|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Tackling Poverty
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Hmmm... seems like the Ship has more than its fair share of people who went to comprehensives or secondaries and then went on to universities.
Great, wonderful. Did any of you study statistics at uni, because I believe the Ship doesn't represent a true unbiased population of comprehensive school attendee's.
Why on earth would most comprehensive school alumni go on to university? Less than half the population as a whole do so it's absurd to expect more than half of those at comprehensive schools to. Remind me, what proportion of pupils went on to university in the days of grammar schools everywhere?
The nature of a comprehensive school is that it caters for those who will go on to university and those who won't. The worst aspects of the comprehensive system have been when it has tried to improve outcomes by forcing everyone into the academic route. If my school had a failing, it was that too many of my fellow students were taking history and French, and likely to gets Es and Fs, rather than having the opportunity to do extra technology qualifications and build up a better practical skillset. Nonetheless, despite a comprehensive intake, my year group topped 70% getting 5A*-C grades when the national average was hovering around 50%, beating out the local private school by some margin.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
The nature of a comprehensive school is that it caters for those who will go on to university and those who won't. The worst aspects of the comprehensive system have been when it has tried to improve outcomes by forcing everyone into the academic route. If my school had a failing, it was that too many of my fellow students were taking history and French, and likely to gets Es and Fs, rather than having the opportunity to do extra technology qualifications and build up a better practical skillset.
Almost. I don’t think teachers in many, if not most of the UK’s comprehensive schools actually focus on catering to those who will go onto university.
I’m sorry but I believe most teachers want a decent pay for a decent days work, and that is aiming for the average. They want to get the most c’s and B’s because that’s where their pay structure and job security lies. They don’t push the brightest, they focus on the majority.
Not all schools, and I sharp-elbowed my kids into the best performing comprehensive in Derbyshire, outside of the catchment in Chesterfield because it is a school that is proud of its academic achievement and DOES push the brightest. There are many schools across the UK like that but far too few.
But on your second point I fully agree with you. MOST kids can attain a reasonable academic grade and will go on to achieve mediocre A levels which will get them into a “modern” university such as the University of Central England; also known as UCE, which coincidentally are the A level grades you need to get there.
But those kids will go into insurance and call centre work, or something administrative.
I think the kids who won’t go on to academic success at comprehensive school level should be given the opportunity to learn a trade such as plumbing, brick-laying or hairdressing. That way they might get a job after leaving school.
Why force kids into academic subjects when they can’t cope with them? It’s both silly and cruel.
Until we get rid of this attitude that all kids can be rocket scientists then we will never let kids be what they want to be.
Jesus! That last sentence is almost Marxist! I’m off to take drugs and watch porn until I come back to reality.
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
But all children are important. The aspirations of those who are less academic are just as important as those of the academic - and many non-academic children attend private schools and come from privileged backgrounds. I'd say Prince Harry is a good example of that. Wouldn't he have been happier if he hadn't had to do A Levels? Why the assumption that less academic = poor?
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
There are several fallacies existing on this thread. One is conflating intelligence with ability. Two is that intelligence is a bucket from which we can dip to fill whatever ability we need. And that the more we have in the bucket, the more ability we will have.
Abilities vary greatly. Great ability in one area does not confer ability in any other area.
A third is that ability will find its level regardless of circumstance.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Almost. I don’t think teachers in many, if not most of the UK’s comprehensive schools actually focus on catering to those who will go onto university.
I’m sorry but I believe most teachers want a decent pay for a decent days work, and that is aiming for the average. They want to get the most c’s and B’s because that’s where their pay structure and job security lies. They don’t push the brightest, they focus on the majority.
Not all schools, and I sharp-elbowed my kids into the best performing comprehensive in Derbyshire, outside of the catchment in Chesterfield because it is a school that is proud of its academic achievement and DOES push the brightest. There are many schools across the UK like that but far too few.
Well, I hate to be the one to break it to you, but your strategy has almost certainly done nothing to improve your kids' education, assuming you believe they're brighter than average.
This is the thing. Smart kids, like you, like me, will almost always achieve, no matter what school they're in. Because we're self-motivated, read the shit out of everything including the back of the cornflakes packet, and full of wonder, the thing we really want out of school is for the other kids to leave us alone. Get the teachers on side for that, and we're made.
What brilliant teachers excel at is dragging average kids up to achieve good results. Smart kids just need aiming in the right direction. Teachers who get Thicky McClartpants to a B deserve the Nobel prize. Teachers who happen to have Brainy Whizzkid in their class don't have to do anything to earn a clutch of As and A*s.
Unless 'pushing the brightest' means they end up taking A levels at 16 and wandering like lost souls around university, unable to even buy themselves a beer - the brightest don't need pushing. They need the opportunity to sample life in all its fullness and do as many things as they want from as broad as possible selection.
And that's the pernicious thing about the drive for ever higher results. We deliberately didn't send our kids to the very academic, gets-brilliant-results, 'Christian ethos' academy I can see from my window - because we wanted them to have a life outside of school. Their friends who went are busy burning out. Sending our two to the local comp was the very best decision we could have made.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
pydseybare
Shipmate
# 16184
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Well, I hate to be the one to break it to you, but your strategy has almost certainly done nothing to improve your kids' education, assuming you believe they're brighter than average.
This is the thing. Smart kids, like you, like me, will almost always achieve, no matter what school they're in. Because we're self-motivated, read the shit out of everything including the back of the cornflakes packet, and full of wonder, the thing we really want out of school is for the other kids to leave us alone. Get the teachers on side for that, and we're made.
I'm not sure the above is really true for the majority of children in the mid quartile of academic performance. There is a percentage of children who will achieve in any situation, in my view there are a larger number who will achieve in the right circumstances and others who will never achieve academic qualifications in any circumstances.
I also think that different people develop at different rates. Some, I believe, would do very well at University, if they were able to get there, but fail at school due to the learning style. In contrast, some who do very well at school fail at University.
quote:
What brilliant teachers excel at is dragging average kids up to achieve good results. Smart kids just need aiming in the right direction. Teachers who get Thicky McClartpants to a B deserve the Nobel prize. Teachers who happen to have Brainy Whizzkid in their class don't have to do anything to earn a clutch of As and A*s.
I'm reasonably convinced that the teaching has a relatively minor impact on most children at school. I think the performance is much more related to the expectations of the children - usually from parents, but sometimes in the absence of that from the home from other adults. I believe there is a very small number of very bright students who could do well in a bad school with little expectations for their students. Most people, I think, would fail given the right situation.
quote:
Unless 'pushing the brightest' means they end up taking A levels at 16 and wandering like lost souls around university, unable to even buy themselves a beer - the brightest don't need pushing. They need the opportunity to sample life in all its fullness and do as many things as they want from as broad as possible selection.
Well it doesn't need to mean that. And I don't think 'pushing' is necessarily the correct term.
quote:
And that's the pernicious thing about the drive for ever higher results. We deliberately didn't send our kids to the very academic, gets-brilliant-results, 'Christian ethos' academy I can see from my window - because we wanted them to have a life outside of school. Their friends who went are busy burning out. Sending our two to the local comp was the very best decision we could have made.
This is the difficulties of being a parent. On the one hand, one tries to make the best possible choice of school given the options and the child. On the other hand, one can see that personal choices may actually have an impact on the wider society.
At the end of the day, I don't think one can criticise parents for wanting the best for their children rather than worrying about everyone else's children. But then, that does often mean that the worst schools get even worse.
--------------------
"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future."
Posts: 812 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
I'm reasonably convinced that the teaching has a relatively minor impact on most children at school.
I'm reasonably convinced you're absolutely and categorically wrong, because if that's the case, we've not only wasted vast amounts of public money over the last 150 years (which is possible, but it'd be surprising that no one has pointed it out before), but also the rich, who pay over the odds for a private school education for their children, would have seen little return for their hard-earned money.
Teaching, for most children, is critical.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
pydseybare
Shipmate
# 16184
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
I'm reasonably convinced that the teaching has a relatively minor impact on most children at school.
I'm reasonably convinced you're absolutely and categorically wrong, because if that's the case, we've not only wasted vast amounts of public money over the last 150 years (which is possible, but it'd be surprising that no one has pointed it out before), but also the rich, who pay over the odds for a private school education for their children, would have seen little return for their hard-earned money.
Teaching, for most children, is critical.
Privately educated children very largely do better than state educated children because of parental expectation, in the opinion of many.
Of course, it helps to be in a space where there are other children who are also expected to do well.
Teaching, for most children, is not critical. Expectation is.
--------------------
"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future."
Posts: 812 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
Privately educated children very largely do better than state educated children because of parental expectation, in the opinion of many.
Of course, it helps to be in a space where there are other children who are also expected to do well.
Teaching, for most children, is not critical. Expectation is.
If parental expectation was the major factor, then you'd expect the minority public school educated children (7%) to be overwhelmed when it comes to life outcomes by the (say) 20% of the remaining 93% who could give a rat's arse about their kids' education.
Try again.
[ 07. January 2014, 09:41: Message edited by: Doc Tor ]
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
First of all, let's clear up a terminology issue. Most private schools in the UK are not Public Schools. There is a criteria laid down to be a Public School based on longevity and tradition, and most private schools don't meet this.
(When those on the other side of The Pond read that bit I'm sure it will confuse the hell out of them but they'll figure it out!)
Anyway, I'm not so sure what you mean by "overwhelm".
My argument is that the better educated you are the more money you earn. But you have to be both clever AND hard working to get into a good job.
You need good grades to get into medical school or onto a Russel Group science or engineering degree course. Those making that cut are both clever and hard working and employers recognise that.
We need to be clear about what qualifications mean to employers. The higher the qualification, the cleverer and more hard working the person. That mean the employer can entrust them with tasks that are more challenging and carry more responsability with them, and also that they will need less motivating to do a good job.
To an employer, little or no qualifications mean the person is not very bright and cannot be given challenging tasks. That's why supermarket checkouts show the teller how much change to give from a £10 note. The employer will also feel the person isn't hard working, as they didn't work hard to get any qualifications. So the employer will feel they need to impose more "management" onto them in the form of more intrusive time-keeping, more discipline, more "targets".
For a school leaver that's the stark reality of employment. Employers cannot assess them in terms of previous work experience and references, only on what qualification they may of may not have.
Of course someone who qualifies as a doctor is hard working and clever and they deserve the higher wages that go with more challenging decisions to make and more responsibility to wield. But a child who gets a top mark on a bricklaying course will be viewed as a better and more hard-working candidate by a building company than one who got a lower grade or no grade on the bricklaying course. So the employer will be more likely to consider the higher grade cadidate is more hard working and motivated.
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Anyway, I'm not so sure what you mean by "overwhelm".
My argument is that the better educated you are the more money you earn. But you have to be both clever AND hard working to get into a good job.
Actually, no. The better educated you are, the more choice you have as to how you make a living. (I have a poorly paid job (author) but am, by any fair measure, fantastically well educated - but that's my choice).
With the 'overwhelm', I was criticising pydseybare's assertion that parental encouragement was the primary driver of educational outcome. It's a driver. But access to decent teaching is critical for most. If all 7% of kids who go to private schools have highly-motivated parents (they don't, I've worked in one), then it only takes 10% of state-school kids with motivated parents to outnumber them all. There are other, more significant factors in play.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Anyway, I'm not so sure what you mean by "overwhelm".
My argument is that the better educated you are the more money you earn. But you have to be both clever AND hard working to get into a good job.
Actually, no. The better educated you are, the more choice you have as to how you make a living. (I have a poorly paid job (author) but am, by any fair measure, fantastically well educated - but that's my choice).
With the 'overwhelm', I was criticising pydseybare's assertion that parental encouragement was the primary driver of educational outcome. It's a driver. But access to decent teaching is critical for most. If all 7% of kids who go to private schools have highly-motivated parents (they don't, I've worked in one), then it only takes 10% of state-school kids with motivated parents to outnumber them all. There are other, more significant factors in play.
Okay. I'm in agreement with you about choice. Yes better qualification give you more choice. But most people in my estimation, especially young people, exercise that choice by earning as much as possible.
At least for a while. I also took an income cut when I set up my own business. I took a risk with the house by taking a business loan secured on it. All these are choices, but I couldn't have set up the highly technical business that ultimately repaid my investment many times over, unless I attained my good education.
I think my basic premise is correct though, in that choice for your young people is about maximising income.
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
deano: quote:
I don't think one can criticise parents for wanting the best for their children rather than worrying about everyone else's children.
I want the best for my child, of course I do. I want her to grow up in a society where she does not have to be afraid of her neighbours. A society where she can walk down the street with a reasonable degree of confidence that she will not be verbally or physically assaulted by gangs of unemployed 'youff' who left school with no qualifications and have nowhere else to go and nothing to do.
It's not enough anymore to just concentrate on educating the "brightest and best" as well as possible. We need everybody. Even the chair of CBI thinks that
businesses should invest more in training their staff. (along with paying them more... I must admit, for a brief moment after reading that news story I thought the Millennium had arrived)
Parents whose ambitions for education begin and end with their own children are not being ambitious enough. IMNSHO.
[ 07. January 2014, 11:27: Message edited by: Jane R ]
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
deano: quote:
I don't think one can criticise parents for wanting the best for their children rather than worrying about everyone else's children.
I want the best for my child, of course I do. I want her to grow up in a society where she does not have to be afraid of her neighbours. A society where she can walk down the street with a reasonable degree of confidence that she will not be verbally or physically assaulted by gangs of unemployed 'youff' who left school with no qualifications and have nowhere else to go and nothing to do.
It's not enough anymore to just concentrate on educating the "brightest and best" as well as possible. We need everybody. Even the chair of CBI thinks that
businesses should invest more in training their staff. (along with paying them more... I must admit, for a brief moment after reading that news story I thought the Millennium had arrived)
Parents whose ambitions for education begin and end with their own children are not being ambitious enough. IMNSHO.
You wont find any arguments from me. As a "one-nation" Conservative (aka "fascist Nazi pig") I agree that we need to get rid of the so called underclass. But that SHOULD be done in the same way that it always has been done. By APPROPRIATE education targetted at the child.
Let the brightest go on to attain whatever they can because they will be needed to enable us to compete in the global economy.
Let the mass of the middle be given an appropriate education to get them to attain as much as they can. Yes, that will be a few good GCSE's in most cases. Others will be given trade-style education.
Capitalism does come down to "economic worth" I'm afraid. Is an chemical engineer worth 5 semi-skilled plant workers? Well, yes. Sorry, but just yes. The qualified Chemical Engineer is worth that by dint of their better qualification, which means they generate more wealth. The others keep the plant going, but the Chemical Engineer BUILDS the plant.
And we do operate in a capitalist world, like it or not. It isn't ever going to change, so we need to adapt to it, and that means some people - if they see school as a chore rather than an opportunity - will end up with significantly less income, and it is icome that allows the choices that Doc Tor alluded to above.
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
it is income that allows the choices that Doc Tor alluded to above.
Ahem. Education allows the choices - including the choice to pick a fulfilling, low paid job: university-based research scientist, for example...
Education has one other important role, of oourse, and that's to enable the student to see through the hypocritical mass of lies and propaganda spread by the vile Tory press and their lick-spittle, toadying servants in government, and realise that the inevitability of capitalism is simply an excuse trotted out to justify the banksters helping themselves to the widow's mite.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
it is income that allows the choices that Doc Tor alluded to above.
Ahem. Education allows the choices - including the choice to pick a fulfilling, low paid job: university-based research scientist, for example...
Education has one other important role, of oourse, and that's to enable the student to see through the hypocritical mass of lies and propaganda spread by the vile Tory press and their lick-spittle, toadying servants in government, and realise that the inevitability of capitalism is simply an excuse trotted out to justify the banksters helping themselves to the widow's mite.
Oh yes, I forgot about all that.
Of course I also forgot about adding that education will also cover the failure of Miarxist regimes the world over. In history classes one presumes, as that is just about where Marxism exists nowadays. In history books.
Of course there are a few oddities around and a few fruitcakes who are still "believers", but I bet there are also people who still have black and white telly's. They are in the history books as well though.
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
[ 07. January 2014, 13:36: Message edited by: deano ]
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
This is the thing. Smart kids, like you, like me, will almost always achieve, no matter what school they're in. Because we're self-motivated, read the shit out of everything including the back of the cornflakes packet, and full of wonder, the thing we really want out of school is for the other kids to leave us alone. Get the teachers on side for that, and we're made.
Motivation and intelligence are not synonymous, not completely. Though I agree with your main point, teachers make a massive difference.
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Capitalism does come down to "economic worth" I'm afraid. Is an chemical engineer worth 5 semi-skilled plant workers? Well, yes. Sorry, but just yes. The qualified Chemical Engineer is worth that by dint of their better qualification, which means they generate more wealth. The others keep the plant going, but the Chemical Engineer BUILDS the plant.
Engineers do not work in isolation. And, whilst education is important, they do not step into the job with experience. This is often supplied by your unimportant, "semi-skilled" workers.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Motivation and intelligence are not synonymous, not completely. Though I agree with your main point, teachers make a massive difference.
I agree. No arguments from me on that. That's why when my kids were getting ready to enter secondary school we did the visits, and I found teh teachers at my kids school to be better than the ones at their local catchment school. Hence I gave my elbows a good fileing at got them in the better school. I agree better teachers have a massive impact. I'm not sure that paying teachers more will make them better though. "Better" is a non-financial quality. Good schools attract them.
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Engineers do not work in isolation. And, whilst education is important, they do not step into the job with experience. This is often supplied by your unimportant, "semi-skilled" workers.
Talk about missing the point. Look at earnings over a working life!
A Foundation One junior doctor works as part of a team, but over twenty years the doctor will earn far more than any porters on the team. That is right and proper considering the hard-work they have had to put in coupled with the education and training they've gone through, and the decisions they have to make and the responsibility they wield.
It is a STATISTICAL fact that the higher the qualifications you start a working life with, the more you will earn over a lifetime.
I have captialised statistical in the above paragraph because of course there are exceptions and outliers in any data set.
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Hmmm... seems like the Ship has more than its fair share of people who went to comprehensives or secondaries
What? Comprehensives ARE 'secondaries', as are grammar schools.
Presumably you mean 'secondary moderns'?
Whatever the terminology. I went to "Eddie's" (Edwin Swale) in Chesterfield, which was for some reason beyond my ken renamed "The Meadows".
Maybe they thought a new, softer more pleasant name would change people's view of the school because when I was there you didn't qualify, you survived. I don't think it's as tough as it was in the late 70's and early 80's, but the new name hasn't improved academic standards, which are still god-awful.
[ 07. January 2014, 14:08: Message edited by: deano ]
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
deano: quote:
Of course I also forgot about adding that education will also cover the failure of Miarxist [sic] regimes the world over.
So why did this guy get into so much trouble, then?
A good education teaches you to think for yourself. This is bad news for ANY ruling class, whether Marxist or capitalist.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
Isn't capitalism the default system? To have a Marxist state you need a government with the will and ability to run things according to communist principles. It has to be done intentionally. It hasn't been tried in all that many places.
In any other country, as long as there are basic property laws a reasonable police force and a little infrastructure, capitalism can operate. It doesn't need government plans, it can just happen. People produce and sell, others invest and get appropriate rewards. Nothing is stopping them, so the market should be encouraging and rewarding them.
So wouldn't it be fair to say that the poverty of Bangladesh is a demonstration of the failure of capitalism? And D R Congo, Malawi, Central African Republic, etc?
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
A good education teaches you to think for yourself. This is bad news for ANY ruling class, whether Marxist or capitalist.
Yep. I completely agree. 100%.
But thinking for yourself isn't a crime under capitalism. Unlike many Marxist-based regimes, where "thought-crime" is punishable with time in "re-education" camps.
I can think "This government is crap!" based on my education and knowledge. I can even say it out loud. If enough people agree with me I can even get elected to Parliament to tell the governemnt to its face just how crap it is.
Now, let's see how that would go down in Havana or Pyongyang.
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Isn't capitalism the default system? To have a Marxist state you need a government with the will and ability to run things according to communist principles. It has to be done intentionally. It hasn't been tried in all that many places.
In any other country, as long as there are basic property laws a reasonable police force and a little infrastructure, capitalism can operate. It doesn't need government plans, it can just happen. People produce and sell, others invest and get appropriate rewards. Nothing is stopping them, so the market should be encouraging and rewarding them.
So wouldn't it be fair to say that the poverty of Bangladesh is a demonstration of the failure of capitalism? And D R Congo, Malawi, Central African Republic, etc?
No. Those are failures of Governments. Stable, good governments don't end up in that kind of mess. I said that upthread (you have almost paraphrased me in fact) when I said to really reduce poverty you need free-trade, an educated people, a stable non-corrupt government and bureaucracy, and peace.
Those governemnts failed to provide those basic things and so the economic successes of capitalism were never given a chance to come to fruition.
By the way and appropros of nothing, it must be terribly frustrating when the best argument Marxists have these days is "...but it's never been properly tried!" and people just don't listen to them anymore.
[ 07. January 2014, 14:29: Message edited by: deano ]
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
By the way and appropros of nothing, it must be terribly frustrating when the best argument Marxists have these days is "...but it's never been properly tried!" and people just don't listen to them anymore.
Whereas people are all to willing to listen to "capitalism: tried and found wanting..."
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
By the way and appropros of nothing, it must be terribly frustrating when the best argument Marxists have these days is "...but it's never been properly tried!" and people just don't listen to them anymore.
Whereas people are all to willing to listen to "capitalism: tried and found wanting..."
No. People just get on with making a living rather than indulging in posture politics and claiming to have a secret way of making things much better if only it can be tried... but it never been properly tried!
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
One interesting argument about the 'third world' is that the 'first world' requires cheap labour in order to maintain its own standard of living. So in a way, Victorian conditions have been transferred to the garment factories of Asia, while Westerners enjoy the fruits of their labour.
However, of course, these countries are also becoming more affluent - for example, China. What happens when the supply of cheap labour runs out? I suppose first, there is usually somewhere else to provide it; and second, the world's resources are hoovered up more quickly.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
And the way out of that bind is the complete abolition of all immigration controls, whose main economic function is to allow large employers to segment the international labour market by trapping workers in low wage locations.
Our current system, complete freedom for capital and employers, with huge restrictions on workers, is designed to allow bosses to keep wages down.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
deano said
quote:
Those governemnts failed to provide those basic things and so the economic successes of capitalism were never given a chance to come to fruition.
That's pretty much 'it hasn't been tried properly,' isn't it? Just how fragile a flower is capitalism? How perfect do things have to be for it to work? Why haven't any of the poorer countries in Africa managed to provide the right conditions for it to flower?
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
Because they've been led overwhelmingly by socialists over the last half century or so?
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Deano: quote:
But thinking for yourself isn't a crime under capitalism.
Only if your thoughts do not overstep the bounds of what is acceptable to the ruling classes.
What about Rosa Parks? Admittedly she was actually arrested for sitting in the wrong seat, but the reason why she sat down there was because she *thought* she had just as much right to occupy it as anyone else.
And I'm surprised you don't recognise the existence of (so-called) thought crime in Western society. Aren't you one of the people who regularly complains about Political Correctness Gone Mad? What is political correctness, if not an attempt to avoid thought crime?
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
I am very late to this discussion. So maybe this has already been discussed in this thread. The problem I see with traditional antipoverty efforts are:
1. They are means tested (only people who can prove they are in need get help so you need a bigger bureaucracy to test how needy people are).
2. They either disincentivise employment or pressure people into menial "workfare" jobs that make it harder for people to find jobs that will actually lift them and their families out of poverty for the long term. (The Federal Earned Income Tax Credit in the US is a notable exception.)
So people have probably discussed the guaranteed minimum income for everyone regardless of how poor or rich they are idea that was on some ballot initiative in Switzerland. I would modify this so that everyone gets enough to prevent them from starving or freezing to death but to get more money a person needs to work or study. The government would both supplement the first $12.50-per hour or so of a person's wages and require employers to pay at least $2.50 per hour more so everyone who works gets at least $15 per hour. However, the government also needs to make sure that enough jobs exist that everyone who can work is able to find a job, and that people who do not have the skills, transportation, or ability to move homes to find a job are able to get the training, transportation, assitance moving, care for children or elderly/sick relatives, etc., to allow them to work. I think the idea of the "full-time student" needs to be phased out a bit. People who are studying at university or a vocational school should be able to get a larger stipend than the "prevention of starvation or freezing" stipend mentioned above, but most students should need to work at least a little bit to supplement this. Tuition to public university and vocational schools, though, should be free for those who are able to be admitted. Universal health insurance with coverage that is completely free for at least primary and preventive care is also necessary. And for those who are truly unable to work due to medical disability, there should be a guaranteed minimum income considerable higher than that needed to prevent starvation or freezing. This would require some means testing, but not as much as in the current system where poverty also needs to be proven. The elderly should all get a similar substantial guaranteed minimum income, but the retirement age would need to be increased for all except those in strenuous physical labor jobs.
I think that this can be affordable if the tax base if sufficiently broadened, loopholes and exemptions are closed, and corporate profits are not taxed so more business stays in a country and more revenue comes from income and consumption taxes. Financial transactions should be taxed as well, but for this to work you need all major economies on board to share the proceeds from this tax.
So it's a dream centuries away from ever seeing the light of day. Businesses, investments, and the super rich may still try to flee the country to avoid taxes and regulation (although a healthy, educated workforce free from the stress of poverty provides a big incentive for employers to stay). What we need is some kind of supranational government to make sure no business or individual can avoid paying whatever taxes are necessary to provide a minimum wage, employment, education, and healthcare to everyone. These taxes can then be distributed to each country based on population. That is even harder to achieve, but who knows what could happen in a few hundred years? I don't see any point in not trying to take small reasonable steps toward it now. But these can't just be stop gap measures like more means-tested assistance programs because these do breed resentment among the middle class and disincentivise work in certain cases among the recipients. The best way to lift the poor out of poverty is to have a safety net that lifts everyone up off the ground a bit, even if that means helping the people who are already rich. No one can complain about makers/givers and takers then, because everyone will be a taker but people will still pretty much need to work to live a decent life (people could refund the government the money if they want, but that would be their choice).
I'm an idealist so I'm ready to hear all the reasons why we should never try to do something like this.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
However, of course, these countries are also becoming more affluent - for example, China. What happens when the supply of cheap labour runs out? I suppose first, there is usually somewhere else to provide it; and second, the world's resources are hoovered up more quickly.
Also, what happens when China becomes self-sufficient to the point it no longer needs us as customers?
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
However, of course, these countries are also becoming more affluent - for example, China. What happens when the supply of cheap labour runs out? I suppose first, there is usually somewhere else to provide it; and second, the world's resources are hoovered up more quickly.
Also, what happens when China becomes self-sufficient to the point it no longer needs us as customers?
History teaches us that they will then buy up British banks, utilities, and any other large firms which have survived, and then they will really make us work!
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
quetzalcoatl: However, of course, these countries are also becoming more affluent - for example, China. What happens when the supply of cheap labour runs out? I suppose first, there is usually somewhere else to provide it; and second, the world's resources are hoovered up more quickly.
Exactly. Our economical system depends on people working for us earning very little. Much of us wouldn't be able to afford a lot of stuff we had in our houses if it weren't so.
The Latin Americans and the Eastern Europeans don't want to do it anymore, in some time the Chinese won't either. Probably the system will be able to shift the burden to the Africans for a short while... and then?
BTW, these people providing cheap labour often don't have the liberty to say what they want. See what happens if they try to form a Union and demand better working conditions.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
quetzalcoatl: However, of course, these countries are also becoming more affluent - for example, China. What happens when the supply of cheap labour runs out? I suppose first, there is usually somewhere else to provide it; and second, the world's resources are hoovered up more quickly.
Exactly. Our economical system depends on people working for us earning very little. Much of us wouldn't be able to afford a lot of stuff we had in our houses if it weren't so.
The Latin Americans and the Eastern Europeans don't want to do it anymore, in some time the Chinese won't either. Probably the system will be able to shift the burden to the Africans for a short while... and then?
BTW, these people providing cheap labour often don't have the liberty to say what they want. See what happens if they try to form a Union and demand better working conditions.
Yes, it's a kind of eerie evocation of the Victorian conditions, low wages, non-unionized, poor conditions, long hours, child labour in some areas.
Maybe it will all reverse, and in 50 years, the British will be working in sweat-shops to supply the Chinese middle class with comfy shirts and jeans.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
in some time the Chinese won't either. Probably the system will be able to shift the burden to the Africans for a short while... and then?
This is already happening. Chinese manufacturing is moving inland as coastal cities become prosperous and no longer wish menial employment. China is already gathering resources in Africa, manpower as well as oil and such.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
deano: quote:
I don't think one can criticise parents for wanting the best for their children rather than worrying about everyone else's children.
I want the best for my child, of course I do. I want her to grow up in a society where she does not have to be afraid of her neighbours. A society where she can walk down the street with a reasonable degree of confidence that she will not be verbally or physically assaulted by gangs of unemployed 'youff' who left school with no qualifications and have nowhere else to go and nothing to do.
It's not enough anymore to just concentrate on educating the "brightest and best" as well as possible. We need everybody. Even the chair of CBI thinks that
businesses should invest more in training their staff. (along with paying them more... I must admit, for a brief moment after reading that news story I thought the Millennium had arrived)
Parents whose ambitions for education begin and end with their own children are not being ambitious enough. IMNSHO.
Yes, because young people who are NEETs (Not in Education, Employment or Training) are the real danger on the streets ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) I was a NEET once and the only danger about me was the danger to myself, since I could not afford to feed myself or heat my home. But demonising young people isn't exactly new, I guess.
You realise your daughter (or anyone else) is more in danger of being attacked by a member of her family than by a young person she doesn't know?
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
First of all, let's clear up a terminology issue. Most private schools in the UK are not Public Schools. There is a criteria laid down to be a Public School based on longevity and tradition, and most private schools don't meet this.
(When those on the other side of The Pond read that bit I'm sure it will confuse the hell out of them but they'll figure it out!)
Anyway, I'm not so sure what you mean by "overwhelm".
My argument is that the better educated you are the more money you earn. But you have to be both clever AND hard working to get into a good job.
You need good grades to get into medical school or onto a Russel Group science or engineering degree course. Those making that cut are both clever and hard working and employers recognise that.
We need to be clear about what qualifications mean to employers. The higher the qualification, the cleverer and more hard working the person. That mean the employer can entrust them with tasks that are more challenging and carry more responsability with them, and also that they will need less motivating to do a good job.
To an employer, little or no qualifications mean the person is not very bright and cannot be given challenging tasks. That's why supermarket checkouts show the teller how much change to give from a £10 note. The employer will also feel the person isn't hard working, as they didn't work hard to get any qualifications. So the employer will feel they need to impose more "management" onto them in the form of more intrusive time-keeping, more discipline, more "targets".
For a school leaver that's the stark reality of employment. Employers cannot assess them in terms of previous work experience and references, only on what qualification they may of may not have.
Of course someone who qualifies as a doctor is hard working and clever and they deserve the higher wages that go with more challenging decisions to make and more responsibility to wield. But a child who gets a top mark on a bricklaying course will be viewed as a better and more hard-working candidate by a building company than one who got a lower grade or no grade on the bricklaying course. So the employer will be more likely to consider the higher grade cadidate is more hard working and motivated.
Many people in good jobs are neither hard-working nor clever. Many people in low-paid jobs are both hard-working and clever. Low-paid jobs are often the hardest jobs, and disproportionately done by women, often non-white and immigrant women (cleaning for example). Cleaning shit from a toilet seems to need hard-working people rather more than being a banker does.
Many people in good jobs (particularly the very best-paid jobs) got there because of networking, school ties and parental influence, all of which is much easier for middle-class white men who went to private school.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Yes, because young people who are NEETs ( Education, Employment or Training) are the real danger on the streets
I've certainly never been mugged at knifepoint by a well-educated businessman.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Yes, because young people who are NEETs ( Education, Employment or Training) are the real danger on the streets
I've certainly never been mugged at knifepoint by a well-educated businessman.
I've lost more to a man with a briefcase than kid with a knife.
And so have you.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Jade: quote:
Yes, because young people who are NEETs (Not in Education, Employment or Training) are the real danger on the streets I was a NEET once and the only danger about me was the danger to myself, since I could not afford to feed myself or heat my home. But demonising young people isn't exactly new, I guess.
No, it isn't (see the history of Australia, a country that came into being as a result of previous efforts to 'eliminate the underclass'). A lot of people do it. That was actually my point. I'm sorry if you thought I was having a go at you.
My nephew is a NEET. I have nothing but sympathy for them. Some feel that they have nothing to live for. I think it's outrageous that the government is targeting them in the welfare cuts; not everyone has parents who are able and willing to support them.
But 'not demonising them' isn't all they need; they need something more than sympathy if they are to get out of the NEET trap.
[ 08. January 2014, 08:11: Message edited by: Jane R ]
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
Okay, everyone keeps posting up the odd outliers in the data set - the toilet cleaner and the beneficiary of parental patronage. They are irrelevant to the overwhelming mass of children, and focusing on them is doing a disservice to those children. It might salve a socialist conscience but it is pointless, misleading and in the end damaging and cruel to children.
Let's get some numbers into the debate eh? Here is a link to an article about how higher education affects lifetime salary.
It's US based, but no less relevant. The same message is true all over the world.
The most telling paragraph is...
quote:
Those with bachelor's degrees, no matter the field, earn vastly more than counterparts with some college ($1.55 million in lifetime earnings) or a high school diploma ($1.30 million lifetime), indicating that no matter the level of attainment or the field of study, simply earning a four-year degree is often integral to financial success later in life.
The same can be said of undergraduate degree's, HND's, A'levels, BTEC's, GCSE's and the like here in the UK.
Education is the most important thing in raising not just children, but a complete society out of poverty. Other things are needed as well but without proper, focused education it's all just pissing in the wind.
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I've lost more to a man with a briefcase than kid with a knife.
And so have you.
Can you elaborate? We may be operating under different definitions of the word "lost".
For example, the Treasury bailing out the banks wasn't a loss to me. As far as I'm concerned my share of that tax money was lost to me the moment the government took it.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I've lost more to a man with a briefcase than kid with a knife.
And so have you.
Can you elaborate? We may be operating under different definitions of the word "lost".
For example, the Treasury bailing out the banks wasn't a loss to me. As far as I'm concerned my share of that tax money was lost to me the moment the government took it.
Endowments. Pensions. PPI. Interest exchange agreements. Tax avoidance. Tax fraud. Offshoring. Price fixing. Cartels.
And that's without worrying about the bank bail-outs.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Education is the most important thing in raising not just children, but a complete society out of poverty. Other things are needed as well but without proper, focused education it's all just pissing in the wind.
You realise that you're starting to argue against yourself here?
Absolutely this: the very best education possible, for the masses and not just the few.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Marvin: quote:
For example, the Treasury bailing out the banks wasn't a loss to me. As far as I'm concerned my share of that tax money was lost to me the moment the government took it.
If the PRIVATE SECTOR banks had not screwed up the global economy and had to be propped up with your tax money, the government could have spent the money on things that you, I and other taxpayers could benefit from. Hospitals. Schools. Libraries. Roads. Upgrading the rail network. Reinforcing coastal defences. You work for a university, don't you? That money the bankers wasted could have funded a decent pay rise for every public sector worker, including the Environment Agency staff who are being laid off just when they're most needed. And there would probably have been enough money left over to pay for pork pies all round (with vegetarian alternative available for non-meat-eaters).
Instead, it all got poured into a black hole. Shovelling it into a heap and setting fire to it would have been better entertainment.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Many people in good jobs are neither hard-working nor clever. Many people in low-paid jobs are both hard-working and clever.
This is true, but it is also true that people in good jobs are more likely to be hard-working and clever than those in lower-paying jobs. Also, I think that skill is a more important criterion than cleverness.
quote:
Low-paid jobs are often the hardest jobs, and disproportionately done by women, often non-white and immigrant women (cleaning for example). Cleaning shit from a toilet seems to need hard-working people rather more than being a banker does.
However, one can learn to clean a toilet in far less time than one can learn to be a banker.
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Education is the most important thing in raising not just children, but a complete society out of poverty. Other things are needed as well but without proper, focused education it's all just pissing in the wind.
You realise that you're starting to argue against yourself here?
Absolutely this: the very best education possible, for the masses and not just the few.
No I'm not. I used the word "focused" quite carefully, in order to cover a multitude of sins, such as giving more resources to the best and the brightest.
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Many people in good jobs are neither hard-working nor clever. Many people in low-paid jobs are both hard-working and clever.
This is true, but it is also true that people in good jobs are more likely to be hard-working and clever than those in lower-paying jobs. Also, I think that skill is a more important criterion than cleverness.
quote:
Low-paid jobs are often the hardest jobs, and disproportionately done by women, often non-white and immigrant women (cleaning for example). Cleaning shit from a toilet seems to need hard-working people rather more than being a banker does.
However, one can learn to clean a toilet in far less time than one can learn to be a banker.
just to avoid the usual socialist, class-affected diatribe that will result from your using the word banker, I also offer these jobs that take longer to learn than cleaning a toilet...
Surgeon
Medical Doctor
Chemical Engineer
History Teacher
Mechanical Engineer
Biotechnology Engineer
Solocitor
Barrister
Electronic Engineer
Pilot
Software Engineer
Aerospace Engineer
English Teacher
Physics Teacher
Maths Teacher
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
