SB stay at home more, go to fewer interviews, job schemes etc.

Are there any doctors in the house thaty can give their angle?

I know depressed people genuinely feel they cannnot work, and they may well be right, but does that mean they need an extra £20 a week seeing as they have less expenses than a person actively seeking work?

[ 12. November 2010, 22:25: Message edited by: NJA ]
 
Posted by Afghan (# 10478) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
But you've also got the problem of the people who were earning at the grade above ie; round about the new minimum wage will want a pay rise too - and the people above them and above them etc...
Yes. There is inflationary pressure. But it's pushing from the bottom. If I'm just above the new minimum wage I can probably push for a raise... but I can't push as hard as someone who was below the legal minimum. If I'm way above the legal minimum, it's not that much ammunition at all when I go into my pay review. I think the overall effect is to disproportionately enhance the wage of those at the bottom.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by Afghan:
I suspect that increasing the minimum wage is somewhat inflationary. People at the bottom end of the income spectrum tend to spend proportionally more of their income so you'd be pushing demand up.

But... it wouldn't be so inflationary that they wouldn't be better off in real terms. Only people at the bottom of the scale would be earning more. So the overall proportional increase in demand would be less than the particular proportional increase in their income.

You'd have to factor in the damping effect of the inflationary pressure you create but it doesn't make it impossible.
But you've also got the problem of the people who were earning at the grade above ie; round about the new minimum wage will want a pay rise too - and the people above them and above them etc...
Did it happen when the minimum wage was introduced? There was some chatter about it before hand, but I can't remember it being a factor afterwards.

(If I was being pious, I'd remind folk about the parable of the workers in the vineyard, and how they were all paid the same whenever during the day they were hired. And Jesus' response to the complaints...)
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by NJA:
Why oh why do all on sickness benefit get an extra £20 per week?

I can understand if a few do because they need to get taxis into town or they need a special diet of expensive foods, but for the rest, the great majority, isn't it just a joke at our expense?
People on SB stay at home more, go to fewer interviews, job schemes etc.

Are there any doctors in the house thaty can give their angle?

I know depressed people genuinely feel they cannnot work, and they may well be right, but does that mean they need an extra £20 a week seeing as they have less expenses than a person actively seeking work?
It's £20 more than a pretty mean figure in the first place!

If you want justification however, then while we're lucky in Britain to have an NHS that is free at the point of treatment, £20 is the cost of about three prescription items. If you are 'on the sick' for any length of time you will probably have to attend outpatients clinic and transport costs more besides.

So their expenses are different, but rarely less than those in work.
 
Posted by Jahlove (# 10290) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
[QUOTE]
So their expenses are different, but rarely less than those in work.
Also, people at home are having to pay for heating and lighting which they wouldn't if they were out at work.

The point of the Disability Premiums, is, as sioni points out, to cover the extra expenses that sick people tend to incur. If you're on the new ESA benefit, the lower rate (for single people) is actually £13.65 and then there's a higher rate (for which you need to be getting DLA middle-rate care, i.e. really very unwell) of £53.65. If you're on sickness-related Income Support, there are premiums of £28.00; £53.65 and £13.65 again, depending on reaching certain criteria. There is no longer any such thing as *Sickness Benefit*.
 
Posted by redderfreak (# 15191) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
What I wonder is why (on this side of the pond, at least), we have a cohort of folks rolling in inherited wealth who, though they could easily sit back and clip coupons for their daily bread, INSIST on working thereby keeping jobs from others.

Is there a moral difference between living off Daddy's (or Mummy's) pile and living off state largesse?
There are 23 millionaires in the British government. I don't know how many of them are living off their parents' money. But it bothers me that they are making decisions about public services that they don't need to use themselves, such as welfare benefits, education and health.
 
Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by blackbeard:
No employer is going to pay more than the labour is worth.
They do it all the time. Unless you believe that the labor provided by the average CEO is worth more than 1000 times that of the average worker. Especially given that, a decade or two ago, that gap was far, far smaller.

Link.

If corporations would cut their CEOs' salaries in half, they could easily pay the rest of their employees more. But the CEOs' salaries, at least in this country, are set by a gang of CEOs that serve on each others' boards and set each others' salaries. Their salaries don't have to do with the value they provide their employers. They're set by the value they provide to their peers at other companies.

I'm not sure why that's not viewed as a form of fraud.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:


If corporations would cut their CEOs' salaries in half, they could easily pay the rest of their employees more. But the CEOs' salaries, at least in this country, are set by a gang of CEOs that serve on each others' boards and set each others' salaries. Their salaries don't have to do with the value they provide their employers. They're set by the value they provide to their peers at other companies.

I'm not sure why that's not viewed as a form of fraud.
You are SO right about this. I can't think why it could be thought that
anyone might be worth such salaries.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
According to an article at the NYT, Wall Street bigwigs are going to pay themselves $1.44 BILLION this year in bonuses. Fucking wastes of carbon.
 
Posted by Garden Hermit (# 109) on :
 
In good old Reading, unemployment rate about 2%, we have lots of jobs in the Care Industry with the aged, the mentally ill, the incontinent and those with Learning Disabilities.

The pay is minimum wage plus 25p an hour Thames Valley weighting.

Pax et Bonum
 
Posted by ianjmatt (# 5683) on :
 
I come from pretty ordinary stock, went to a 'bog standard' comp and now earn what I think it a decent wage. However, I don't own my own home and have spent considerable periods really hard up.

However, I find the level of class and income envy that is heard nowadays pretty disgusting. Since when does being rich ever disqualify someone from making decisions. I would be terrified to have the average person I see in the job centre making decisions in cabinet. I would rather have people who have had a decent education orbeen successful in their careers (such as David Laws). Besides, people are there because they were voted for.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
I don't think it's 'income envy' to question whether a footballer on £9 million a year is worth 360 times that of someone working for the average wage.

I think it's a sane, rational question about the rightness of an unfettered market and the nature of the dignity of labour.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ianjmatt:
Since when does being rich ever disqualify someone from making decisions.
It doesn't, necessarily. But you have to question how much someone like that understands about the pressures on someone who is struggling to survive on the minimum wage or on benefits. I doubt if any of their advisers are employed for their sensitivity or experience of such problems.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ianjmatt:
I come from pretty ordinary stock, went to a 'bog standard' comp and now earn what I think it a decent wage. However, I don't own my own home and have spent considerable periods really hard up.

However, I find the level of class and income envy that is heard nowadays pretty disgusting. Since when does being rich ever disqualify someone from making decisions. I would be terrified to have the average person I see in the job centre making decisions in cabinet. I would rather have people who have had a decent education orbeen successful in their careers (such as David Laws). Besides, people are there because they were voted for.
You don't need 'income envy' to see gross injustice.

I was in the higher tax bracket for quite a few years and still consider myself very well off. But some incomes simply go beyond reasonable.
 
Posted by Jahlove (# 10290) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ianjmatt:
I would be terrified to have the average person I see in the job centre making decisions in cabinet. I would rather have people who have had a decent education orbeen successful in their careers (such as David Laws).

Besides, people are there because they were voted for.
... by these apparently terrifying average persons
 
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
According to an article at the NYT, Wall Street bigwigs are going to pay themselves $1.44 BILLION this year in bonuses. Fucking wastes of carbon.
AIUI the rot started in the 1980's with the advent of the hostile takeover. Before then Wall Street and the publicly-traded companies that used its services were actually a pretty sleepy place. CEO's were expected to be managers, technocrats who kept the company going or the delegated representatives of entrenched owners who wanted the company to continue and keep paying dividends, which often amounted to the same thing. They were paid as such, employees who had reached the top, but still employees. They had long tenure and as long as they didn't drive the company into bankruptcy, they'd retire from it.

After hostile takeover, buyouts and other capital-gain extraction methods came on the scene the role of CEO's changed. They were expected to be value-maximizers, short-term value maximizers. Instead of Chief Technocrat they became Chief Owner's Agent, frequently owners themselves. They were either freebooters themselves, taking over other companies or fended off corporate takeovers. They were paid to play high-risk, high reward games with capital. Their focus was Wall Street instead of entrenched owners and employees. Their tenure was usually five years or so. That's when pay started to spiral out of control as companies jockeyed to have the best pirate on their board.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I don't think it's 'income envy' to question whether a footballer on £9 million a year is worth 360 times that of someone working for the average wage.

I think it's a sane, rational question about the rightness of an unfettered market and the nature of the dignity of labour.
'Income envy' is empty rhetoric the rich use to shame us while they rape us.
 
Posted by Apocalypso (# 15405) on :
 
Ooh! Ooh!

*Jumps on horse at sight of one lantern in church tower*

Yells "Class warfare is coming! Class warfare is coming!"
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ianjmatt:
I come from pretty ordinary stock, went to a 'bog standard' comp and now earn what I think it a decent wage. However, I don't own my own home and have spent considerable periods really hard up.

However, I find the level of class and income envy that is heard nowadays pretty disgusting. Since when does being rich ever disqualify someone from making decisions. I would be terrified to have the average person I see in the job centre making decisions in cabinet. I would rather have people who have had a decent education orbeen successful in their careers (such as David Laws). Besides, people are there because they were voted for.
David Laws, yes. And look how long he lasted! But what in the name of all that is holy has his boss, George Osborne, ever done? I don't want to disqualify anyone on the basis of income or origin, but those born to social advantage and higher incomes are disproportionately over-represented in Parliament, which makes you wonder at the objectiveness of any government policy.

A few more people from ordinary backgrounds, plus some from the dole queue would help in the HofC, especially as many of those you despise for being on the dole could give messrs Cameron, Osborne, Cable and co a run for their money.

It's just occurred to me how contradictory it is to propose schemes to cut benefits when a greater number of people will be affected. Wouldn't it make sense, if on really wants to target those who make a career out of living off the state, to do so when unemployment is at its lowest? What basic factor have I missed here??
 
Posted by Jahlove (# 10290) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
[QUOTE]
It's just occurred to me how contradictory it is to propose schemes to cut benefits when a greater number of people will be affected. Wouldn't it make sense, if on really wants to target those who make a career out of living off the state, to do so when unemployment is at its lowest? What basic factor have I missed here??
it's aka as Reign of Terror, sioni
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

A few more people from ordinary backgrounds, plus some from the dole queue would help in the HofC, especially as many of those you despise for being on the dole could give messrs Cameron, Osborne, Cable and co a run for their money.
IDS has been made redundant at least once in his life (and I don't mean when he was sacked as Tory Party leader).
 
Posted by Jahlove (# 10290) on :
 
must be terrible to be made redundant when you're married to a millionaire(ss)
 
Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :
 
Part of the pressure must come from dividend payments - I have no idea how these are set, but it becomes evident when you think about th purpose of a business.

Is it a) to generate a profit b) to provide a service / object c) to rpovide a living for its employees ?

Frequent.y, in these discussions people will state the basic purpose is to make money - I would question that assumption. Obviously a business needs to not go bust - but beyond that it is not self-evident. I believe ceos have a legal duty to shareholders, if it is a floated company. Co-ops and partnership model companies don't always go under though. There is more than one way of seeing things.

As to why the state should do things for you, or any specific person, well, because the state is your servant. Ultimately, it is supposed to exist for your benefit. and without you, without people, the state would not exist.

Take the sterotypical tabloid example - single mother on benefits, never worked, three kids by three different fathers. The maintaince of that family generates paid work for others, and there is a reasonable chance the children will grow up and do some work. And where do you think the infantry recruit from - not just from middle class nuclear families. But most importantly, they are citizens, he state exists to serve them and they put up with restrictions on their liberty in return for that protection/provision. We must not forget the fundemental direction of that relationship, the state exists to serve the citizen.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
Ooh! Ooh!

*Jumps on horse at sight of one lantern in church tower*

Yells "Class warfare is coming! Class warfare is coming!"
There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning. --Warren Buffett (New York Times, November 26, 2006).
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jahlove:
must be terrible to be made redundant when you're married to a millionaire(ss)
I would really love to find out for sure if that is true by trying the experiment. If someone can come up with an eligible young woman to marry me and supply the dosh, I'm sure I could contrive some way of making myself unneccessary at work.
 
Posted by Apocalypso (# 15405) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
Ooh! Ooh!

*Jumps on horse at sight of one lantern in church tower*

Yells "Class warfare is coming! Class warfare is coming!"
There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning. --Warren Buffett (New York Times, November 26, 2006).
Exactly. Why else would I be jumping on my horse?
 
Posted by ianjmatt (# 5683) on :
 
I think there are fundamental questions about the role and scope of the state, personal liberty and what society has responsibility for.

These are the distinctions that dictate how someone reacts to issues such as welfare, differences in income and the rights of the individual.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
[QUOTE]There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning. --Warren Buffett (New York Times, November 26, 2006).
Buffett seems to be a rare commodity these days, a real truth-teller. We could use a few more of his ilk.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ianjmatt:
I think there are fundamental questions about the role and scope of the state, personal liberty and what society has responsibility for.

These are the distinctions that dictate how someone reacts to issues such as welfare, differences in income and the rights of the individual.
I don't think there has been an election since the 1832 Reform Act that hasn't addressed some of those issues. They dominated the 1906, 1945 and 1979 campaigns and the fall out from 2010 was similar, although the issues weren't debated to the same extent, thanks to the leadership TV debates.

I imagine Radical Whig will be along shortly to suggest that a written constitution will help!
 
Posted by tomsk (# 15370) on :
 
I'm not aware of any research on this, but I wonder if two unintended linked consequences of the minimum wage are these: jobs become more attractive to migrant workers, and employers are more willing to pay for motivated migrant workers than, erm, fuckwit Brits.

For instance, when I was a student fifteen years ago, I could pick up agency factory work (at £2.80 per hour). Terrible pay, but anyone could pick the work up. I'm not sure the FB's would be so welcome now; now the wages have gone up it probably matters more whether the staff are any use.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
Ooh! Ooh!

*Jumps on horse at sight of one lantern in church tower*

Yells "Class warfare is coming! Class warfare is coming!"
There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning. --Warren Buffett (New York Times, November 26, 2006).
Exactly. Why else would I be jumping on my horse?
Sarcasm. But you knew that.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
But you have to question how much someone like that understands about the pressures on someone who is struggling to survive on the minimum wage or on benefits.
Yes, but you also have to question how much someone struggling to survive on minimum wage or benefits understands about the pressures of running a country, of making decisions that will affect millions of people and of being right in the main beam of the media spotlight when the buck stops with them.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I don't think it's 'income envy' to question whether a footballer on £9 million a year is worth 360 times that of someone working for the average wage.
Given that tens of thousands of average workers will happily pay large sums of money to watch that one footballer do his thing, or to wear his name on their back, or to buy the products he endorses, you could legitimately make the argument that a multiplier of 360 is pretty low.

Most of the value of top-level footballers comes from their scarcity rather than for the job itself. There is, as the chant goes, only one Wayne Rooney. That means he can pretty much name his price and one club or other will pay it in order to have him on their team. It just ain't the same with data analysts - we're ten-a-penny so companies can set their price and one or more of us will happily accept.

A diamond and a pencil are both just carbon, but you wouldn't pay the same price for both of them because diamonds look so much better and are so much rarer. Same principle.
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
It ain't insectoid. Arthropod, yeah: same-footed, soft shelled, crusty, joint footed, animals.
 
Posted by NJA (# 13022) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I don't think it's 'income envy' to question whether a footballer on £9 million a year is worth 360 times that of someone working for the average wage.
Football is the only pleasure in life some poor souls have. They can shout and sing and enjoy the drama before returning to drab normality with all it's problems.

It's been that way for a long time. I have a social history book that shows thousands of factory workers in their Sunday best, watching Tottenham Hotspurs. For many it replaced church attendance when they moved rom the country to the towns.

I hear them in the office, eulogising or mourning about the latest developments on & off the pitch.

Women often talk in softer voices about what they bought at the shops, or on ebay.

I remind myself I'm on different benefits, His benefits. (Psalm 103:2)
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
Crustacean, Martin, crustacean.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by NJA:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I don't think it's 'income envy' to question whether a footballer on £9 million a year is worth 360 times that of someone working for the average wage.
Football is the only pleasure in life some poor souls have. They can shout and sing and enjoy the drama before returning to drab normality with all it's problems.

It's been that way for a long time. I have a social history book that shows thousands of factory workers in their Sunday best, watching Tottenham Hotspurs. For many it replaced church attendance when they moved rom the country to the towns.

I hear them in the office, eulogising or mourning about the latest developments on & off the pitch.

Women often talk in softer voices about what they bought at the shops, or on ebay.

I remind myself I'm on different benefits, His benefits. (Psalm 103:2)
Gone are the days when footballers used to travel to the game on the omnibus with the supporters, and have a pie and a pint with them afterwards in the pub. I take the point that it is something watched and followed by many, and therefore the fees commanded by the top players can be extraordinary.

Yours and Marvin's comments don't address my question, though: is such unrestrained, naked capitalism good for society in general, football in particular, and more specifically the sanity of the players concerned?

When I used to play Saturday league stuff (back when my body could take it... [Frown] ), our home pitch was a municipal one in a park that flooded, froze and baked solid, and sometimes had white lines on. No evidence at all of any 'trickle down' from Sky's millions into the grass-roots game then, and I doubt if it's changed much now. In fact, there's very little evidence of money really ever flowing from hugely rich sectors to poorer ones: they just tend to raise the walls around themselves.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by NJA:
Football is the only pleasure in life some poor souls have. They can shout and sing and enjoy the drama before returning to drab normality with all it's problems.
I don't know about the "only pleasure", but its bloody important for some people. I've only recently started to go to football matches - hated it when I was a kid but now old enough to be safe from being expected to play the bloody game - and last season I saw a few "famous victories" at the Millwall ground. And there were blokes crying. I mean crying because their team had won. Some old man standing near me - must have been in his 70s - his grandchildren looked to be teenagers - maybe old enough to have actually been a docker when the supporters were mostly dockers - imagine a sort of Alf Garnet character carrying on a running argument with his son and daughter in law about something really embarrasing-sounding - but crying when the team won - more or less kissed me on the way out - smelling of stale beer and tobacco. But it meant something to him. I mean, I enjoyed it, I wanted to win, but to this bloke - and thousands of others - it was huge.

quote:


... watching Tottenham Hotspurs.

[QUOTE]
[QB]

I'm not sure why, but you can't say that in English. You can watch "Tottenham Hotspur" or you can watch "Spurs" but the full name bears no "s". Odd that.

[QUOTE]
[qb]
For many it replaced church attendance when they moved rom the country to the towns.
Neat theory but I think the timing's off. Mass attendance at commercial sport venues started in about the 1860s or 70s and probably peaked in the 1900s, maybe the 1910s or 20s. That's a century after the Industrial Revolution and the big move to the towns. Also churchgoing was on the way up in the late 19th century, not down. And most of the urban working class were unchurched by the 1830s, and probably earlier - if you believe the accounts of the early Methodists craftsmen and factory workers and the like were pretty irreligious in the 18th century.

[ 15. November 2010, 16:39: Message edited by: ken ]
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
<snip>
No evidence at all of any 'trickle down' from Sky's millions into the grass-roots game then, and I doubt if it's changed much now. In fact, there's very little evidence of money really ever flowing from hugely rich sectors to poorer ones: they just tend to raise the walls around themselves.
We should be grateful that some of us get a chance to build those walls and earn a wage doing so. That's what the 'trickle-down' theory of unrestrained self-interest was always about IIRC.
 
Posted by tomsk (# 15370) on :
 
I thought football clubs, like many other clubs/bands etc. were started (some by churches) to keep urban working class men off the grog.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Ironic then that drunken football supporters are such a threat to public order.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Yours and Marvin's comments don't address my question, though: is such unrestrained, naked capitalism good for society in general, football in particular, and more specifically the sanity of the players concerned?
Society in general is neither improved nor worsened because a few footballers earn an extra few million. It doesn't change the rest of us at all.

quote:
When I used to play Saturday league stuff (back when my body could take it... [Frown] ), our home pitch was a municipal one in a park that flooded, froze and baked solid, and sometimes had white lines on. No evidence at all of any 'trickle down' from Sky's millions into the grass-roots game then, and I doubt if it's changed much now.
Are you suggesting that if, say, a wage cap was implemented in the professional game all the extra money would instead be spent on lower-league clubs? Rather than, say, staying in the pockets of the club owners?

quote:
In fact, there's very little evidence of money really ever flowing from hugely rich sectors to poorer ones: they just tend to raise the walls around themselves.
Again, are you suggesting that if they were made less rich it would somehow increase the wealth of everyone else? Or is this just the old tactic of making everyone more equal by dragging the top down rather than raising the bottom up?
 
Posted by RadicalWhig (# 13190) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Again, are you suggesting that if they were made less rich it would somehow increase the wealth of everyone else? Or is this just the old tactic of making everyone more equal by dragging the top down rather than raising the bottom up?
Making everyone equally poor is not the goal. Moderate, and secure, prosperity for all, without extremes of either wealth or poverty, ought in my view to be the goal of centre-left politics.

But, as one approaches greater equality, even on a lower absolute level for those at the top, a curious thing happens: the well-being of all increases, as we all collectively share in the benefits of membership of a well-functioning society. Violence and crime diminish, so the streets are safer and you do not need to fly out to the leafy suburbs; public services work better - so you do not have to spend money on school fees and health insurance if you want to be well-educated and well cared for; public transport is used by everyone, not only by the poor, so the buses become a priority, and are cleaner and more frequent.

In a society composes of the rich and the poor, there are weak social links and low solidarity, and potential for constant class conflict between them, and thus little scope for seeing things in terms of common goods; greater equality builds up stronger horizontal links between people, and helps people to realise that their well-being is interconnected with that of others and of all.

This arises, in part, because all wealth is relative: when everyone is equally poor, poverty is merely uncomfortable. When poverty exists in the shadow of wealth, it comes disgraceful, humiliating, exploitative, dehumanising, abasing.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
Making everyone equally poor is not the goal. Moderate, and secure, prosperity for all, without extremes of either wealth or poverty, ought in my view to be the goal of centre-left politics.
Without defining "moderate", you're not going to get many on your side. What is moderate - is it being able to afford seven meals a week? Being able to afford seven nice meals a week? Being able to afford to go out to eat once in a while? Being able to splash out on a few real luxury foods every now and then? Where do you set the bar?

quote:
But, as one approaches greater equality, even on a lower absolute level for those at the top, a curious thing happens: the well-being of all increases, as we all collectively share in the benefits of membership of a well-functioning society.
So you say. But this belief of yours is a flimsy hope on which to hang an entire political theory.

quote:
Violence and crime diminish, so the streets are safer
Violence and crime are caused by attitudes, not prosperity. There will always be those who want more and are prepared to get it by whatever means necessary. There will always be addicts who mug and burgle to get their next fix. And in a world of enforced moderacy there will be a flourishing black market where people who want more than moderate prosperity allows can get it.

quote:
and you do not need to fly out to the leafy suburbs;
Except because they look nicer and aren't as crowded. Even with everything else exactly the same I'd rather live in a leafy suburb than an urban tower block.

quote:
public services work better - so you do not have to spend money on school fees and health insurance if you want to be well-educated and well cared for;
How do they magically start working better just because everyone is economically equal?

For that matter, why do schools have to start working better? There's no advantage to having good qualifications any more. Everyone's the same regardless.

quote:
public transport is used by everyone, not only by the poor, so the buses become a priority, and are cleaner and more frequent.
Why does everybody start using public transport? Does "moderate prosperity" mean no-one will be able to afford a car? This is starting to sound really bad...

quote:
In a society composes of the rich and the poor, there are weak social links and low solidarity, and potential for constant class conflict between them, and thus little scope for seeing things in terms of common goods; greater equality builds up stronger horizontal links between people, and helps people to realise that their well-being is interconnected with that of others and of all.
And in a society where everyone is forced to be the same there is no incentive to better oneself, no incentive to work hard at anything and no social mobility. Entrepreneurism goes bye-bye. Invention takes a back seat. Most big companies will, of course, already have left (due to their directors' desire to stay rich), but eventually even smaller companies will suffer as the trickle of skilled workers, scientists and academics to countries where they can earn better salaries becomes a flood with every lowering of the bar of prosperity (of course, on the plus side this hastens the move towards everyone who is left being in parity). Eventually the whole society stagnates and is rapidly taken over by the rest of the world.

quote:
This arises, in part, because all wealth is relative: when everyone is equally poor, poverty is merely uncomfortable. When poverty exists in the shadow of wealth, it comes disgraceful, humiliating, exploitative, dehumanising, abasing.
As far as I can see, when everybody is equally poor they'll rip each others eyes out just to get a little more comfort for themselves. The solution is to promote social mobility, and there can be no mobility if there's nowhere to go.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by tomsk:
I thought football clubs, like many other clubs/bands etc. were started (some by churches) to keep urban working class men off the grog.
Some were. Of the London teams Fulham and I think maybe Spurs and QPR were church sides. Others from secular boys clubs or sports clubs set up by well-meaning persons with similar intent.

Most were probably works teams, started by men who wanted to have a kick-around on Saturday afternoon or evening between work and the pub. Millwall and West Ham both started as factory teams, and later drew support mainly from dockers (maybe one reason for their rivalry being the nastiest in English sport is that their supporters were and are basically the same people living on opposite sides of the river). Arsenal was origianlly Dial Square FC, an amateur a team from the Woolwich Arsenal (i.e. munitions factory) though that was so big I suspect it had many teams. If I can believe Wikipedia, Crystal Palace really was started as a team for workers at the Crystal Palace and its adjacent park. Hence "Glaziers". Leyton Orient was a team for ex-students of a teacher-training College who were working in the East End.

Some were simple commercial ventures - Chelsea was set up by the owners of a stadium because they were having trouble filling it, and they simply bribed their way into the League. Quite a lot of football has always been about money. Which almost brings us back to the topic.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
Marvin, you've got more than enough straw men in that for bayonnet practice...

quote:
Without defining "moderate", you're not going to get many on your side. What is moderate - is it being able to afford seven meals a week? Being able to afford seven nice meals a week? Being able to afford to go out to eat once in a while? Being able to splash out on a few real luxury foods every now and then? Where do you set the bar?
What? Where did you get the idea that the sole indicator of wealth is going out to eat? People are free to spend their money however they want.
quote:
So you say. But this belief of yours is a flimsy hope on which to hang an entire political theory.
It's pretty much an established fact. The less difference there is between rich and poor, the happier everyone is.
quote:
in a world of enforced moderacy there will be a flourishing black market where people who want more than moderate prosperity allows can get it.
Nowhere have we ever said that there will be Moderating police stalking the street. If you can assert that "Violence and crime are caused by attitudes" without evidence, no doubt we can assert that their absence is due to the attitudes of justice and fairness.
quote:
Except because they look nicer and aren't as crowded. Even with everything else exactly the same I'd rather live in a leafy suburb than an urban tower block.
You just don't get it. The reason we have 'nice' areas and 'nasty' areas is because with have extremes of wealth and poverty. Moderation means the nasty areas get nicer.
quote:
How do they magically start working better just because everyone is economically equal?

For that matter, why do schools have to start working better? There's no advantage to having good qualifications any more. Everyone's the same regardless.
Yep. Just don't get it. You seem to equate paying a tiny minority the majority of the money with ambition and achievement, as if those with the money are hard working, successful and smart on their own merits. They're not. There'd actually be more of an incentive to achieve if working hard actually did equal more money.
quote:
Why does everybody start using public transport? Does "moderate prosperity" mean no-one will be able to afford a car? This is starting to sound really bad...
Only because either a) you're deliberately playing dumb (and it doesn't suit you) or really, really don't get it.

Plentiful, cheap, well-run public transport is used by rich and poor alike, whether or not they have a car. As has been shown in city after city with plentiful, cheap, well-run public transport.

Etc, etc. Not everyone is motivated by greed. Thank God.
 
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
Ooh! Ooh!

*Jumps on horse at sight of one lantern in church tower*

Yells "Class warfare is coming! Class warfare is coming!"
Pish tosh, and piffle old boy! The lower classes haven't started shooting back so there's no war. After all, we're the ones who lease them the ammunition. Once it starts it'll all be over by Christmas...

And for the record, there were massive numbers of claims that NuLabour's introduction of the minimum wage was going to increase inflation and lead to mass unemployment. It didn't happen. So now whenever anyone complains about the possible effect an increase in the minimum wage would have, I want to know what their precedents are - if none are given, I file them into the "alarmism" bin.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
What? Where did you get the idea that the sole indicator of wealth is going out to eat? People are free to spend their money however they want.
I used food as an example because very few people will argue that nobody needs to eat. If I'd used electrical goods or motor vehicles as the example some bright spark would have popped up to say that nobody needs to have them at all.

quote:
quote:
So you say. But this belief of yours is a flimsy hope on which to hang an entire political theory.
It's pretty much an established fact. The less difference there is between rich and poor, the happier everyone is.
Evidence?

quote:
Nowhere have we ever said that there will be Moderating police stalking the street.
Maybe not, but if you want it to happen you'll have to enforce it at some level.

quote:
If you can assert that "Violence and crime are caused by attitudes" without evidence, no doubt we can assert that their absence is due to the attitudes of justice and fairness.
I provided examples to back the assertion up. I note you have ignored them.

quote:
quote:
Except because they look nicer and aren't as crowded. Even with everything else exactly the same I'd rather live in a leafy suburb than an urban tower block.
You just don't get it. The reason we have 'nice' areas and 'nasty' areas is because with have extremes of wealth and poverty. Moderation means the nasty areas get nicer.
However nice urban living gets, I would still prefer to live in a leafy suburb. It's not the standard of the accomodation, it's the density. You could offer me the fanciest 14th-floor city centre apartment in the world and I'd rather have a three-bed semi with a bit of garden out in suburbia.

quote:
Yep. Just don't get it. You seem to equate paying a tiny minority the majority of the money with ambition and achievement, as if those with the money are hard working, successful and smart on their own merits. They're not.
Three people that spring to mind are Alan Sugar, Richard Branson and Bill Gates. In really modern times you could add Mark Zuckerberg into the mix as well. I'd say all of those people have got where they are today on their own merits.

quote:
There'd actually be more of an incentive to achieve if working hard actually did equal more money.
It does. Work hard, get promotions, get more money.

quote:
Plentiful, cheap, well-run public transport is used by rich and poor alike, whether or not they have a car. As has been shown in city after city with plentiful, cheap, well-run public transport.
But it was clearly stated that smartening up public transport would come after everybody started using it, as the fact that they are all using it would make it more of a priority.

Doing it the other way round, the way you suggest, is a great idea.

quote:
Etc, etc. Not everyone is motivated by greed. Thank God.
Not everyone, no. But more than enough people to make it something you can't just ignore. Any economic strategy you can come up with has to account for the basic selfishness of humanity.

[ 16. November 2010, 15:57: Message edited by: Marvin the Martian ]
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Three people that spring to mind are Alan Sugar, Richard Branson and Bill Gates. In really modern times you could add Mark Zuckerberg into the mix as well. I'd say all of those people have got where they are today on their own merits.
That would be funny if it weren't so pitifully stupid. Surely you know that Gates was born with a silver spoon in his mouth and used daddy's money to buy QDOS?
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
[QUOTE]There'd actually be more of an incentive to achieve if working hard actually did equal more money.
It does. Work hard, get promotions, get more money.
This is what your argument boils down to. It is not now, if it ever has been, true. You are completely deluding yourself as an act of supreme and undying faith if you believe this.

This whole thread started on the basis that it was wrong for some people to be better of on benefits than they are doing a full-time job. The corollary of that is that people doing a full-time job should always be better off than if they were on benefits.

If we acknowledge (as we have done) that doing a full time job - working hard - does not, in many cases, provide a wage large enough to live on, let alone support a family, then we cannot simultaneously assert that the system is broken and not broken.

We reward some people disproportionately, and others nowhere near enough, and the criteria we use to distribute those rewards is not based on competency, hard work, talent or any other useful skill. Sometimes, someone actually does achieve riches because they're good at something other than self-promotion - but that's the exception that proves the rule.

You want a world where if you work hard, learn stuff and play (mostly) by the rules, you'll be rewarded. So do I. But the system you want to use to bring that about is exactly the one that denies that ethic the most.
 
Posted by Moth (# 2589) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Three people that spring to mind are Alan Sugar, Richard Branson and Bill Gates. In really modern times you could add Mark Zuckerberg into the mix as well. I'd say all of those people have got where they are today on their own merits.
That would be funny if it weren't so pitifully stupid. Surely you know that Gates was born with a silver spoon in his mouth and used daddy's money to buy QDOS?
Richard Branson is the son of a barrister and grandson of a High Court Judge and Privy Councillor. He is an alumnus of Stowe School (a famous Public School which specialises in producing eccentrics). However, he overcame dyslexia to found his own business empire - but he was never likely to be on his uppers - having family money behind you does allow you to take more risks.

Alan Sugar really did come from humble origins as the son of an East End tailor. He's a much better example of someone with a real flair for making money from nothing.

Zuckerberg I know less about, but Wikipedia say his parents were a psychiatirist and a dentist, and that he attended an independent boarding school, so no great shortage of money there.

It's interesting that Marvin's examples bear out the findings of the Milburn report that about 70% of successful people come from wealthy backgrounds. That is not to say that you don't also have to be hard-working and have a real gift for enterprise, but having a good start in life really does help.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Moth:
Richard Branson is the son of a barrister and grandson of a High Court Judge and Privy Councillor. He is an alumnus of Stowe School (a famous Public School which specialises in producing eccentrics). However, he overcame dyslexia to found his own business empire - but he was never likely to be on his uppers - having family money behind you does allow you to take more risks.
In what way does that mean he didn't build the business empire himself?

quote:
Alan Sugar really did come from humble origins as the son of an East End tailor. He's a much better example of someone with a real flair for making money from nothing.
Yes.

quote:
Zuckerberg I know less about, but Wikipedia say his parents were a psychiatirist and a dentist, and that he attended an independent boarding school, so no great shortage of money there.
What did his parents' jobs have to do with the fact that he came up with a winning idea? Are you saying poor people aren't as clever or original as rich ones, because I'd disagree with that.

quote:
It's interesting that Marvin's examples bear out the findings of the Milburn report that about 70% of successful people come from wealthy backgrounds. That is not to say that you don't also have to be hard-working and have a real gift for enterprise, but having a good start in life really does help.
In what way does it help, do you suppose? Answer that question and you might answer the whole thread.
 
Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Moth:

It's interesting that Marvin's examples bear out the findings of the Milburn report that about 70% of successful people come from wealthy backgrounds. That is not to say that you don't also have to be hard-working and have a real gift for enterprise, but having a good start in life really does help.
And for the handful that do take advantage of inherited money and found a successful business of their own there are too many spoiled trust fund babies living on mummy and daddy's money and a huge sense of entitlement - but somehow they're not looked down on like those who get any form of welfare.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Moth:
It's interesting that Marvin's examples bear out the findings of the Milburn report that about 70% of successful people come from wealthy backgrounds. That is not to say that you don't also have to be hard-working and have a real gift for enterprise, but having a good start in life really does help.
In what way does it help, do you suppose? Answer that question and you might answer the whole thread.
As Moth mentioned regarding Richard Branson, if your family is well off, 'risk taking' simply isn't as risky. You are less likely to lose your home or be made bankrupt.

Oh, and you might not even bother taking the dole, which might colour your view of those who do.

[ 17. November 2010, 11:35: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
There'd actually be more of an incentive to achieve if working hard actually did equal more money.
It does. Work hard, get promotions, get more money.
Huh! My dad left school at the age of twelve in order to prop up the household budget. He worked hard all his life: mostly with his hands and physical strength, although he had the intelligence and mental curiosity to educate himself. But in an era before mass higher education or student grants (to which we are now returning) he was condemned to spend the rest of his life in 'humble toil'. Which suited him in many ways, because he lacked the ruthless competitive streak which Marvin unaccountably forgot to include in his equation above. But it didn't bring material prosperity.

A society which values ruthless competition above qualities such as patience, understanding, caring might be Marvin's ideal, and is clearly more like the one we live in than the opposite. But it doesn't seem to me either civilised or Christian.
 
Posted by Moth (# 2589) on :
 
I think there are a number of reasons, many of which can be found in the Milburn report. As I summarised them in the presentation I give to my students:
Maternal health and child poverty
Early-years care
Family, parenting and community
Education and school attainment
Post-school qualifications, higher education and transitions into work
Opportunities to progress in work.
Also:
financial capital and asset-holding,
anti-competitive practices,
‘opportunity-hoarding’
physical geography.

All of these are associated with success in life, at least in terms of access to the professions. It may be that entrepreneurs are born, not made, but I'm thinking that the factors above are quite likely to be relevant to that as well.

A child born to a mother in good health, who has good early years care in a stable and supportive family and community is more likely to get a good education and thus attain well. Unfortunately, that is still more common in the wealthier parts of society than it is amongst the poorer parts. The effect is enhanced if the parents can pay for private schooling. This means they are more likely to go to a good university, or if not suited to that, to be introduced to good employment opportunities. The advantage of a private education in the UK cannot be exaggerated:

Only 7% of the population attend independent schools but well over half the members of many professions have done so:
75% of judges
70% of finance directors
45% of top civil servants
32% of MPs
55% of solicitors
68% of top barristers

You notice that 'financial capital and asset holding' are also mentioned as relevant. If your family can help you with your first start-up, you have an advantage. If you went to a first rate public school and are on first-name terms with political leaders, it can't hurt.

Physical geography is an interesting one. A lot of that relates to opportunities for work experience and job opportunities. If you come from the back of beyond, it can be much harder to network, though arguably the internet may diminish the importance of that. Alan Sugar may have been more fortunate than he knew to be born in London.

I do wish I had your optimism about life, Marvin. You seem determined to believe, Invictus-like, that you are the master of your fate and the captain of your soul. Long periods spent with those who come from wealthy families (I am an Oxbridge graduate, remember) have convinced me that the wealthy are fantastic at 'opportunity hoarding'. They have no real objection to a few of those below them getting on, but they'll be damned before any of their kids moves down a rung. They all know each other, they network well, and they know which schools will get their children to where they want to be. They know the system, and they are too politically astute and well-connected to ever let it be changed seriously to their disadvantage.

As the Milburn report puts it:
‘Children of less advantaged class origins need to show substantially more merit than children from more advantaged origins in order to gain similar class positions.’

No-one denies that top entrepreneurs work hard for what they achieve. However, the chance to become a top entrepreneur is not an even one, however hard you are prepared to work. That does not mean that those from poorer backgrounds cannot succeed - some can and do. It does mean that it is less likely.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
But in an era before mass higher education or student grants (to which we are now returning)
Without grants? Yes - that's been the case for several years now. Without mass higher education? Like hell.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Moth:
All of these are associated with success in life, at least in terms of access to the professions. It may be that entrepreneurs are born, not made, but I'm thinking that the factors above are quite likely to be relevant to that as well.
I'm not disputing the correlation, I'm asking why it exists.

quote:
A child born to a mother in good health, who has good early years care in a stable and supportive family and community is more likely to get a good education and thus attain well.
Again, this is a true statement but offers no real explanation of why such factors are so key (and/or why the absence of those factors is so detrimental). Only when the actual cause is identified can a working solution be proposed.

quote:
You notice that 'financial capital and asset holding' are also mentioned as relevant. If your family can help you with your first start-up, you have an advantage. If you went to a first rate public school and are on first-name terms with political leaders, it can't hurt.
That's going to be true no matter what political system you introduce. Even if every political leader comes from the working class, their friends will have their ears more than complete strangers.

quote:
Physical geography is an interesting one. A lot of that relates to opportunities for work experience and job opportunities. If you come from the back of beyond, it can be much harder to network, though arguably the internet may diminish the importance of that. Alan Sugar may have been more fortunate than he knew to be born in London.
Again, there's nothing that can be done about that. Sometimes social mobility requires physical mobility as well.

quote:
I do wish I had your optimism about life, Marvin. You seem determined to believe, Invictus-like, that you are the master of your fate and the captain of your soul.
That's how I was brought up. Seems a lot better than growing up never expecting to do or achieve much because the rich will always screw me over. And when I have kids I'll be sure to teach them that the world is their oyster, not their prison.

quote:
Long periods spent with those who come from wealthy families (I am an Oxbridge graduate, remember) have convinced me that the wealthy are fantastic at 'opportunity hoarding'. They have no real objection to a few of those below them getting on, but they'll be damned before any of their kids moves down a rung.
Ensuring that their kids do as well as, if not better than, them should be the ultimate goal of every parent. Show me someone who doesn't care what their kids end up doing, or who actively wants them to be worse off, and I'll show you a bad parent.

quote:
They all know each other, they network well, and they know which schools will get their children to where they want to be. They know the system, and they are too politically astute and well-connected to ever let it be changed seriously to their disadvantage.
Oh well then, let's give the whole thing up.

quote:
As the Milburn report puts it:
‘Children of less advantaged class origins need to show substantially more merit than children from more advantaged origins in order to gain similar class positions.’
Are we talking school class or social class here?

quote:
No-one denies that top entrepreneurs work hard for what they achieve.
Oh yes they do. Even on this very thread we've got people implying that they just trip over a pile of daddy's money and somehow wind up leading a successful company. I've seen them described as "talentless parasites who feed off the sweat of others" on this very board.

quote:
However, the chance to become a top entrepreneur is not an even one, however hard you are prepared to work. That does not mean that those from poorer backgrounds cannot succeed - some can and do. It does mean that it is less likely.
You think that's because those from wealthier backgrounds are hoarding all the good jobs. I disagree - I think it's because those from poorer backgrounds have lower aspirations. If poorer kids were really being taught from birth that they can do whatever they put their mind to (and have a talent for, of course) I honestly believe far more of them would do it. Instead they get dragged down, told not to bother trying, told that such things are not for the likes of them. And mostly it's the parents teaching them these things, be it directly or indirectly. I weep for that situation, I really do, but I simply don't see how any of the standard political answers (which usually involve either throwing money at it or taking money away from it) will - or can - change a thing if parents simply can't, don't or won't put the effort in to educating their kids.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
But in an era before mass higher education or student grants (to which we are now returning)
Without grants? Yes - that's been the case for several years now. Without mass higher education? Like hell.
Your point is? Mine is, that people being born today are likely to find themselves as disadvantaged as my dad was.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
If poorer kids were really being taught from birth that they can do whatever they put their mind to (and have a talent for, of course) I honestly believe far more of them would do it.
Far more of them, maybe, but obviously not all. In a competitive system only a few can get to the top. Inevitable probably in any society, but why should the majority without the fighting instinct suffer disproportionately?
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
But in an era before mass higher education or student grants (to which we are now returning)
Without grants? Yes - that's been the case for several years now. Without mass higher education? Like hell.
Your point is? Mine is, that people being born today are likely to find themselves as disadvantaged as my dad was.
My point is that we are not "returning" to "an era before mass higher education". The changes in HE funding will not* adversely affect any prospective student.

*= OK, "should not". There are plenty of people who are too stupid or lazy to look beyond the headline numbers to see how much better the new system actually will be for students.
 
Posted by ianjmatt (# 5683) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
If poorer kids were really being taught from birth that they can do whatever they put their mind to (and have a talent for, of course) I honestly believe far more of them would do it.
Far more of them, maybe, but obviously not all. In a competitive system only a few can get to the top. Inevitable probably in any society, but why should the majority without the fighting instinct suffer disproportionately?
Because surely as well as providing opportunity for all, a fair society also allows reward for those who succeed? Otherwise, where is the incentive and also the fairness?
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Far more of them, maybe, but obviously not all. In a competitive system only a few can get to the top. Inevitable probably in any society, but why should the majority without the fighting instinct suffer disproportionately?
Well of course not everybody can get to the top. Not everybody should. I myself will (barring disastrous changes to the job market) never be in the top 25% of earners in this country, and that's right and proper because I have neither the aptitude nor the fighting instinct to be there. As a bone fide member of the majority you mention, I really don't see that as suffering in any way.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ianjmatt:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
If poorer kids were really being taught from birth that they can do whatever they put their mind to (and have a talent for, of course) I honestly believe far more of them would do it.
Far more of them, maybe, but obviously not all. In a competitive system only a few can get to the top. Inevitable probably in any society, but why should the majority without the fighting instinct suffer disproportionately?
Because surely as well as providing opportunity for all, a fair society also allows reward for those who succeed? Otherwise, where is the incentive and also the fairness?
You're absolutely right, but absolutely wrong if you think the current system provides that. Inherited wealth and bought privilege are greater indicators of success than talent, good ideas and hard-work.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
reward for those who succeed: fair enough. That shouldn't imply punishment for those who don't. They might be relatively less well off, but they shouldn't be deprived of the necessities of life (nor their children be hampered).

In practice, most of us who settle for an easier and less stressful way of life by gravitating to the less competitive occupations, don't particularly regret missing out on private jets and luxury penthouses. We are quite content to live humbly but do need food, warmth and shelter, and preferably a bit of culture. And occasional luxuries are nice, but one person's luxury is another's must-have.
 
Posted by Moth (# 2589) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Originally quoted by Moth:
quote:
However, the chance to become a top entrepreneur is not an even one, however hard you are prepared to work. That does not mean that those from poorer backgrounds cannot succeed - some can and do. It does mean that it is less likely.
You think that's because those from wealthier backgrounds are hoarding all the good jobs. I disagree - I think it's because those from poorer backgrounds have lower aspirations. If poorer kids were really being taught from birth that they can do whatever they put their mind to (and have a talent for, of course) I honestly believe far more of them would do it. Instead they get dragged down, told not to bother trying, told that such things are not for the likes of them. And mostly it's the parents teaching them these things, be it directly or indirectly. I weep for that situation, I really do, but I simply don't see how any of the standard political answers (which usually involve either throwing money at it or taking money away from it) will - or can - change a thing if parents simply can't, don't or won't put the effort in to educating their kids.
I think this is the nub of our disagreement. My experience has been that poor parents are just as ambitious for their children as wealthy ones. I don't know a single parent who says 'I want little Johnny to grow up to be an unsuccessful drop-out'. I think you unfairly malign poorer parents when you say that, and I would be interested to see your evidence.

What is the case, according to the research I have seen, is that poorer parents no longer believe that education is likely to provide a way out of poverty for their children. They base this on their own experience - many of them went to the very same schools their children are now attending, and those schools did not equip them with the knowledge and skills to do well in life. Why should anything have changed since they were there?

Instead, poorer parents are more likely to try to get their children into football academies, or on the X factor, as thse seem to be more attainable ways of getting a better life. Hence the popularity of such shows on TV.

What we have seen over the last 30 years is a widening of the gap between the richest and poorest in a huge number of fields - health, education and attainment being the most important. It was easier for me to do well than it was for you, because I'm about 20 years older, assuming we both started out with good, caring, working class parents.

The problem with the rationale you give for this is that it takes the route of blaming the victims of inequality for their own fate - something which has been the route of those doing well out of a system throughout history. 'Women cannot succeed in the professions because their brains aren't up to it'. 'Blacks are not as clever or sophisticated as whites'. 'The poor are not as ambitious as the rich and won't work hard enough'. This simply will not do as an explanation. Why should the poor want to stay poor? It doesn't make sense, and I am not prepared to believe it unless we can eliminate every other explanation - which we can't.

I think the explanation that the social and educational system has (possibly unwittingly) entrenched opportunity hoarding and class difference seems a lot more plausible, as this explanation is motivated by greed rather than apathy - a motivation you have previously given great weight to in your desire to uphold high wages for high attainers. The middle classes, seeing they were on to a good thing, have sensibly made use of their superior buying power to exclude poorer children from opportunities to advance. They have done this by leveraging all their assets - money, power, and influence. I do not blame them for this - it is common sense to advance your own cause. However, it is not fair.

What is the solution? I think it lies in radically overhauling the education system. I would introduce lotteries for all state schools for a start, so that buying a house in the right catchment area is no longer a guarantee of a place in a good school. Once most of the middle classes have no real choice of school, they'll make sure every school is a good one. I would eliminate the personal statement from university applications, I would guarantee a place at the top universities for the top five attaining students from each school, no matter what their grades - see middle class parents scrambling to get into a poor sixth form so that little Johnny can come top! I would make independent schools give far more scholarships to the top attainers in local primary schools. All internships would have to be advertised and expenses paid.

Let's really level the playing field, then we can see who rises to the top.
 
Posted by ianjmatt (# 5683) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Moth:

What is the solution? I think it lies in radically overhauling the education system. I would introduce lotteries for all state schools for a start, so that buying a house in the right catchment area is no longer a guarantee of a place in a good school. Once most of the middle classes have no real choice of school, they'll make sure every school is a good one.
If all parents are as motivated as you suggest to make sure their kids get the best chance in life, why is it down to middle class parents?

Also, this is impractical - what about siblings, parents needing to travel across town from where they live and then to work, impact on infrastructure - roads, public transport etc.

quote:

I would eliminate the personal statement from university applications,
Why - so that kids with poor language skills don't get exposed until they get there??? It is not the universities job to teach basic communication skills.

quote:

I would guarantee a place at the top universities for the top five attaining students from each school, no matter what their grades - see middle class parents scrambling to get into a poor sixth form so that little Johnny can come top!
Right. So a person coming sixth in one place, but who may outperform all top five in another place doesn't get into the best university? How is that in any way meritocratic or fair?

quote:

Let's really level the playing field, then we can see who rises to the top.
This isn't levelling the playing field, it is social engineering and sacrificing able children on the altar of ideology.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ianjmatt:
This isn't levelling the playing field, it is social engineering and sacrificing able children on the altar of ideology.
A bit of an own goal.

If that's what Moth is hypothetically guilty of, you're guilty of it right now: able children are being sacrificed on the altar of ideology, but because they're poor, they don't count.

[ 17. November 2010, 17:07: Message edited by: Doc Tor ]
 
Posted by ianjmatt (# 5683) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by ianjmatt:
This isn't levelling the playing field, it is social engineering and sacrificing able children on the altar of ideology.
A bit of an own goal.

If that's what Moth is hypothetically guilty of, you're guilty of it right now: able children are being sacrificed on the altar of ideology, but because they're poor, they don't count.
So we change one bad system for another one. What is the point in that?
 
Posted by Moth (# 2589) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ianjmatt:
quote:
Originally posted by Moth:

What is the solution? I think it lies in radically overhauling the education system. I would introduce lotteries for all state schools for a start, so that buying a house in the right catchment area is no longer a guarantee of a place in a good school. Once most of the middle classes have no real choice of school, they'll make sure every school is a good one.
If all parents are as motivated as you suggest to make sure their kids get the best chance in life, why is it down to middle class parents?
I don't understand the question. I already explained why poorer parents don't trust education as a way out - those living in poorer areas are not in the catchment for good schools. At present it's in middle class parents' interests to send their children to good schools, something they achieve by using money. If they had no choice of school, they would invest that money and influence in improving every school. Poorer parents would no doubt join in - some of them do try already.

quote:
Also, this is impractical - what about siblings, parents needing to travel across town from where they live and then to work, impact on infrastructure - roads, public transport etc.
Why should siblings go to the same school, at least at secondary level? Provide buses from each area to each school, US style. Parents shouldn't be driving kids to school anyway - we both worked and never drove our children to school - even though one travelled 10 miles each way.
quote:
Originally posted by Moth:

I would eliminate the personal statement from university applications,
quote:
Why - so that kids with poor language skills don't get exposed until they get there??? It is not the universities job to teach basic communication skills.
No, to eliminate intelligent middle class parents writing the statements for their kids! Give them a test in English, or, better still, make a good grade in GCSE English actually require writing skills!

quote:
Originally posted by Moth:


I would guarantee a place at the top universities for the top five attaining students from each school, no matter what their grades - see middle class parents scrambling to get into a poor sixth form so that little Johnny can come top!
quote:
Right. So a person coming sixth in one place, but who may outperform all top five in another place doesn't get into the best university? How is that in any way meritocratic or fair?
Others would still be able to get in, but it would minimise the advantage of being at a good school. Maybe it should only be the top one or two, rather than five. If schools eventually evened out, this could be dropped anyway.

quote:
Originally posted by Moth:


Let's really level the playing field, then we can see who rises to the top.
quote:
This isn't levelling the playing field, it is social engineering and sacrificing able children on the altar of ideology.
Yes, it is social engineering. However, I dispute that we are sacrificing the ablest any more under this system than we are doing at present - if as much! An able poor child under our current system has a very reduced chance of success.

Whenever any education system is suggested that is not alterable by money or influence, an outcry goes up. That should tell us something. But don't worry - my scheme will never be adopted - it would be political suicide.
 
Posted by Moth (# 2589) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ianjmatt:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by ianjmatt:
This isn't levelling the playing field, it is social engineering and sacrificing able children on the altar of ideology.
A bit of an own goal.

If that's what Moth is hypothetically guilty of, you're guilty of it right now: able children are being sacrificed on the altar of ideology, but because they're poor, they don't count.
So we change one bad system for another one. What is the point in that?
Well, you suggest a better one! I'm not entirely convinced by my own solutions either, but since I think that the stranglehold that the middle classes have on opportunities is the problem, forcibly breaking that hold in some way is the solution. I'm probably not going far enough, actually, as I haven't suggested banning independent schools, for example.

If, like Marvin, you think that the problem is the poor themselves, my solution obviously won't work.
 
Posted by ianjmatt (# 5683) on :
 
The problem is that all your solutions suggest statist intervention into the freedom of self-determination of people. Restriction where they can go to school (such as banning independent schools) is one such example.

The truth is that if someone is motivated and has the ability they can overcome their situation. I come from working class stock - my father was an unskilled labourer. My parents divorced when I was 10, and my stepfather was slightly better off, but getting richer. He grew up on a council estate and didn't see the benefit of education beyond 16. We never got on and I was forced out at 17 with two 'O' levels and lived in a squat in Manchester.

However, I eventually sorted myself out. Studied at evening class, took various mundane jobs and applied for the sort of job I might have wanted.

I suppose I consider myself middle-class now in terms of values: education, long-term planning, the arts etc but I know that it is only because I chose to adopt those values myself in spite of my background which was a disadvantage.

My point is that I got no support, help or motivation from my home life. That is not the death knell of ambition for anyone unless they allow it to be.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
The two obvious and entirely unworkable solutions are these: inheritance tax at 100%, and close fee-paying schools.

Since that will never happen (in a democracy, at least), those who seek a better deal for less advantaged kids have to engage in some fairly radical social engineering simply to get anywhere at all.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ianjmatt:
My point is that I got no support, help or motivation from my home life. That is not the death knell of ambition for anyone unless they allow it to be.
No one here is arguing that it is.

But your story proves our, not your, point. That if you'd been supported in your ambitions by a system that recognised your potential and helped you financially, you wouldn't have ended up homeless and you'd have got your qualifications and decent job sooner.

We don't live in ancient Sparta, where every day must be a struggle in order to weed out the weaklings. Fighting for everything you have sounds noble, but it isn't. The rich certainly don't do it.
 
Posted by Moth (# 2589) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ianjmatt:

The truth is that if someone is motivated and has the ability they can overcome their situation.
I deny that that is the truth. I contend that for every story like yours, there are hundreds where the the disadvantaged person stays in poverty. We don't like that story so much, so we don't tell it.

I think that that the plural of anecdote is not data, and that if the statistcs show what I think they show, you are wrong. Motivation and ability are not enough - and in any case, why should the poor have to show exceptional ability and motivation, over and above that of their richer peers, to succeed?
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
The two obvious and entirely unworkable solutions are these: inheritance tax at 100%, and close fee-paying schools.
No need for super-high inheritance tax at all. A land tax at the normal rate of income tax on imputed rent from land would do much of the job.

Just as ordinary income gets an allowance, so have one for land. Also another allowanec for main residence.

And charge little or nothing for standing woodland, uncultivatable hill country or marshland, and land in national parks or nature reserves & so on that is farmed by systems agreed with the managers of the reserves (nice and green).
 
Posted by ianjmatt (# 5683) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Moth:
Motivation and ability are not enough - and in any case, why should the poor have to show exceptional ability and motivation, over and above that of their richer peers, to succeed?
Because that is just life. I don't resent it, it is just a fact.

We should fight for a fairer society, absolutely. But we shouldn't penalise parents who can make good provision for their children in the misguided idea of fairness.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ianjmatt:
We should fight for a fairer society, absolutely. But we shouldn't penalise parents who can make good provision for their children in the misguided idea of fairness.
So you're saying it's fine for parents to buy their kids privilege, but not for the State to buy it for kids whose parents can't afford it.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
What Moth said.
quote:
Originally posted by Moth:
quote:
Originally posted by ianjmatt:

The truth is that if someone is motivated and has the ability they can overcome their situation.
I deny that that is the truth. I contend that for every story like yours, there are hundreds where the the disadvantaged person stays in poverty. We don't like that story so much, so we don't tell it.
Surely the whole thing is obvious? Can we really be disagreeing on this?

As the world as a whole has been slowly getting richer of the past few centuries, most people are a bit better off than their parents used to be at tyhe same age. But some people end up much poorer than they started, and some much richer. We'd all agree on that, yes?

Someone who was born well-off is more likely to prosper, and less likely to be poor, than someone who was born poor. But its not guaranteed, its just a probability. Obviously true, yes?

Someone who is well supported by family and friends is more likely to prosper, and less likely to be poor, than someone who is isolated and alone. But its not guaranteed, its just a probability. Obviously true, yes?

Someone who has great natural abilities is more likely to prosper, and less likely to be poor, than someone who has many disabilities. But its not guaranteed, its just a probability. Obviously true, yes?

Someone who is married and supported by their spouse is more likely to prosper, and less likely to be poor, than someone who is single, or whose spouse does not help them. But its not guaranteed, its just a probability. Obviously true, yes?

Someone who is lucky is more likely to prosper, and less likely to be poor, than someone who is unlucky. But its not guaranteed, its just a probability. Obviously true, yes?

Someone who is hard-working is more likely to prosper, and less likely to be poor, than someone who is lazy. But its not guaranteed, its just a probability. Obviously true, yes?

Someone who is well-educated is more likely to prosper, and less likely to be poor, than someone who undeducated. But its not guaranteed, its just a probability. Obviously true, yes?

Someone who is intelligent is more likely to prosper, and less likely to be poor, than someone who is stupid. But its not guaranteed, its just a probability. Obviously true, yes?

Does anyone disagree with any of those statements?

So how can anyone serously say things like "if someone is motivated and has the ability they can overcome their situation" as if it was a general rule that applies everywhere?

What Moth says is obviously true.
 
Posted by ianjmatt (# 5683) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by ianjmatt:
We should fight for a fairer society, absolutely. But we shouldn't penalise parents who can make good provision for their children in the misguided idea of fairness.
So you're saying it's fine for parents to buy their kids privilege, but not for the State to buy it for kids whose parents can't afford it.
No - that wasn't what I said. It isn't right to penalise parents who can make that provision in a search for a good society. In the end, the state can never be a good parent - it can only hope to mitigate the effects of poor parenting.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ianjmatt:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by ianjmatt:
We should fight for a fairer society, absolutely. But we shouldn't penalise parents who can make good provision for their children in the misguided idea of fairness.
So you're saying it's fine for parents to buy their kids privilege, but not for the State to buy it for kids whose parents can't afford it.
No - that wasn't what I said. It isn't right to penalise parents who can make that provision in a search for a good society. In the end, the state can never be a good parent - it can only hope to mitigate the effects of poor parenting.
You're subtly changing your argument here. Parents aren't buying privilege for their children for the good of society: they're buying privilege for the good of themselves and their kids - it's almost an entirely selfish act.

And the corollary is obvious: that if I buy privilege for my kids, I'm doing it so they'll be higher up the socio-economic ladder and wield more power than your kids.

If we don't somehow mitigate the privilege that money buys, that's the way it's going to stay - something you say you don't want to happen. [Confused]
 
Posted by ianjmatt (# 5683) on :
 
When the comprehensive system was proposed in the 1964 Labour manifesto they promised that every school would be as good as the Grammar Schools. That was a laudable aim and shows what would be the ideal.

Not reducing the opportunity money brings, but raising everyone up to the same level as the best. I have never seen it happen (and the comprehensive system certainly didn't deliver what Labour promised it would), but that is surely the aim!
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Moth:
quote:
Originally posted by ianjmatt:
So we change one bad system for another one. What is the point in that?
Well, you suggest a better one! I'm not entirely convinced by my own solutions either, but since I think that the stranglehold that the middle classes have on opportunities is the problem, forcibly breaking that hold in some way is the solution. I'm probably not going far enough, actually, as I haven't suggested banning independent schools, for example.
Make the bad schools better while letting the good schools stay that way. Make things more equal by dragging the bottom up, not dragging the top down.

quote:
If, like Marvin, you think that the problem is the poor themselves, my solution obviously won't work.
You seem to think that everyone who currently occupies the lower rungs of the social ladder would be perfectly able to slot into any other situation if only they'd been given the breaks. But that ignores the millions who genuinely don't care what they do, the parents who just go out drinking every night rather than looking after their kids, or who are abusive, or who are just so feckless that their kids never even get told that opportunity exists. Evening out opportunities won't help these people. Managing school admissions by a lottery system won't sober up an alcoholic parent, and I am firmly of the belief that parenting is the single most significant factor in anyone's success (or lack thereof).
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
You seem to think that everyone who currently occupies the lower rungs of the social ladder would be perfectly able to slot into any other situation if only they'd been given the breaks.
While you seem to think that everyone who currently occupies the higher rungs of the social ladder got there because of their own individual talent and drive.

Bollocks. Moth is right in far more cases than you are.
 
Posted by Moth (# 2589) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I am firmly of the belief that parenting is the single most significant factor in anyone's success (or lack thereof).
Then provide a link to the research that backs you up!
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
Just like you, all I can do is demonstrate correllation. We're not arguing about the correllation, we're arguing about the things that cause that correllation.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
So how can anyone serously say things like "if someone is motivated and has the ability they can overcome their situation" as if it was a general rule that applies everywhere?
What one can say, on the other hand, is that some people who are motivated and have ability overcome some aspects of their situation to greater or lesser extents.
 
Posted by Moth (# 2589) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Just like you, all I can do is demonstrate correllation. We're not arguing about the correllation, we're arguing about the things that cause that correllation.
No, I have gone a lot further than you - I have quoted published research about the factors that correllate with lack of success in life. One of those is indeed parenting. It is not the only one. You persist in claiming that parenting is the only or main factor in success without once offering any evidence whatsoever that you are correct.

Let's try this another way: Parent A and Parent B are both excellent parents, utterly devoted to the success of their children. Parent A has a good job and is able to provide their chidren with a private education at a top school, riding lessons, music lessons, exciting and educational hoildays abroad and a fund to pay fees at any university in the world. Parent B is poorly paid and can afford none of those things, though they do their best to take an interest in education and to help their child succeed.

Which child, assuming equal intelligence and motivation, is more likely to succeed?
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Moth:
Which child, assuming equal intelligence and motivation, is more likely to succeed?
The way I see it, both kids still have to go to school and get the grades. I don't know about any other universities, but the one I work for only accepts students based on academic achievement - no amount of extra fees paid will get anyone in if they haven't got the grades. If other universities will, they are in the wrong.

My limited understanding of employment law is that nepotism and the old school tie shouldn't be factors in hiring (or promoting) - I realise that's hard to enforce but it's worth working at.

Riding/music lessons are a red herring, as they're just hobbies. In many ways holidays are the same - it's nice to see the world, but very few job interviews will depend on how many countries you've seen.

Of course, it also depends on how you define success. If you define it as someone making it into the top 10% of earners in the country then obviously 90% of people won't be successful. But if you define it as an incremental increase in living standards with each generation - being successful compared to where you started from, rather than compared to everyone else - it's not as difficult. I feel successful because I have a good job that I don't hate, and that pays enough to cover all the bills with a little left over for a rainy day. By the standards you appear to be using I'm not a success, because I'm not a judge or top solicitor or member of parliament.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ianjmatt:
When the comprehensive system was proposed in the 1964 Labour manifesto they promised that every school would be as good as the Grammar Schools. That was a laudable aim and shows what would be the ideal.

Not reducing the opportunity money brings, but raising everyone up to the same level as the best. I have never seen it happen (and the comprehensive system certainly didn't deliver what Labour promised it would), but that is surely the aim!
Had the per capita funding for comprehensives matched that of the grammar schools, that would have been possible. But the pot wasn't made much larger and many secondary moderns were little better than the 'Board Schools' they purported to replace. I was lucky enough to pass the 11+ and the first form I was in had 28 pupils. Mrs Sioni's by contrast had 39 and they had to share desks and textbooks.

A heck of a lot more kids now get to do the higher tier GCSE's which are comparable to GCE's and the latter were, as near as dammit, restricted to grammar school pupils; in some cases exam boards refused Sec Mods the opportunity!

btw, the Attlee government really missed a trick when it didn't bring the Public Schools into the national education system [Biased]
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Riding/music lessons are a red herring, as they're just hobbies. In many ways holidays are the same - it's nice to see the world, but very few job interviews will depend on how many countries you've seen.
I think what this leaves out is that many university interviews ask for students interested in the rest of the world and life. Students who can talk fluently about outside interests, riding, sport and music are more likely to be admitted.

The other important factor is that these outside interests develop the student's faculty to think. For instance, studying music is an exercise in intellectual development.

(BTW I think your definition of success question is a good one. We all have our own personal definitions, but it would be a better world if our personal definitions were less constrained by circumstance of our birth).

[ 18. November 2010, 11:35: Message edited by: mdijon ]
 
Posted by ianjmatt (# 5683) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Moth:

Let's try this another way: Parent A and Parent B are both excellent parents, utterly devoted to the success of their children. Parent A has a good job and is able to provide their chidren with a private education at a top school, riding lessons, music lessons, exciting and educational hoildays abroad and a fund to pay fees at any university in the world. Parent B is poorly paid and can afford none of those things, though they do their best to take an interest in education and to help their child succeed.

Which child, assuming equal intelligence and motivation, is more likely to succeed?
Obviously the child of Parent A. However, how do you mitigate that? By restricting the freedom of Parent A to make those choices for their child? Or by providing the structures to help the child of Parent B, which can only augment the parent's desire, not replace it?

Part of the problem I have seen is that too much public policy has been about stopping the parents from helping their children succeed (attacking private education and so-called 'pushy' middle-class parents) rather than looking at education, society and communities and asking difficult questions.


quote:
Originally posted by mdijon

I think what this leaves out is that many university interviews ask for students interested in the rest of the world and life. Students who can talk fluently about outside interests, riding, sport and music are more likely to be admitted.

The other important factor is that these outside interests develop the student's faculty to think. For instance, studying music is an exercise in intellectual development.
So what are you saying? That we stop parents providing these things? That we should weigh the balance against well-rounded and articulate children? I'm not sure what the solution is you are proposing.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ianjmatt:
So what are you saying?...I'm not sure what the solution is you are proposing.
I was saying what I thought the facts were. I wasn't proposing a solution.
 
Posted by ianjmatt (# 5683) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by ianjmatt:
So what are you saying?...I'm not sure what the solution is you are proposing.
I was saying what I thought the facts were. I wasn't proposing a solution.
So do you think there needs to be a solution?
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
Yes, but that's not the same as believing that I have the solution.

I'm pretty sure part of it is the welfare state, but it's clear to me that the welfare state can also be part of the problem in certain circumstances. Utopia would be if we could provide child B with child A's opportunity. What do we do when we can't do that?
 
Posted by Moth (# 2589) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ianjmatt:
Part of the problem I have seen is that too much public policy has been about stopping the parents from helping their children succeed (attacking private education and so-called 'pushy' middle-class parents) rather than looking at education, society and communities and asking difficult questions.

Actually, I dispute that entirely. Both under the Tories and Labour, the only actual policies put into place have been to try to improve the lot of the poor to bring them up to the standards of the rich. For example, the last government never closed public schools, or even took away their charitable status. Its main policies were 'SureStart' providing early nursery school place for deprived children and league tables for state schools to try to improve them. Neither party is ever going to really take away the advantages of the successful, and I can see that there are great disadvantages in doing so.

It seems to me that the problem is the old one of equal access. When women didn't have equal access to the professions, they couldn't succeed in them. Now they do have equal access, they do succeed, a fact which contradicts the reason often given for their lack of success before - that they were somehow 'unfitted' for such work.

I think what is going on at present is a direct corollary. It suits us to believe that the poor are 'unfitted' to succeed, when what they lack is equal access. How we fix the problem is a thorny question. My suggestions above were my best guess based on what I think to be the reasons for the problem. They would shake things up and lead to fairer access to good schools at least in the state sector. I am, however, open to persuasion that it would cause so much disruption as to be unworkable.
 
Posted by dyfrig (# 15) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Moth:
Both under the Tories and Labour, the only actual policies put into place have been to try to improve the lot of the poor to bring them up to the standards of the rich.
You have put your finger on the nail and hit the nub of something I was finding hard to articulate. The policies of the last Labour government was never to "bring everybody down to the same level" - such rhetoric is at least 20 years out of date. It's not just fighting the last war - it's fighting the one before that.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Moth:
quote:
Originally posted by ianjmatt:

The truth is that if someone is motivated and has the ability they can overcome their situation.
I deny that that is the truth. I contend that for every story like yours, there are hundreds where the the disadvantaged person stays in poverty. We don't like that story so much, so we don't tell it.

We should tell that story and asked why those people don't succeed where others do, all other things being equal. The fact that this happens may suggest something about those people that is not a lot to do with 'equality of opportunity'.
 
Posted by Moth (# 2589) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by Moth:
quote:
Originally posted by ianjmatt:

The truth is that if someone is motivated and has the ability they can overcome their situation.
I deny that that is the truth. I contend that for every story like yours, there are hundreds where the the disadvantaged person stays in poverty. We don't like that story so much, so we don't tell it.

We should tell that story and asked why those people don't succeed where others do, all other things being equal. The fact that this happens may suggest something about those people that is not a lot to do with 'equality of opportunity'.
Now I'm really confused. If all other things were equal, then there would be equality of opportunity. What I'm saying is that all other things are not equal.

If what you mean is that of two people both in difficult circumstances, one may succeed and the other not, then it might be down to hundreds of factors - health, luck, character etc. What I am complaining about is that someone with less money and power etc has to try much harder to succeed than someone with those assets, and that is not fair. In a ideal world, a bright child from a poor home would have an equal chance of being a doctor with one from a wealthy home. At the present, all the research shows that is not the case.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Moth:
How we fix the problem is a thorny question.... I am, however, open to persuasion that it would cause so much disruption as to be unworkable.
I completely agree with you on the bit that dyfrig quoted. For instance, Labour's foundation 2 funding has allowed many middle class parents to top up what they pay to independent schools to benefit their children. Not that there's anything wrong with that provided it is proportionate to spending elsewhere in the education system, but it counters the claim that Labour was about the politics of envy and dragging the middle class down.

However, on what to do about it I'm pretty clear in my mind that anything that seeks to reduce independent provision is a really bad idea. Apart from the civil liberties issues, I suspect the overall effect will be to reduce the average quality of education rather than send the money and facilities into the state sector.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Moth:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by Moth:
quote:
Originally posted by ianjmatt:

The truth is that if someone is motivated and has the ability they can overcome their situation.
I deny that that is the truth. I contend that for every story like yours, there are hundreds where the the disadvantaged person stays in poverty. We don't like that story so much, so we don't tell it.

We should tell that story and asked why those people don't succeed where others do, all other things being equal. The fact that this happens may suggest something about those people that is not a lot to do with 'equality of opportunity'.
Now I'm really confused. If all other things were equal, then there would be equality of opportunity. What I'm saying is that all other things are not equal.

Exactly. Which means that if two people are dealt, shall we say, an 'unlucky hand' in terms of their circumstances, and one succeeds and the other doesn't, then we should be asking ourself why the second person hasn't succeeded, rather than necessarily blaming inequality of opportunity.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by Moth:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by Moth:
quote:
Originally posted by ianjmatt:

The truth is that if someone is motivated and has the ability they can overcome their situation.
I deny that that is the truth. I contend that for every story like yours, there are hundreds where the the disadvantaged person stays in poverty. We don't like that story so much, so we don't tell it.

We should tell that story and asked why those people don't succeed where others do, all other things being equal. The fact that this happens may suggest something about those people that is not a lot to do with 'equality of opportunity'.
Now I'm really confused. If all other things were equal, then there would be equality of opportunity. What I'm saying is that all other things are not equal.

Exactly. Which means that if two people are dealt, shall we say, an 'unlucky hand' in terms of their circumstances, and one succeeds and the other doesn't, then we should be asking ourself why the second person hasn't succeeded, rather than necessarily blaming inequality of opportunity.
um... how do you say "exactly" and then go on to completely deny what you are supposedly agreeing with?
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
I meant 'all other things being equal' between the two of them, not the two of them and the rest.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
That doesn't really seem logical, Matt. If out of 100 subjects under condition A, 50% achieve outcome x, but of 100 subjects under condition B, 10% achieve outcome x it isn't sensible to ask what is wrong with the missing 40% under condition B. You might ask what was so special about the 10%, on the other hand.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
Maybe, but it's still worth looking at the differences between the 10% and 40% under B and seeing if lessons can be learned from that also rather than just blaming the differences between A and B.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
The lessons run along the themes that some people are just very highly motivated, very intelligent, very lucky, or all three, and will withstand anything. I'd have thought that in terms of government policy examining those individual differences is less important than comparing conditions A and B.

On the other hand, I accept that for an individual it may be more profitable to think about what other individuals in condition B are doing that works, as one's ability to influence government policy is limited.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Maybe, but it's still worth looking at the differences between the 10% and 40% under B and seeing if lessons can be learned from that also rather than just blaming the differences between A and B.
Okay, so after turning a machine gun on group A, who are all wearing body armour, 50% are still alive. Shoot at group B, who aren't, and only 10% survive.

Your conclusion: those in group B who dodge better, live. I think I see a flaw in your argument.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Moth:
It seems to me that the problem is the old one of equal access. When women didn't have equal access to the professions, they couldn't succeed in them. Now they do have equal access, they do succeed, a fact which contradicts the reason often given for their lack of success before - that they were somehow 'unfitted' for such work.

I think what is going on at present is a direct corollary.
Unless the professions have a "no poor people" rule, and are enforcing it, there's not a direct corollary at all. If it was that simple, we could put laws in place that say universities and companies cannot take social class or individual wealth into account when recruiting, and problem solved.

quote:
It suits us to believe that the poor are 'unfitted' to succeed, when what they lack is equal access.
I don't think poor kids are 'unfitted' at all - on the contrary I think that many have promise that quite simply isn't allowed to shine through due to entrenched attitudes. I mean, you yourself have pointed out that some poor parents don't value education, and thus teach their kids not to value it - that's exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about! What could those kids become if they were being taught to value education, that it was something that could really do wonders for them if they put the effort in?

quote:
How we fix the problem is a thorny question. My suggestions above were my best guess based on what I think to be the reasons for the problem.
My suggestion - to make the bad schools better, so that top education is available for all - would go a fair way to fixing the problem as well, wouldn't it?
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
That is what many successive administrations have claimed as their policy. But social mobility doesn't seem any higher for it.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Okay, so after turning a machine gun on group A, who are all wearing body armour, 50% are still alive. Shoot at group B, who aren't, and only 10% survive.
The solution is to buy more body armour, not to take some of the body armour off group A and give it to group B.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
That is what many successive administrations have claimed as their policy. But social mobility doesn't seem any higher for it.
Have the schools actually improved though? People can claim to be enacting policies all they like, but if they don't actually do them it doesn't mean the policies don't work.
 
Posted by Imaginary Friend (# 186) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
That is what many successive administrations have claimed as their policy. But social mobility doesn't seem any higher for it.
Have the schools actually improved though?
Exam grades have gone up. [Two face]
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
I don't know. Maybe they have improved but not as much as the general standard, and so the poor are still being left behind. Yes, it's about implementation.
 
Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Riding/music lessons are a red herring, as they're just hobbies. In many ways holidays are the same - it's nice to see the world, but very few job interviews will depend on how many countries you've seen.
I think what this leaves out is that many university interviews ask for students interested in the rest of the world and life.
I don't know what you studied, all of mine mainly involved me answering maths questions.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Okay, so after turning a machine gun on group A, who are all wearing body armour, 50% are still alive. Shoot at group B, who aren't, and only 10% survive.
The solution is to buy more body armour, not to take some of the body armour off group A and give it to group B.
Duh, yes.

At least you managed to state the obvious, rather than Matt's response, "Let's look at the difference between the 10% who lived and the 90% who died", which was worthy of only derision.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
At least you managed to state the obvious
Funny how it's obvious when applied to machine guns and body armour, but when applied to education people suddenly start thinking that removing one person's opportunity in order to give it to someone else is a good and desirable thing...
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
I don't know what you studied, all of mine mainly involved me answering maths questions.
At undergraduate level? That surprises me. Medicine certainly isn't like that, and nor is biology.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
At least you managed to state the obvious
Funny how it's obvious when applied to machine guns and body armour, but when applied to education people suddenly start thinking that removing one person's opportunity in order to give it to someone else is a good and desirable thing...
You love this strawman, don't you? Let's run with it, then.

Why have group A got all the body armour? I bet it's not because they're more deserving of it than group B.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
I think it depends what is meant by "removing their body armour". If one means ensuring that government resource is supplied equally to all, where previously the government favoured one group, then I'm all for it. If it means banning independent schools to ensure the teaching resources are more widely distributed then that's not so great.
 
Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
I don't know what you studied, all of mine mainly involved me answering maths questions.
At undergraduate level? That surprises me. Medicine certainly isn't like that, and nor is biology.
At both undergrad and postgrad level.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I think it depends what is meant by "removing their body armour". If one means ensuring that government resource is supplied equally to all, where previously the government favoured one group, then I'm all for it. If it means banning independent schools to ensure the teaching resources are more widely distributed then that's not so great.
Exactly. There must be a way to increase the opportunities available to the poor without decreasing the opportunities available to everyone else.

For instance, the practice of the middle classes moving into a good school's catchment area is frequently held up as a way that the poor are denied opportunity. But if all schools were good then it wouldn't matter where people lived. Is the solution to prevent people from moving to good catchment areas (say, by bringing in a lottery system for school admissions) or to make it so that they don't have to in the first place?
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
Originally posted by mdijon
quote:
I think it depends what is meant by "removing their body armour". If one means ensuring that government resource is supplied equally to all, where previously the government favoured one group, then I'm all for it. If it means banning independent schools to ensure the teaching resources are more widely distributed then that's not so great.
I think we would have to wait many years before they developed a strain of pigs with strong enough wings. Abolishing private schools ain't going to happen. But two things at least could happen (not under this government though):
[1] private schools should lose their charitable status unless those that were founded 'to educate the poor' (a large majority, I would guess) are actually fulfilling the intentions of their founders.
[2] comprehensive schools should revert to being simply that (not gimmicky 'specialist academies'), and to take a cross-section of abilities. That might entail 'bussing in' low-achieving working-class pupils into middle class areas, and middle-class kids into working-class areas*. Not an ideal solution but better than an intake weighted towards one section of the community.

[*I'm not in the least suggesting that working-class= low ability, or the reverse. But it's generally accepted that schools with a socially balanced intake do better. Even or especially those in middle-class areas: many such schools often coast and fail to achieve their potential.]

[ 18. November 2010, 16:06: Message edited by: Angloid ]
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
The difficulty is that some of these things are circular. It's difficult to make the schools in poor areas as good as the rich when the former have 20% speaking English as a 2nd language, more special needs, more children heading for exclusions, more children being taken out of school during term time or moving into/out of the area etc.

The poor bring their problems with them, and the rich area schools are sometimes helped by not having to deal with them.
 
Posted by ianjmatt (# 5683) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

[1] private schools should lose their charitable status unless those that were founded 'to educate the poor' (a large majority, I would guess) are actually fulfilling the intentions of their founders.
I guess I have no problem with that. Except that charitable status is about fulfilling the charitable aims as they stand now in the trust deed or constitution. If the charitable aim is fulfilled (e.g. by providing teaching facilities, scholarships, access to playing fields etc) then it would be a mighty court battle to get that removed. To tighten up charity law will result in a lot of very good charities that are not schools also being excluded.

quote:
[2] comprehensive schools should revert to being simply that (not gimmicky 'specialist academies'), and to take a cross-section of abilities. That might entail 'bussing in' low-achieving working-class pupils into middle class areas, and middle-class kids into working-class areas*. Not an ideal solution but better than an intake weighted towards one section of the community.



So we tell parents that they may not send their kids to their local schools, that they MUST put them on buses and send them to schools miles away, with the obvious restriction on freedom, pollution, congestions and added problems in getting to kids in emergencies? All for the sake of social engineering. You will find a middle-class flight as more parents look to what will become a growing market in co-op independent schools (assuming free schools are got rid of as well).

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon

The difficulty is that some of these things are circular. It's difficult to make the schools in poor areas as good as the rich when the former have 20% speaking English as a 2nd language, more special needs, more children heading for exclusions, more children being taken out of school during term time or moving into/out of the area etc.

The poor bring their problems with them, and the rich area schools are sometimes helped by not having to deal with them.
So are you suggesting is that we spread the problem around so that all schools middle out somewhere? Or should it be accepted that some schools have more challenges because of the demographic and the best resources possible be allocated to try and alleviate that.

If so, don't blame the good schools, who don't generally receive any more funding.

[ 18. November 2010, 17:48: Message edited by: ianjmatt ]
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ianjmatt:
So are you suggesting is that we spread the problem around so that all schools middle out somewhere? Or should it be accepted.... If so, don't blame the good schools, who don't generally receive any more funding.
No, I'm not suggesting that particular solution, and neither am I blaming the good schools. Why assume that I am?
 
Posted by ianjmatt (# 5683) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by ianjmatt:
So are you suggesting is that we spread the problem around so that all schools middle out somewhere? Or should it be accepted.... If so, don't blame the good schools, who don't generally receive any more funding.
No, I'm not suggesting that particular solution, and neither am I blaming the good schools. Why assume that I am?
I don't get it. You keep identifying what you see as problems, but don't seem to be offering any solutions. What is your point.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
Identifying the problems is a start isn't it? Why can't trying to identify the problem accurately be a reasonable part of a conversation without necessarily having a ready made solution?
 
Posted by ianjmatt (# 5683) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Identifying the problems is a start isn't it? Why can't trying to identify the problem accurately be a reasonable part of a conversation without necessarily having a ready made solution?
Partly. Although we're not talking read-made solutions, but possible ones. Do you have any of those?
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Yes, I've always hated that assumption. If you don't have a solution of your own, you have no right to find fault with our solution. Sorry, if your solution makes things worse, or violates basic rights or principles, lack of a better solution is no justification for it.
 
Posted by ianjmatt (# 5683) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Yes, I've always hated that assumption. If you don't have a solution of your own, you have no right to find fault with our solution. Sorry, if your solution makes things worse, or violates basic rights or principles, lack of a better solution is no justification for it.
But lack of a better solution is basically the status quo so nothing has changed.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Identifying the problems is a start isn't it? Why can't trying to identify the problem accurately be a reasonable part of a conversation without necessarily having a ready made solution?
quote:
Originally posted by ianjmatt:
Partly. Although we're not talking read-made solutions, but possible ones. Do you have any of those?
Not all the time, no. It's an odd dynamic, the idea that one can't present a problem in a discussion without presenting a potential solution in the next breath. I notice that you haven't agreed or disagreed with my statements, only challenged me on where the solutions might be. I think that it's probably better to talk through the problem first.

[ETA, I agree MT, that's another aspect of the same dynamic]

[ 18. November 2010, 19:11: Message edited by: mdijon ]
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ianjmatt:
But lack of a better solution is basically the status quo so nothing has changed.
But what is the status quo? Do we both have the same view of it? You might argue that the demographic of schools in poor areas has nothing to do with the problem. I might disagree with your model of what motivates a student. Then we could launch into an argument about solutions not realising we're trying to fix different problems.
 
Posted by ianjmatt (# 5683) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Not all the time, no. It's an odd dynamic, the idea that one can't present a problem in a discussion without presenting a potential solution in the next breath. I notice that you haven't agreed or disagreed with my statements, only challenged me on where the solutions might be. I think that it's probably better to talk through the problem first.

I think the agreed problem is the lack of equality of opportunity. What you are then identifying are possible causes of that. If you believe those to be causes of the problems, I was assuming you want those causes addressed.

To directly answer you - I think the problem is the lack of equality of opportunity. I'm not sure I agree that the causes you identify are fundamental.

However, if you can show that by removing these causes (i.e. a solution) that the problem is resolved then I might be convinced. That is why I asked for your solutions.

[ 18. November 2010, 19:14: Message edited by: ianjmatt ]
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ianjmatt:
If you believe those to be causes of the problems, I was assuming you want those causes addressed.
Of course I would, but that doesn't mean I necessarily know how, nor that it's not worthwhile discussing what the causes are in the absence of a solution. It's a discussion.

quote:
Originally posted by ianjmatt:
However, if you can show that by removing these causes (i.e. a solution) that the problem is resolved then I might be convinced. That is why I asked for your solutions.
One could only show that by real life experience of the solution in action. My theoretical solution would hardly do that would it?
 
Posted by ianjmatt (# 5683) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
]One could only show that by real life experience of the solution in action. My theoretical solution would hardly do that would it?
No, but by testing the argument through debate we could see if it stood up.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
I don't see that that works.

Take an example - I think that the demographics of a deprived school are a substantial problem. You don't. We could argue round about the likely effect or desirability of targeted resources based on privation, or of redrawing catchment areas etc. However, we'll have irreconcilable views because at the base of it I think these measures are addressing a real component of the problem and you don't. I don't see how one could resolve that except by discussing the baseline belief itself.

But in a way this is besides the point - because you didn't say "I'm not sure that's the problem - illustrate that by telling me how x will work in practice if you tackle it" - you said "I don't get it. You keep identifying what you see as problems, but don't seem to be offering any solutions. What is your point."

The latter implies that you feel I shouldn't identify problems without solutions as a fundamental position.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ianjmatt:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Yes, I've always hated that assumption. If you don't have a solution of your own, you have no right to find fault with our solution. Sorry, if your solution makes things worse, or violates basic rights or principles, lack of a better solution is no justification for it.
But lack of a better solution is basically the status quo so nothing has changed.
Better to change nothing than to change for the worse.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
The difficulty is that some of these things are circular. It's difficult to make the schools in poor areas as good as the rich when the former have 20% speaking English as a 2nd language, more special needs, more children heading for exclusions, more children being taken out of school during term time or moving into/out of the area etc.

The poor bring their problems with them, and the rich area schools are sometimes helped by not having to deal with them.
And to think I was being roundly criticised for "thinking the problem is the poor themselves" earlier. How do you get away with it when I don't?

If the things you mention are the true causes of the problem, then they are still going to apply no matter what the policy is on school admissions. The kids who have those problems will still have them whether they go to St Poshgit's Public School, Our Lady-in-the-Middle Grammar or Ghetto Comprehensive. It follows that the solution is not to change the school admissions process, which would merely spread the problems out across a wider range of schools, but to actually deal with the problems themselves.
 
Posted by Moth (# 2589) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
At least you managed to state the obvious
Funny how it's obvious when applied to machine guns and body armour, but when applied to education people suddenly start thinking that removing one person's opportunity in order to give it to someone else is a good and desirable thing...
But you were the one who derided 'throwing more money at it' as a solution. If I'd said 'Let's spend more on education', you would have accused me of typical left wing spending plans!
 
Posted by Moth (# 2589) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
The difficulty is that some of these things are circular. It's difficult to make the schools in poor areas as good as the rich when the former have 20% speaking English as a 2nd language, more special needs, more children heading for exclusions, more children being taken out of school during term time or moving into/out of the area etc.

The poor bring their problems with them, and the rich area schools are sometimes helped by not having to deal with them.
And to think I was being roundly criticised for "thinking the problem is the poor themselves" earlier. How do you get away with it when I don't?

If the things you mention are the true causes of the problem, then they are still going to apply no matter what the policy is on school admissions. The kids who have those problems will still have them whether they go to St Poshgit's Public School, Our Lady-in-the-Middle Grammar or Ghetto Comprehensive. It follows that the solution is not to change the school admissions process, which would merely spread the problems out across a wider range of schools, but to actually deal with the problems themselves.
OK, how's this for a compromise: some of the problems of the poor are inherent, including those identified above. However, there are many children from poorer backgrounds whose main problem is not inherent, but caused by going to schools taking a high proportion of children with inherent problems. Those bright, able children are held back by being at a school struggling to educate a more than averagely difficult bunch of children, and are unlikely to have the capacity to add value to a bright child.

If that child had equal access to the good schools in the neighbouring posher area, it would get a better education and maybe go on to a more fulfilling career (or at least have a wider choice of careers). Meanwhile, the children in 'posher school' are benefitting from not having the children with problems in their school.

What we want is a solution which means that children from all types of homes get an equal crack at a good education. Our problem is identifying a solution that does not make things worse for the present pupils of 'posher school' but does improve the situation of those in 'not so posh' school. Agreed?
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
The difficulty is that some of these things are circular... poor areas... 20% speaking English as a 2nd language, more special needs, more children heading for exclusions... The poor bring their problems with them
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
How do you get away with it when I don't?
The way I put it? Perhaps partly because I don't then say;

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
It follows that the solution is not to change the school admissions process, which would merely spread the problems out across a wider range of schools
It doesn't follow that all the children in poor areas have all of the problems I listed. You might have child A in a stable home, reasonably bright, English as a first language, but not making much progress because the teacher struggles for the first term or so with the lack of English in 1/3 of the class and the disruptive behaviour from another 1/4. If that child went to poshgits & co they would do better. If the disruptive 1/4 were instead a disruptive 1 or 2 spread through 4 classes they might not be so disruptive.

I think the problem is the overall atmosphere created in poor area schools rather than the individual children themselves. Although I accept that the overall atmosphere is mainly a product of the group which is made up of individual children - but it doesn't follow that the individual children will still have exactly the same problems in any setting.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Moth:
But you were the one who derided 'throwing more money at it' as a solution. If I'd said 'Let's spend more on education', you would have accused me of typical left wing spending plans!
I derided spending more money on welfare, not on education. Indeed, I view improving the education provision for the less-provided-for as being central to the end solution - what else do you think my repeatedly-stated idea of dragging the worst schools up to the level of the best is?
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Moth:
OK, how's this for a compromise: some of the problems of the poor are inherent, including those identified above. However, there are many children from poorer backgrounds whose main problem is not inherent, but caused by going to schools taking a high proportion of children with inherent problems.
Compromise accepted.

quote:
Those bright, able children are held back by being at a school struggling to educate a more than averagely difficult bunch of children, and are unlikely to have the capacity to add value to a bright child.

If that child had equal access to the good schools in the neighbouring posher area, it would get a better education and maybe go on to a more fulfilling career (or at least have a wider choice of careers).
So what we need is a system whereby bright, able children from whatever background are able to go to schools which are not struggling to educate a more than averagely difficult bunch of children, schools with the capacity to add value to a bright child in order that they might get a better education and go on to more fulfilling careers?

I agree. One.Hundred.Percent.

Maybe we could call the schools that provide that facility for them "grammar schools". That's a good name...

quote:
What we want is a solution which means that children from all types of homes get an equal crack at a good education. Our problem is identifying a solution that does not make things worse for the present pupils of 'posher school' but does improve the situation of those in 'not so posh' school. Agreed?
Yes. Bring back the grammars!
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I derided spending more money on welfare, not on education. Indeed, I view improving the education provision for the less-provided-for as being central to the end solution - what else do you think my repeatedly-stated idea of dragging the worst schools up to the level of the best is?
I think it's very problematic. I think there are enough vested interests with sufficient influence to ensure that a 'rising tide lifts all boats' model of education doesn't have the desired outcome.

There was a huge push from the last government to get Oxford and Cambridge to take smart kids from state schools. Yet I read newspapers like the Telegraph who report the bald facts - that 55% of Oxford admissions were state pupils (but not that 93% of pupils were state educated), and then they twist and squirm over the idea that 'bright kids' are being pushed out of the top universities by council estate oiks.

Because the places at Oxford and Cambridge aren't infinitely expandable, educating more children to achieve their potential, and from there to wrest the top jobs - the barristers, the judges, the politicians, the heads of civil service deparments, the boardrooms and the Senior Common Rooms - from the hands of the already entitled, isn't going to go down at all well.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Because the places at Oxford and Cambridge aren't infinitely expandable, educating more children to achieve their potential, and from there to wrest the top jobs - the barristers, the judges, the politicians, the heads of civil service deparments, the boardrooms and the Senior Common Rooms - from the hands of the already entitled, isn't going to go down at all well.
Of course it isn't. Nothing is. But if we're going to try to do it at all, I'd rather try to do it the right way. It might be a little bit slower than outright revolution and sending all the toffs to the gallows, but it has the advantage of being moral.

I don't oppose the concept or ideal of greater equality of opportunity for all, I just oppose some of the methods people suggest using in order to bring it about.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Moth:
[QUOTE][qb]What we want is a solution which means that children from all types of homes get an equal crack at a good education. Our problem is identifying a solution that does not make things worse for the present pupils of 'posher school' but does improve the situation of those in 'not so posh' school. Agreed?
Yes. Bring back the grammars!
And that would mean bring back the Secondary Moderns. If you think Comprehensives are bad, think again: the Sec. Mods. were institutionally, and quite deliberately, second class schools. Many LEAs, of all colours, worked damned hard to keep it that way as for a disproportionate part the councillors kids went to the grammars and they didn't want these centres of excellence ruined by having to accept anyone.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Because the places at Oxford and Cambridge aren't infinitely expandable, educating more children to achieve their potential, and from there to wrest the top jobs - the barristers, the judges, the politicians, the heads of civil service deparments, the boardrooms and the Senior Common Rooms - from the hands of the already entitled, isn't going to go down at all well.
Of course it isn't. Nothing is. But if we're going to try to do it at all, I'd rather try to do it the right way. It might be a little bit slower than outright revolution and sending all the toffs to the gallows, but it has the advantage of being moral.

I don't oppose the concept or ideal of greater equality of opportunity for all, I just oppose some of the methods people suggest using in order to bring it about.
What we have now is far from moral, but you're happy with that because you think it advantages you.

Again, no one is suggesting eating the rich. But the idea that the rich will inevitably not be able to buy all the privilege they're used to seems to be a sticking point here.
 
Posted by Moth (# 2589) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Moth:
[QUOTE][qb]What we want is a solution which means that children from all types of homes get an equal crack at a good education. Our problem is identifying a solution that does not make things worse for the present pupils of 'posher school' but does improve the situation of those in 'not so posh' school. Agreed?
Yes. Bring back the grammars!
And that would mean bring back the Secondary Moderns. If you think Comprehensives are bad, think again: the Sec. Mods. were institutionally, and quite deliberately, second class schools. Many LEAs, of all colours, worked damned hard to keep it that way as for a disproportionate part the councillors kids went to the grammars and they didn't want these centres of excellence ruined by having to accept anyone.
My mother is as bright as I am, and she missed going to grammar school because she was shy and didn't answer at the interview. She left her secondary modern with no qualifications at all.

I sent one son to grammar school and one to a 'wide ability' school (since it was an area with grammars, very few were in the top 20% ability-wise). The ethos of the two schools was very different - the wide ability school was quite content with 5 grade A-C GCSEs, and taught to a maximum grade B standard. The grammar aimed at all A* grades. A child who failed to get into the grammar at 11 but later blossomed had a very low chance of achieving as well in the other school. By the way - he went 10 miles to go to that school - it was a lot better than the other non-selectives.

When I went to grammar school, no-one was tutored at home to pass the test. When my son went, 10 years ago, 50% were tutored. Now 97% admit to being tutored when asked, or went to a private prep school which tutored for the exam.

I am not anti-selection; in fact I think it could be helpful in some ways. The youth worker at our church, however, has said publicly that she is astonished at the harm it does our children. They tell her how much it hurts them when they 'fail' - no matter that their parents try to hide their disappointment. The tests are a Big Thing in our area - it's how parents judge primary schools and it's the focus of a year or more of preparation of children. The schools pretty much divide into grammar schools - good, other schools - rubbish.

What most parents actually want, when asked, is a good school just up the road that can teach all of their children, whatever their ability, well. Why this should be an impossible dream is very hard to say - other countries seem to manage it!

[ 19. November 2010, 12:16: Message edited by: Moth ]
 
Posted by Imaginary Friend (# 186) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Moth:
What most parents actually want, when asked, is a good school just up the road that can teach all of their children, whatever their ability, well. Why this should be an impossible dream is very hard to say - other countries seem to manage it!
It seems to me that this is actually a very hard problem. Do you know of any examples of countries that achieve it?
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Moth:
[QUOTE][qb]What we want is a solution which means that children from all types of homes get an equal crack at a good education. Our problem is identifying a solution that does not make things worse for the present pupils of 'posher school' but does improve the situation of those in 'not so posh' school. Agreed?
Yes. Bring back the grammars!
And that would mean bring back the Secondary Moderns. If you think Comprehensives are bad, think again: the Sec. Mods. were institutionally, and quite deliberately, second class schools. Many LEAs, of all colours, worked damned hard to keep it that way as for a disproportionate part the councillors kids went to the grammars and they didn't want these centres of excellence ruined by having to accept anyone.
Indeed. I used to be pro-selection: I went to a Grammar School and it was excellent in itself and just right for me. But the Sec Mods that my less academically able- or less fortunate, because the 11 plus was rather rough and ready- schoolmates went to were bloody awful. I'm not anti-Grammar but I am anti Sec Mod, and if the price to pay for getting a reasonably good education for all (not that this necessarily flows from nonselection, mind) is losing an excellent academic education for a few and a dismal experience for the many, IMO it's a price worth paying, especially if you combine it with lots of opportunities for study at your own pace and level later in life.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
And that would mean bring back the Secondary Moderns. If you think Comprehensives are bad, think again: the Sec. Mods. were institutionally, and quite deliberately, second class schools. Many LEAs, of all colours, worked damned hard to keep it that way as for a disproportionate part the councillors kids went to the grammars and they didn't want these centres of excellence ruined by having to accept anyone.
Yes, that was bad. So let's keep the good bits of the system and change the bad bits - namely, let's make non-grammar schools places where the kids who aren't suited to grammar-style education get the absolute best possible education that is suited to them. Where specialists at teaching children with the problems identified by Doc Tor and Moth can be concentrated and therefore most effective, rather than having to be spread across all schools thus diluting the benefits they can bring to those who need them.

It means you can teach the way the children in any given class need you to teach, rather than having to be all things to all children at the same time. Everybody gets the education that is best suited to them, enabling them to be the best they can be and get the best results - both in exams and in life - they can get. What's wrong with that?
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
What we have now is far from moral, but you're happy with that because you think it advantages you.
I've been proposing changes to the education system throughout this thread. That they're not the changes you think are needed is indisputable, but it's a far cry from me saying things are perfect the way they are.

As I've said before: we're both looking for ways to improve the lot of the poorest and least advantaged. We just differ about how best to do it.

quote:
Again, no one is suggesting eating the rich. But the idea that the rich will inevitably not be able to buy all the privilege they're used to seems to be a sticking point here.
Not with me it's not. I favour a true meritocracy, where people can rise to the top based on ability rather than background. Again, we just differ on how best to achieve that goal.
 
Posted by Moth (# 2589) on :
 
There would also have to be a lot of movement between schools if we did that, so that kids who blossom later can change.

Why not true comprehensives - schools which teach in sets and really do cater for all abilities well?
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Yes,why not? That way, too, we might get a bit closer to parity of esteem. It'd be good for primarily academic kids to recognise and respect those with more technical abilities, and vice versa- and, indeed, for all kids to develop both sides of their abilities to some extent.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Moth:
The ethos of the two schools was very different - the wide ability school was quite content with 5 grade A-C GCSEs, and taught to a maximum grade B standard. The grammar aimed at all A* grades.
The problem there is with the ethos of the wide-ability school. Every school should be pushing every student to do as well as they possibly can.

quote:
A child who failed to get into the grammar at 11 but later blossomed had a very low chance of achieving as well in the other school.
Yes, this is a problem. My ideal solution would be to allow children to take 12+, 13+, 14+, etc exams and move to schools that would be a better fit for them at those times if appropriate. Also, children who find they aren't suited to grammar education should be free to move to schools where they are better catered for.

Of course, the whole system would hinge on stressing, again and again, and putting policies in place that support the view, that different types of schooling aren't inherently better or worse than others, but merely tailored to the needs of the children they serve. I realise that would be the hardest part of the whole system to get established.

quote:
What most parents actually want, when asked, is a good school just up the road that can teach all of their children, whatever their ability, well. Why this should be an impossible dream is very hard to say - other countries seem to manage it!
The goal of my proposed system is that eventually there would exist enough variety of schools that every child can get the best possible education for them. I think that necessarily involves having different schools for different educational needs, but I think it's better to have such specialisation than to try to make schools all things to all children. It's better for everyone to get 100% of what they need in separate places than for everybody to get 60% of what they need in the same place.
 
Posted by Imaginary Friend (# 186) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The goal of my proposed system is that eventually there would exist enough variety of schools that every child can get the best possible education for them. I think that necessarily involves having different schools for different educational needs, but I think it's better to have such specialisation than to try to make schools all things to all children.
That sounds very nice in theory but I think it runs into a significant practical problem: How do you select which children go to which school, and how do you ensure that the playing field is level for that selection process?
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I favour a true meritocracy, where people can rise to the top based on ability rather than background. Again, we just differ on how best to achieve that goal.
It's not a 'just', though.

You're proposing systems that we've tried, like grammar schools, and have seen fail the majority of children. You want a meritocracy where 97% of the kids who get to grammar have been hothoused by anxious parents or taught specifically to pass the 11+ at prep schools. How are you going to unwind that?

And in your most recent proposal for a sort of 'super grammar' where kids are kicked in and out of different schools based on their end-of-term results? Bloody hell, man, do you know what stress this would impose on mere children? Rather than have one opportunity to fuck their lives up at 11, there'd be multiple opportunities. Lose status, friends, routine, familiarity and teachers who know them and know their name, and do that, year in, year out? Do you have shares in Prozac?

Which is why I'm glad we don't have grammars in my area, and why my kids are at the local comp. There's aggressive streaming, but if they screw up, there's lots of support and always the opportunity to do better - without getting kicked out, losing their mates and any semblance of stability.

Children are not little adults. Especially at 11.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
It wasn't me that first mentioned the problem of bright, able children being held back by being at a school struggling to educate a more than averagely difficult bunch of children. Surely the solution to that problem is putting such children into a situation where they are no longer being held back?

And bear in mind that "being held back" doesn't just happen in the classroom. It happens in the playground, where "nerds" and "geeks" are bullied mercilessly for being smarter than everyone else and where the lowest common denominator rules.
 
Posted by Moth (# 2589) on :
 
How about the Finnish solution ?

Very egalitarian and very successful.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Moth:
How about the Finnish solution ?

Very egalitarian and very successful.
Yes, that would be fabulous. Though a lot of the changes would have to be sociological, rather than educational.

I also note that they do have academic separation (AKA selection) based on grades, albeit done at 15 rather than 11.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
It wasn't me that first mentioned the problem of bright, able children being held back by being at a school struggling to educate a more than averagely difficult bunch of children. Surely the solution to that problem is putting such children into a situation where they are no longer being held back?

And bear in mind that "being held back" doesn't just happen in the classroom. It happens in the playground, where "nerds" and "geeks" are bullied mercilessly for being smarter than everyone else and where the lowest common denominator rules.
Not at my school. Not at my kids' school either. I think you're projecting.
 
Posted by Moth (# 2589) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Moth:
How about the Finnish solution ?

Very egalitarian and very successful.
Yes, that would be fabulous. Though a lot of the changes would have to be sociological, rather than educational.

I also note that they do have academic separation (AKA selection) based on grades, albeit done at 15 rather than 11.
It's rather a chicken-and-egg situation though - are Finns egalitarian because of their education system, or is their education system egalitarian because they are?

I other words, if we do suddenly mix all our kids up by lotteries or some such mechanism, will we eventually get to a more egalitarian society?
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Moth:
It's rather a chicken-and-egg situation though - are Finns egalitarian because of their education system, or is their education system egalitarian because they are?
Indeed.

quote:
I other words, if we do suddenly mix all our kids up by lotteries or some such mechanism, will we eventually get to a more egalitarian society?
And if not, how much damage will be done?
 
Posted by Imaginary Friend (# 186) on :
 
There is a partial lottery system here in DC, both for regular public schools and for the charter schools. As far as I know, there's not much evidence that this does much more than add stress to the 'motivated' who apply for the better schools and then have to sweat through the random selection procedure.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Moth:
Our problem is identifying a solution that does not make things worse for the present pupils of 'posher school' but does improve the situation of those in 'not so posh' school. Agreed?
There's a fallacy implicit in this statement which suggests that a school which selects its pupils (either by academic ability or by its situation in a middle-class area) will inevitably suffer if it admits lower-ability or working-class pupils.

I attended a selective grammar school which naturally achieved reasonable exam results and university places. But much of the teaching was poor to mediocre and the school should have produced much better results than it did, considering the intake. Similarly, my wife recently taught in a comprehensive with a predominantly middle-class intake, which had real problems and was seriously underachieving. This is because there was little incentive for the staff to do better, as they knew that with their material they were unlikely to 'fail'.

If the student bodies had been more mixed, in terms of ability and background, they would have provided a challenge which in turn would benefit the most able pupils as well as the less able. Conversely, teachers in a school with a predominantly working-class and lower-ability intake need to be that much more determined and visionary in order to succeed. Give them a few potential Oxbridge candidates to leaven the mix and you will encourage the staff and provide role-models to inspire the pupils.

It is also important in a class-ridden society such as the UK, that children should not be brought up in ghettoes and solely mix with or experience their own class and culture.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
It is also important in a class-ridden society such as the UK, that children should not be brought up in ghettoes and solely mix with or experience their own class and culture.
On that front I can confidently state that I saw a far greater diversity of colours and creeds at my grammar school than was present in either of the Comps I'd have been eligible for had I failed the 11+. Doesn't apply at all times and in all places of course, but it's certainly true of that particular area.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Good point about the dangers of mediocre teaching with classes made up exclusively of more able pupils. Applies in universities too- there was a letter in the Times Higher a coiuple of weeks back from an academic at Birmingham City University who said the teaching there was much better and, crucially, more transformative than at Oxford, where he'd previously worked and where a lot of the students both arrived and left as reasonably bright 2:1s. That certainly rang a bell with my experience of teaching in HE.

Interesting point from Marvin about diversity. My immediate question is whether this was in an area with a lot of white working class people where members of minorities tended to be either professionals or aspirational business people.

[ 19. November 2010, 17:04: Message edited by: Albertus ]
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
And bear in mind that "being held back" doesn't just happen in the classroom. It happens in the playground, where "nerds" and "geeks" are bullied mercilessly for being smarter than everyone else and where the lowest common denominator rules.
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Not at my school. Not at my kids' school either. I think you're projecting.
While my politics are pretty far from Marvin's I have to say that is exactly what happenned to me and others in my class at school. We were bullied for doing well. In my case I was such an outsider (for racial reasons) that I didn't have the option of fitting in anyway, and had an incredibly supportive family, so it had less effect, but for others it was catastrophic.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
And bear in mind that "being held back" doesn't just happen in the classroom. It happens in the playground, where "nerds" and "geeks" are bullied mercilessly for being smarter than everyone else and where the lowest common denominator rules.
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Not at my school. Not at my kids' school either. I think you're projecting.
While my politics are pretty far from Marvin's I have to say that is exactly what happenned to me and others in my class at school. We were bullied for doing well. In my case I was such an outsider (for racial reasons) that I didn't have the option of fitting in anyway, and had an incredibly supportive family, so it had less effect, but for others it was catastrophic.
Bullying happens everywhere. I was bullied, not for being bright, but for having really sticky-out teeth.

What's important is how bullying is dealt with. I'm aware of one local academy school, very strong academic values who insist there's no bullying at the school. I know that's not true. I also worked for a couple of years next to the 'best' private boys school in the area. The kids were little shits, to each other and to the local community.

We complained often, but the Master's opinion was that boys would be boys.

There is much, much less toleration of - and indeed active campaigns against - bullying in state schools. In my kids' school, it is rigorously enforced, and indeed, it's one of the things that Ofsted look for. Apart from a bit of argy-bargy in Induction week, there's been nothing at all against both my top-set children.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
I'm sure all that you say is true, but I don't think it goes against the idea that being bullied for doing well is a strong dynamic in keeping children in certain schools back. I'm told it doesn't occur in quite the same way in independent and public schools. Perhaps there are things the school can do that reduce it's impact, but I doubt that it can be prevented entirely.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Yes. Bring back the grammars!
I failed the 11+ because my father had died in a tragic way just before the exam. I went to a sec. mod. However, I joined the Grammar School 6th form at the same time as someone else from my former junior school left. He still drives a Pickford's truck while I have a degree and a couple of postgrad qualifications. Bad system.

If you compare exam results in the league tables, you will see that local authorities who retain grammar schools have a lower percentage of GCSE grades A-C across the board than those who have comps. That's because the sec. mod. kids languish while the GS kids do well. In comps., the bright kids pull the less bright ones up. Not the other way round.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
In comps., the bright kids pull the less bright ones up. Not the other way round.
In some comps. I think both effects are possible, and which one you get depends on the overall atmosphere, balance of kids, management and teaching.
 
Posted by Moth (# 2589) on :
 
I was thinking over the weekend, and it's not only education that leads to social mobility. When my nephew did some research into family history, he discovered that I am far from being the first in my family to be interested in law. It turns out I had great-uncles and great-great uncles who were solicitors. None of them went to university - in their day, you could join as a very junior employee, get your articles later, and work your way to being a solicitor.

Now it's not only a graduate profession - it's virtually restricted in practice to the graduates of 'good' universities, and the Legal Practice Course costs about £12,000 on top of your uni fees. So the kids at Birmingham City university discussed above, however well taught, have less chance of succeeding, and will have to invest huge sums of money if they even want to try.

You can in theory get in via the ILEX route, and one or two of my students have, but it's very, very hard.

I'm not quite sure how we changed to a society where everyone has to be 'job ready' before they are employed, as employers like to put it. We have moved the cost of training for many professions from the employer to the employee. How has this happened?

[ 22. November 2010, 09:39: Message edited by: Moth ]
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Well, when I was reading law as an undergraduate in the late 80s, you had to pay your own fees for the professional qualifying course. I always thought that you should only be accepted into the professional course once you'd had an offer of articles/ pupillage, and your future firm/chambers, or the profession as a whole, should pay.
But then when I left school in '85 it was still just about possible to go into a firm with A levels and qualify while working- I knew someone who decided to do that, though I don't know whether or not he succeeded.
Though i would agree that we've seen a shift of risk and cost onto the individual: something which the Browne review [Projectile] will only exacerbate.

[ 22. November 2010, 09:45: Message edited by: Albertus ]
 
Posted by Moth (# 2589) on :
 
In 1981, my local council paid my Bar Finals fees. It was a discretionary grant, but was usually paid, and it included an element for living costs - basically, a student grant. I was also able to claim my travel costs.

Obviously, everything changed during the 80s!
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Interesting point from Marvin about diversity. My immediate question is whether this was in an area with a lot of white working class people where members of minorities tended to be either professionals or aspirational business people.
The area was Longbridge, Birmingham - it was (and still is) about 85% white and 90% working class, most of whom were, at the time, workers at the Rover factory. The only members of minorities there were shopkeepers or restraunteurs - it's very much not the sort of area professionals or aspirational business people tend to move to. The closest we had to any form of diversity in my primary school class was a couple of Jehovas Witnesses. The local comps weren't much different, as they only got students from the area.

In contrast, my grammar school drew in top students from across the city meaning there was a healthy mix of white, black, asian, east asian, christian, muslim, hindu, sikh, jew and atheist. It was a revelation.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Though i would agree that we've seen a shift of risk and cost onto the individual: something which the Browne review [Projectile] will only exacerbate.
On the contrary, the Browne Review ensures that graduate repayments will be tightly linked to how much they earn, ensuring that no-one is burdened with unsustainable outgoings as a result of their education. The element of risk (to the student) is completely removed - if they graduate but cannot get a high-paying job, they will pay back less of their loan. If they graduate but cannot find a job at all (or only a very low paying one), they will pay back none of their loan. Where's the risk?
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
It sounds reasonable, put like that. But imagine student A comes from a wealthy middle-class family, and will inherit a substantial amount of money and/or property from his/her parents; student B comes from a poor family and won't. Despite a large professional salary, student B is much more likely to struggle in future with mortgage repayments and the like. And the prospect of that will put a lot of prospective students off.

However fair the proposals might be for working-class students, they are not going to redress the imbalance of educational opportunity, and could well do the opposite.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
It's the much higher fees I was thinking of. The Browne reapyment proposals will benefit the best off and the worst off: it's the lower end of middling who will feel the pinch.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
It sounds reasonable, put like that. But imagine student A comes from a wealthy middle-class family, and will inherit a substantial amount of money and/or property from his/her parents; student B comes from a poor family and won't. Despite a large professional salary, student B is much more likely to struggle in future with mortgage repayments and the like. And the prospect of that will put a lot of prospective students off.
I disagree that student loan repayments will adversely affect people's ability to get and pay a mortgage. I was approved for a mortgage last year, and my student loan repayments are significantly higher per month than a 'new scheme' graduate earning exactly the same salary as me will be paying.

Also, when I had to detail my debts during the application for said mortgage, they explicitly told me that student loan debts don't count.

To put it bluntly, graduates in the new system will be significantly better off each month than those in the existing system. Stop looking at the headline figure and start looking at the actual monthly impact on the graduate - that is the important figure.

Of course, someone having large familial reserves to fall back on will be in a better position than someone without such resources. But that's true in any system, and cannot be used as an example of a problem with any specific one.

quote:
However fair the proposals might be for working-class students, they are not going to redress the imbalance of educational opportunity, and could well do the opposite.
In terms of making higher education available to everyone who wants it, with absolutely no up-front payments required, the plans are a roaring success. Personal wealth is not a limiting factor in whether anyone can go or not. As for other educational imbalances: well no, proposals concerning higher education funding aren't going to do anything about primary and secondary education. How could they?
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
It's the much higher fees I was thinking of. The Browne reapyment proposals will benefit the best off and the worst off: it's the lower end of middling who will feel the pinch.
As I just said, a 'new system' graduate earning exactly the same as me will be repaying significantly less each month than I currently have to. If that's feeling the pinch, I'd like to feel it!
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0