Tuition fee vote passed

nolf

MattC59 wrote:

nolf wrote:

MattC59 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

As for your mortage - wasn't that part of the whole credit crisis anyway? People who took on mortgages they ended up not being able to pay back? If you lose your job you'll be a sub-primer if you're not able to pay it back. Having a mortage you may not pay back? Isn't that living beyond your means..?

What a crock of sh*t !!!!!! You've put together some reasonable argument so far, but did you honestly think before you wrote that ?!?!?! :roll: You've let yourelf down with that one.........

Rick's right....
The financial crisis derived from homeowners buying houses at 100%+ mortgages.
When house prices fell this left them with negative equity, and if you then lost a job, or had income reductions, you went insolvent, often followed by bankruptcy.

Banks placed a bet that house prices were stable/would rise, and that left them vulnerable to drops in house prices. A lot of UK homeowners have used property as a form of speculative investment, basing their spending (re-mortgages, equity releases etc), on the assumption that house prices will rise forever.
Thats what caused the financial crash.

Wrong.
The issue was with Sub-primes. ie lending to someone who can't afford to make the repayments. A 100% mortgage doesn't constitute a risk*, as long as the individual can make the repayments. (*All mortgages constitute risk, just at different levels)
Someone with a job, who can afford re-payments, but is then made redundant is not a sub prime. If that was the case, everyone who ever had a mortgage would be considered sub-prime.
The problem is down to poor decision making. ie deciding to lend to someone who clearly can't make repayments.

He used the wrong language, yes you're right sub-prime is a technical term used to describe the quality of debt, and reflects a high credit risk on the behalf of the lender.

Sub prime is an assessment of risk at the point of sale., therefore you cannot become sub prime.

Sub-prime is not inherently bad. Lending to people at 4 times their base salary may be considered sub-prime, but isn't that a necessity for buying a house these days?
Any kind of 100% mortgage constitutes a significant credit risk (as negative equity is only a small fall in house prices away...), and could be considered sub-prime.

Sub-prime was not the problem, the failure to accurately quantify the risk posed by sub-prime lending was the problem. Derivative products, that created a tradeable financial instrument, were packaged in such a way as to limit risk, by supposedly placing good and bad risks in tradeable package. Optimistic credit risk assessments (blame Credit Ratings Agencies), meant that the end owner of risk was far removed from the original agreement, and had an incomplete picture of the real risk posed by their debt.

Optimism on knowledge of risk led to over-leveraged trading positions, so when prices fell even a bit, big institutions for hit very hard. Then interbank lending dried up, core capital too low, fire sale of assets, liquidity issues, Lehman Bros. etc.

The problem was not just sub-prime, but the partly credit driven housing bubble and the subsequent failure to adequetely price the risk of these bubble mortgages. Sub-prime was a part of this, as it expanded the availability of credit, but in reality all highish earnings ratios for mortgages, or equity releases etc were the key problem as they drove up house prices.

I think a key problem was that house prices were, and remain too high.
Credit has facilitated this, while the middle class expectation of houses as a sure thing (using them as a speculative invesment), and the insufficient supply of housing all haven't helped. It's easy to shift responsibility, a lot harder to take some...

bagpusscp

johnfinch wrote:

bagpusscp wrote:

I have no problem with funding higher eduction But the point is that graduates DO pay for it - when they leave university and get a job they pay taxes just like everybody else.

And it isn't only in income tax that they contribute. Let's face it, companies don't come here for unskilled or semi-skilled workers - they can get them far more cheaply elsewhere. They come here to get highly skilled workers. So when the government manages to convince a company to come to Britain because we've got, say, good engineers, that provides a whole load of work for other people. Who will then say that they object to paying for other people's studies.

As I said I have no problem with funding higher education,but where is the money going to come from.Both the wife and myself work in the public sector and are cornced by the cuts and what the future holds job wise.The goverment has no money just a massive debt .A lot of things are going to have to give in order to balance the nations books and fees is one of them.
Students will want to know what they are paying for and are getting value for money.
If this country or for that matter any country lives beyond it's means there comes a day of reckoning.

finchy

bagpusscp wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

bagpusscp wrote:

I have no problem with funding higher eduction But the point is that graduates DO pay for it - when they leave university and get a job they pay taxes just like everybody else.

And it isn't only in income tax that they contribute. Let's face it, companies don't come here for unskilled or semi-skilled workers - they can get them far more cheaply elsewhere. They come here to get highly skilled workers. So when the government manages to convince a company to come to Britain because we've got, say, good engineers, that provides a whole load of work for other people. Who will then say that they object to paying for other people's studies.

As I said I have no problem with funding higher education,but where is the money going to come from.Both the wife and myself work in the public sector and are cornced by the cuts and what the future holds job wise.The goverment has no money just a massive debt .A lot of things are going to have to give in order to balance the nations books and fees is one of them.
Students will want to know what they are paying for and are getting value for money.
If this country or for that matter any country lives beyond it's means there comes a day of reckoning.

Oh, sorry, I misread your post slightly. As I've said in my earlier posts, I do think that the FE and HE sectors need reforming and taking back to what we had before, so that education can once again be a wise national investment, rather than just a cost.

What I object to is the idea that we just carry on with the status quo but with the students being forced to shoulder the entire burden.

Good luck with hanging on to your jobs.

SteveR_100Milers

I just read the first page and the last, usually a good idea to see how easily derailed things become. in the late 1980s when i was a student, only around 5% went to uni / higher ed, statistically you could argue without much effort that 50% of those graduates went on to make a value aded difference to society (ie created net wealth)

currently around 30% + of kids go on to do some sort of higher ed, but I'll wager that the level of wealth creation has not changed pro rata, if indeed at all. I don't believe that anyone should be denied the chance to study, but then neither can it be entirely state funded when there is no repayment. I have got two kids both of whom are only a matter of years away to becoming students, and it will be a real financial struggle for them and us, but I'm not going to fight about it, even if they cant afford to go - shit happens; deal with it.

bagpusscp

Hmm.Could not companies be given tax breaks{for all it's pit falls} to employ and send young people to university.They would attend the right course to fit the future job.A type of modern apprenticeship.Companies know what they need and are looking for in the right people.When not studying they attend work.This would help further the work ethic
Yes this would only work if there was a job at the end of it.You have to start somewhere.I know this already happens but is the scale large enough.
I hear alot young people leave uni and are unable to get the type of job suited to their degree.

KevLeon

I think that in times like this having a degree is more secure than NOT having one. Having a skill is surely useful. I'm researching a degree in Advanced Manufacturing Technology at Nottingham University, and although the course looks amazing and it's sure to be challenging, it's hard to preview the economy so definitely better to be prepared!

bagpusscp

Good olde Polytech cost alot less? Local customers,no cost of accommdation.A return to for most small Universities? Want to leave home .Then join the forces they are looking for the right people

Hmm .My big darling borther gained a 2.1 in the late 60's in Chemical Engineering {Bucket Chemist} end up as a Police Sgt{rtd}

StillGoing

I don't think having a degree opens any doors these days. Employers are more interested in a proven track record with employment from what I've seen of the iapplication and nterview process lately.