Funeral security

ballysmate

johnfinch wrote:

Teaching of the basics has definitely declined. Teachers are forced into using the synthetic phonics method which is basically no good, although maybe the rise of the Internet, texting etc. is also leading to kids today being unable to spell. Last year, when I was working as an English tutor I was in a year 8 geography class and most of the (Kentish) kids were unable to find Kent on a map. I was totally shocked, but they couldn't understand why I would think that such knowledge is important.

In terms of secondary school teaching, I would suggest that it isn't that the education is necessarily worse, but it has changed completely to a broader curriculum. When my grandparents were at grammar school they studied about 6 or 7 subjects for their leaving certificate at the age of 16. When my parents went to grammar school they studied 8 subjects at O-level. When my brother and I went, we studied 10 GCSEs and these days a grammar school pupil would often be expected to study about 13 subjects to GCSE level, 5 at AS level and then 4 at A level. Quite simply we have swapped depth for breadth. I personally think that going back to studying 8-10 subjects at GCSE and then 3 subjects at A level would be a better system, but I suppose it really all depends on what you want out of your education system. The modular exam system has also been a complete mess. The only reform of Gove's that I would applaud is the decision to go back to exams at the end of the course, rather than once every few months.

In the 90s my bros in law decided to go back to education with the view to taking a maths degree to become a teacher. It had been 12 years since he left school with his O levels and approached the local college to enroll in A level courses to get to university. He expected to have to do a foundation course of some kind, but no, not necessary.
On the first night at college, he was somewhat surprised to find that he held the highest Education award within the group. An Asian lad, turned up with an interpreter. Nothing wrong with that. Bit of a surprise when it was revealed that the lad had only one GCSE and that was in ENGLISH.
The course was over 2 years and was modular. My bros in law turned up for the second year to find that he was the only one to have passed the first year and everyone else had dropped out. Moreover, the college had made no provision for second year students and instead suggested that he sit in with the new intake and seek guidance from the lecturers if required. They had not expected anyone to pass.He completed the second part, self taught.
The whole exercise was a matter of 'bums on seats' and a waste of money.

ballysmate

My mate's soon to be ex wife is a lecturer in an area of IT at a local college. She finds it impossible to fail students.She sets work with deadlines and when the work doesn't appear, she obviously allocates grade accordingly. She is then told that she must extend the deadline to give the student another chance. That deadline passes. Ultimately she will try to get the student removed from the group and kicked off the course. The student then appeals and gets re-instated.
Madness.

VTech

Ballysmate, your point is so valid of modern life.
There MUST be winners and losers in life, as there is in the animal world, people who work or try at things deserve better or at least to be in with a chance rather than those that dont.
These days there are too many doo-gooders that dont agree with me and it weakens the mixture putting hard working, decent students into the pot with the lazy ones and often the ones wanting to do better suffer.
I cant fathom it.

the playing mantis

MisterMuncher wrote:

the playing mantis wrote:

MisterMuncher wrote:

the playing mantis wrote:

why do people hate tories? is it cos they dont beleive in something for nothing?

Oh, they do. So long as the people getting something for nothing are the banks, the city and BAE bloody Systems, the Tories are all for something for nothing.

absolute bollox

Well, that's a devastatingly eloquent and intricately constructed argument right there.

Thatcher's "big bang" of deregulation was just a bit of a giggle, wasn't it? Certainly not something we've come to regret time and time again when bankers and broker's latest fantasy instruments go tits up, and they stand with the hand out. And don't give me the line that they bring in business or help the nation, because they've managed to avoid as much tax as they possibly can all along the way.

It's a central doctrine of Thatcherism that there's no function of government that isn't better executed by private interests, who will also do it cheaper and make a profit into the bargain. Sounds a lot like "something for nothing" to me.

im sorry but you are simply wrong. Financial Services has brought in masses of income/business/employment for this country. Masses. This is fact. It cannot be denied.

Re the big bang. ok you think it was bad. you would be happy to still be so over regulated that you were not allowed to take more than £100 worth of foreign currency when you go abroad? would be happy for the UK to be left behind with an inefficient over regualted finacial sector, whilst Frankfurt, paris, zurich, NY, chicago, Boston, Tokyo, Sydney, Singapore, surge on attracting business wealth growth and lots of jobs rather than London?

what are these 'latest' financial instruments that have gone tits up and what were the ones that went tits up before to qualify your 'latest' comment? the supposed financial crisis (its a simply a recession, thats free market economics, get over it, we take the rough with the smooth) was caused by all sorts of things, even if you dont think it was a natural correction, to blame it at the door of 'bankers' is naive and over simple.

did these banks go cap in hand, or was it the governments choice to prop them up? who decided they were too big to fail. wasnt it the labour government? i agree they should have gone to the wall.

the playing mantis

some well put points here, about education, eastern europe from both sides. is it not true that those subjageted eastern european countries increasingly (bar bielorussia) want to be like the west adopt western policies and embrace capitalism with open arms?

i dont believe thatcher led to the breakdown of communism, but i do think she helped stop its spread.

education standards have declined its clear. i did gcse's they were easy. i also saw equivalent o'level papers on many subjects, and they were exceedingly difficult comparitevly.

people may have higher iq's i dont know, my impression of lots of soceity is that they are thick, stupid and even worse ignorant. i cant compare this with the past (im late 20's) so i dont know if people are genuninly cleverer/stupider these days, but i find it astounding the ignorance of many of my peers to things that myself and my friends would consider basic knowledge. like knowing what the holocaust was for example, adding things up without a calculator, poor spelling (hypocritical i know!), lack of basic geography.

not that im keen on it (in fact im a hater), but when forced to watch reality tv (if i dont have control of the changer), then this just reinforces my opinion, big brother, towie etc, the whole culture of celebrity suggest soceity is getting stupider, more ignorant, it seems logical to draw parralels with this and education standards imo.

sloppyschleckonds

Anyway In the end, all a person can do is try to live their life in such a way that it doesn’t require 700 armed guards to protect their coffin.

VTech

We could not have let the banks go, it would have finished the country off. They didnt need to go cap in hand or ask for anything, anyone who thinks it was touch and go wether the government backed them or not is deluded.

pinno

ooermissus wrote:

IQ has been going up since the 1930s...

Nothing to do with the NHS and nutrition as well as standards of living ?

VTech

SloppySchleckonds wrote:

Anyway In the end, all a person can do is try to live their life in such a way that it doesn’t require 700 armed guards to protect their coffin.

Just to be clear, guards will be needed to protect the various heads of state from around the world and not the coffin.
Anyone who tries anything untoward during the procession should be publicly flogged, there is NEVER a reason to hold up a funeral.

the playing mantis

even hitlers? (if he had had one)

the playing mantis

or maybe he did in cordoba?!!

VTech

I wouldnt have disrupted Hitlers funeral, just like I wouldnt with the likes of fred west or similar.

Who they are, what they have done doesnt matter when they are dead.
If you liked them raise a glass.
If you didnt care, do nothing.
If you hated them smile happily.

There is never a need to stop a funeral no matter what.

ballysmate

VTech wrote:

There is never a need to stop a funeral no matter what.

What does stopping a funeral achieve? Be it Thatcher, Stalin, Hitler, Mother Teresa or the Queen MUM. They are DEAD. They don't know anything about it.

the playing mantis

passions run high. what was the point of mutilating ill duce's corpse? none. but if you are impacted directly by such serious things like genocide maybe emotions get the better of you regardless of what good it will do. not that that was the case with mussolini.

MisterMuncher

Re the big bang. ok you think it was bad. you would be happy to still be so over regulated that you were not allowed to take more than £100 worth of foreign currency when you go abroad? would be happy for the UK to be left behind with an inefficient over regualted finacial sector, whilst Frankfurt, paris, zurich, NY, chicago, Boston, Tokyo, Sydney, Singapore, surge on attracting business wealth growth and lots of jobs rather than London?

False dichotomy. There's obviously a vast gulf between overregulation and rapacious laissez-faire, and to pretend it's as simple as one or t'other is just bloody-minded idiocy.

what are these 'latest' financial instruments that have gone tits up and what were the ones that went tits up before to qualify your 'latest' comment? the supposed financial crisis (its a simply a recession, thats free market economics, get over it, we take the rough with the smooth) was caused by all sorts of things, even if you dont think it was a natural correction, to blame it at the door of 'bankers' is naive and over simple.

Bundled sub-prime mortgages. Insane leverage ratios. Credit default swaps. All the pretty colours on casino banking's roulette wheel, the means to pretend money could breed. It's all well and good to talk about "natural correction", but it is disingenuous to do so without first assessing who left us needing the correction in the first place.

did these banks go cap in hand, or was it the governments choice to prop them up? who decided they were too big to fail. wasnt it the labour government? i agree they should have gone to the wall.

That's a separate issue. How the problem was eventually tackled is not relevant to what caused it in the first place. On what basis can you say definitively that we'd have been better off just letting the banks go pop (a certain irony given how much they've apparently done for us) than the present situation? Simply asserting that the alternative would be better just because without any evidence isn't a refutation or an argument.

MisterMuncher

VTech wrote:

MisterMuncher wrote:

VTech wrote:

Having said that, no matter what policies are in place, you still need the people to want to make better of themself.
Anyone unwilling to work shouldn't get a vote or anything more than basic food rations.

I despair at anyone callous enough to think this is fair enough. But for a laugh, let's dig a little deeper.

How are we defining "unwilling to work" objectively? I mean, if you'd like this to be a government policy, I presume you've thought about the implementation a tiny little bit.
If they've only got "basic food rations", how do they pay for utilities? Transport? Clothing? The things you need to GET A JOB?
How would you work around the patent problems with self-interested corruption? Have you some magic bullet that would keep employers from ensuring those they don't agree with ideologically stay unemployed and disenfranchised?

You missed the point of my post entirely.
I don't think there would ever be a point where we could police such actions, my post was more ideological rather than firm.

We can't deny that there are VAST amounts of people that don't want to work.
Maybe thy think a cleaning job is beneath them or a labour job is for others but to me, if there is a job available and I can do it and am not working I would do it.
The fact is that even with all of the complaints we see from people on benefits there are not dying in the thousands through lack of food. If the job centre offer a job to someone and they won't do it but are able they should go to rations.
I have a friend who works at the job centre and are now immune to helping as they see this no only daily, but hourly.
Like it or not, that's the way we live now.

That's a very long-winded way of saying "I haven't a bloody clue how it would work in real life. Here's some anecdotes you can't confirm to back it up anyway".

Do people really consider jobs beneath them, or are they perhaps trying to get a job relevant to their education and experience. Remember that? It was called ambition. Real life is rarely so simple as you say.

VTech

You are of course right, I dont know how to fix but yes, I do think some people think a job is beneath them.
Ambition doesnt put food in the kids mouths, me working does.
I am all for aspiring to get the best job but if only a labour job is available or the dole I would pick the labour work.
People not taking jobs because it isnt "what they do" need a reality check or a punch on the nose.

I pay a lot of tax, I dont want it going to lazy people unwilling to work. I would rather it go on healthcare, childcare for people wanting to work, schools, education but NOT to lazy buggers not willing to work.

Im sorry if this offends people, ive worked all my life since 11 years old, paper round, milk round, car cleaning, golf caddying, anything to make a few shillings and its done me well.

seanoconn

MisterMuncher wrote:

Re the big bang. ok you think it was bad. you would be happy to still be so over regulated that you were not allowed to take more than £100 worth of foreign currency when you go abroad? would be happy for the UK to be left behind with an inefficient over regualted finacial sector, whilst Frankfurt, paris, zurich, NY, chicago, Boston, Tokyo, Sydney, Singapore, surge on attracting business wealth growth and lots of jobs rather than London?

False dichotomy. There's obviously a vast gulf between overregulation and rapacious laissez-faire, and to pretend it's as simple as one or t'other is just bloody-minded idiocy.

what are these 'latest' financial instruments that have gone tits up and what were the ones that went tits up before to qualify your 'latest' comment? the supposed financial crisis (its a simply a recession, thats free market economics, get over it, we take the rough with the smooth) was caused by all sorts of things, even if you dont think it was a natural correction, to blame it at the door of 'bankers' is naive and over simple.

Bundled sub-prime mortgages. Insane leverage ratios. Credit default swaps. All the pretty colours on casino banking's roulette wheel, the means to pretend money could breed. It's all well and good to talk about "natural correction", but it is disingenuous to do so without first assessing who left us needing the correction in the first place.

did these banks go cap in hand, or was it the governments choice to prop them up? who decided they were too big to fail. wasnt it the labour government? i agree they should have gone to the wall.

That's a separate issue. How the problem was eventually tackled is not relevant to what caused it in the first place. On what basis can you say definitively that we'd have been better off just letting the banks go pop (a certain irony given how much they've apparently done for us) than the present situation? Simply asserting that the alternative would be better just because without any evidence isn't a refutation or an argument.

I understood your third paragraph

the playing mantis

MisterMuncher wrote:

Re the big bang. ok you think it was bad. you would be happy to still be so over regulated that you were not allowed to take more than £100 worth of foreign currency when you go abroad? would be happy for the UK to be left behind with an inefficient over regualted finacial sector, whilst Frankfurt, paris, zurich, NY, chicago, Boston, Tokyo, Sydney, Singapore, surge on attracting business wealth growth and lots of jobs rather than London?

False dichotomy. There's obviously a vast gulf between overregulation and rapacious laissez-faire, and to pretend it's as simple as one or t'other is just bloody-minded idiocy.

what are these 'latest' financial instruments that have gone tits up and what were the ones that went tits up before to qualify your 'latest' comment? the supposed financial crisis (its a simply a recession, thats free market economics, get over it, we take the rough with the smooth) was caused by all sorts of things, even if you dont think it was a natural correction, to blame it at the door of 'bankers' is naive and over simple.

Bundled sub-prime mortgages. Insane leverage ratios. Credit default swaps. All the pretty colours on casino banking's roulette wheel, the means to pretend money could breed. It's all well and good to talk about "natural correction", but it is disingenuous to do so without first assessing who left us needing the correction in the first place.

did these banks go cap in hand, or was it the governments choice to prop them up? who decided they were too big to fail. wasnt it the labour government? i agree they should have gone to the wall.

That's a separate issue. How the problem was eventually tackled is not relevant to what caused it in the first place. On what basis can you say definitively that we'd have been better off just letting the banks go pop (a certain irony given how much they've apparently done for us) than the present situation? Simply asserting that the alternative would be better just because without any evidence isn't a refutation or an argument.

but regulation wasnt, and isnt rapacioulsly laissez-faire, now is it?
regulation is on par pretty much with other centres i have listed and has usually been so. if you dont like the whole system fine, dont whinge about the uk system specifically though.
as mentioned the recession is just that. if you really think the global slowdown was caused by bankers and sub prime then im not going to change your mind on internet forum.

as mentioned when were these other 'crisis' caused by bankers actions? you refer to 'latest' products what were the ones that caused theses apparant crisis in the past?

how have you actually been impacted by all this? has your standard of living declined? or are you just bandwagon jumping on the banker bashing media runaway train, and in reality like most people, havent actually been impacted by this supposed banker caused (and thus thatcher caused) 'crisis'

ooermissus

pinarello001 wrote:

ooermissus wrote:

IQ has been going up since the 1930s...

Nothing to do with the NHS and nutrition as well as standards of living ?

Probably a lot to do with that - and you see the same thing across the developed world. But higher IQs (plus people spending more time in education, more educated parents etc) is very unlikely to have triggered the perilous decline in standards that people are so convinced of. The abolition of leaded petrol is almost certainly also having an impact too - for those born after 1986 - as even a small amount of lead has a substantial impact on brain development.

But you can never convince people anything is getting better. Same with crime rates - which have dropped like a stone since the mid-1990s (probably also due in part to the introduction of leaded petrol).

MisterMuncher

Well, no harm to ye, Vtech, but you're hardly the only hardworking person in the world. I've been working all my life as well. I'll spare you the emotive "four Yorkshiremen" anecdotes, though, because they're not in any way relevant to argument, nor do they lend my opinions any greater weight.

But anyway: There's an abundance of unemployed people, from an array of social strata. Saying people should take any job going simply because it's going isn't really joined up thinking. If all the cleaning and labouring jobs are taken on by graduate unemployed, where will we send the unemployed cleaners and labourers? Yes, I'm being somewhat facetious, but there is a real point here. Within the job pool, there are only so many jobs in each field, and so many for varying levels of experience and qualification. It makes more sense, long-term to fill posts logically with the best candidate, not merely the first candidate.

Within the current job market, too, the tendency toward part-time jobs geared to give minimum benefits to employees and maximum profit to employers is a cynical exploitation of the labour market. I certainly wouldn't blame anyone unwilling to take on the kind of limited contract, part-time pseudo-temp work on offer in some places in favour of waiting for a real job with a contract that isn't designed solely with the intent of making them easier to fire or do over when the need or opportunity arose.

finchy

the playing mantis wrote:

some well put points here, about education, eastern europe from both sides. is it not true that those subjageted eastern european countries increasingly (bar bielorussia) want to be like the west adopt western policies and embrace capitalism with open arms?

The governments do. Ordinary people on the whole want to be able to get the goods, etc. but don't want to lose protection and their rights.

the playing mantis wrote:

people may have higher iq's i dont know, my impression of lots of soceity is that they are thick, stupid and even worse ignorant. i cant compare this with the past (im late 20's) so i dont know if people are genuninly cleverer/stupider these days, but i find it astounding the ignorance of many of my peers to things that myself and my friends would consider basic knowledge. like knowing what the holocaust was for example, adding things up without a calculator, poor spelling (hypocritical i know!), lack of basic geography.

It's called the Flynn effect if you're interested. Also, IQ can go hand in hand with an increase in ignorance because the 2 are not the same thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect

the playing mantis wrote:

not that im keen on it (in fact im a hater), but when forced to watch reality tv (if i dont have control of the changer), then this just reinforces my opinion, big brother, towie etc, the whole culture of celebrity suggest soceity is getting stupider, more ignorant, it seems logical to draw parralels with this and education standards imo.

We also have 80 channels to fill up, which means it all has to be done on the cheap. Hence a load of shite.

EDIT: To be fair to the broadcasters and the viewing public there is also a lot more high quality TV on these days.

MisterMuncher

the playing mantis wrote:

MisterMuncher wrote:

Re the big bang. ok you think it was bad. you would be happy to still be so over regulated that you were not allowed to take more than £100 worth of foreign currency when you go abroad? would be happy for the UK to be left behind with an inefficient over regualted finacial sector, whilst Frankfurt, paris, zurich, NY, chicago, Boston, Tokyo, Sydney, Singapore, surge on attracting business wealth growth and lots of jobs rather than London?

False dichotomy. There's obviously a vast gulf between overregulation and rapacious laissez-faire, and to pretend it's as simple as one or t'other is just bloody-minded idiocy.

what are these 'latest' financial instruments that have gone tits up and what were the ones that went tits up before to qualify your 'latest' comment? the supposed financial crisis (its a simply a recession, thats free market economics, get over it, we take the rough with the smooth) was caused by all sorts of things, even if you dont think it was a natural correction, to blame it at the door of 'bankers' is naive and over simple.

Bundled sub-prime mortgages. Insane leverage ratios. Credit default swaps. All the pretty colours on casino banking's roulette wheel, the means to pretend money could breed. It's all well and good to talk about "natural correction", but it is disingenuous to do so without first assessing who left us needing the correction in the first place.

did these banks go cap in hand, or was it the governments choice to prop them up? who decided they were too big to fail. wasnt it the labour government? i agree they should have gone to the wall.

That's a separate issue. How the problem was eventually tackled is not relevant to what caused it in the first place. On what basis can you say definitively that we'd have been better off just letting the banks go pop (a certain irony given how much they've apparently done for us) than the present situation? Simply asserting that the alternative would be better just because without any evidence isn't a refutation or an argument.

but regulation wasnt, and isnt rapacioulsly laissez-faire, now is it?
regulation is on par pretty much with other centres i have listed and has usually been so. if you dont like the whole system fine, dont whinge about the uk system specifically though.
as mentioned the recession is just that. if you really think the global slowdown was caused by bankers and sub prime then im not going to change your mind on internet forum.

as mentioned when were these other 'crisis' caused by bankers actions? you refer to 'latest' products what were the ones that caused theses apparant crisis in the past?

how have you actually been impacted by all this? has your standard of living declined? or are you just bandwagon jumping on the banker bashing media runaway train, and in reality like most people, havent actually been impacted by this supposed banker caused (and thus thatcher caused) 'crisis'

Yes, my life has indeed been impacted. I was replaced in a skilled job by a sixteen year old temp and some automated analysis machinery, thanks to cutbacks. I'm sure that's really the firms fault for running too far on credit, or my fault for working in an unstable industry, and nothing to do with a financial crisis you seem intent on saying didn't really affect anyone all that much. I've had to go back to my previous trade, work my way back upfrom the bottom. It's only taken me till now to get back to what I was earning in 2007.

Don't presume to patronise me.

ballysmate

The following appeared in today's Telegraph as part of an article on Tobin Tax.
I admit to know shag all about the bond markets, an ignorance perhaps shared by other forum users.
Yes the bankers were greedy but perhaps not the whole story.
As I said, I don't know the bond market etc, but perhaps we have been fed a too simplistic view of the recent financial calamities.

Let us all agree that top bankers behaved very badly. Let us agree too with Vince Cable that the fraternity operated like a cartel, rewarded far beyond ability or worth to society.

That said, the global crisis would have occurred even if bankers had been saints. The roots lie in the "China effect", the world "savings glut", and the whole way that globalisation has worked for 20 years.

The rising powers of Asia and the oil bloc accumulated $10 trillion of reserves, flooding bond markets with money. Japan put $1 trillion into play through the carry trade. Central banks in the West played their part by running negative real interest rates. They set the price of credit too low, especially in Club Med and Ireland.

All this combined into one colossal bubble. Bankers were the agents, not the cause. The witchhunt against them gathering force in this country has a nasty edge, and it has the character of a pogrom in much of Europe. We should be careful.

ooermissus

Bankers were the agents, not the cause. The witchhunt against them gathering force in this country has a nasty edge, and it has the character of a pogrom in much of Europe. We should be careful.

That's an utterly disgraceful quote. A pogrom?

A pogrom is a violent mob attack generally against Jews, and often condoned by the forces of law, characterized by killings and/or destruction of homes and properties, businesses, and religious centers.

Why not go all out and compare it to the Holocaust?

MisterMuncher

That's some weapons-grade self-pity right there.

the playing mantis

MisterMuncher wrote:

the playing mantis wrote:

MisterMuncher wrote:

Re the big bang. ok you think it was bad. you would be happy to still be so over regulated that you were not allowed to take more than £100 worth of foreign currency when you go abroad? would be happy for the UK to be left behind with an inefficient over regualted finacial sector, whilst Frankfurt, paris, zurich, NY, chicago, Boston, Tokyo, Sydney, Singapore, surge on attracting business wealth growth and lots of jobs rather than London?

False dichotomy. There's obviously a vast gulf between overregulation and rapacious laissez-faire, and to pretend it's as simple as one or t'other is just bloody-minded idiocy.

what are these 'latest' financial instruments that have gone tits up and what were the ones that went tits up before to qualify your 'latest' comment? the supposed financial crisis (its a simply a recession, thats free market economics, get over it, we take the rough with the smooth) was caused by all sorts of things, even if you dont think it was a natural correction, to blame it at the door of 'bankers' is naive and over simple.

Bundled sub-prime mortgages. Insane leverage ratios. Credit default swaps. All the pretty colours on casino banking's roulette wheel, the means to pretend money could breed. It's all well and good to talk about "natural correction", but it is disingenuous to do so without first assessing who left us needing the correction in the first place.

did these banks go cap in hand, or was it the governments choice to prop them up? who decided they were too big to fail. wasnt it the labour government? i agree they should have gone to the wall.

That's a separate issue. How the problem was eventually tackled is not relevant to what caused it in the first place. On what basis can you say definitively that we'd have been better off just letting the banks go pop (a certain irony given how much they've apparently done for us) than the present situation? Simply asserting that the alternative would be better just because without any evidence isn't a refutation or an argument.

but regulation wasnt, and isnt rapacioulsly laissez-faire, now is it?
regulation is on par pretty much with other centres i have listed and has usually been so. if you dont like the whole system fine, dont whinge about the uk system specifically though.
as mentioned the recession is just that. if you really think the global slowdown was caused by bankers and sub prime then im not going to change your mind on internet forum.

as mentioned when were these other 'crisis' caused by bankers actions? you refer to 'latest' products what were the ones that caused theses apparant crisis in the past?

how have you actually been impacted by all this? has your standard of living declined? or are you just bandwagon jumping on the banker bashing media runaway train, and in reality like most people, havent actually been impacted by this supposed banker caused (and thus thatcher caused) 'crisis'

Yes, my life has indeed been impacted. I was replaced in a skilled job by a sixteen year old temp and some automated analysis machinery, thanks to cutbacks. I'm sure that's really the firms fault for running too far on credit, or my fault for working in an unstable industry, and nothing to do with a financial crisis you seem intent on saying didn't really affect anyone all that much. I've had to go back to my previous trade, work my way back upfrom the bottom. It's only taken me till now to get back to what I was earning in 2007.

Don't presume to patronise me.

im sorry for you, but perhaps you were earning too much in 2007? maybe that was a wage that was overinflated by your company and not sustainable had they not assumed everything would be rosy forever and have unlimited boom/growth. do you really think they wouldnt have made cutbacks were it not because of this crisis??

i may very well lose my job in august as my middle office area are being restructured due to cost cutting, and potentially merged with another area that can do the work cheaper. is that the fault of the 'crisis' no its not. it may have hastened it slightly if im really looking to lay the blame somewhere, i could claim that. but its logical, it would have happened eventually anyway. cost savings will always be made even if it means a drop in performance and capability initially. offshoring of work has always occurred. its the same here. if companies can replace an expereinced skileld worker for someone who cant do the same levelmof work yet, but is massively cheaper. they will. its not nice. i dont like it, no one does. its just the way it is. its not bankers/thatchers fault.

pinno

MisterMuncher wrote:

Within the current job market, too, the tendency toward part-time jobs geared to give minimum benefits to employees and maximum profit to employers is a cynical exploitation of the labour market. I certainly wouldn't blame anyone unwilling to take on the kind of limited contract, part-time pseudo-temp work on offer in some places in favour of waiting for a real job with a contract that isn't designed solely with the intent of making them easier to fire or do over when the need or opportunity arose.

F*cking A1 Carpetmuncher.

If you add the following, its even worse when you think about it.
How many people work for Tescos, Amazon, Starbucks, Sainsbury's etc etc on a part-time basis and have to claim Housing Benefit and Working Tax Credits to have half a decent income? How much of that welfare pot is going indirectly into the pockets of the big corps and the welfare state is effectively supporting the profits of these companies as they don't pay proper wages and proper pensions ?

To simply start saying that somoeone or other should take a job regardless of conditions/pay etc just because they should work is looking at the whole of the education and labour market the most blinkered fashion.
In Japan and Germany and many other European countries, they are developing the skills within industry and within education to create markets. i.e - train a batch of 20,000 computer programmers to a seriously high level and it will naturally create innovation and will draw in business and this needs to be linked with a national strategy for the benefit of all. What we do in the UK as regards to education and employment is sway with whichever way the economic wind is blowing and hope, instead of dictating the rules. Education beyond 18 years is voluntarist, has no political and economic strategy and is in eternal 'fire fighting' mode.
Some may argue that so much work has shifted to the far east and we cannot compete, but I can counter that with the fact that if you want a skilled workforce in a skilled sector, companies don't look to the developing world. We cannot compete with the Chinese and some other far eastern organisations when it comes to lower end, unskilled and semi-skilled work/industry but we fail to capture and embrace the skilled sector.
For every industrial position lost, you have to replace it with 4 in the service sector. The service sector is notoriously fickle and we are paying the price during this recession for not having a foundation of industrial positions and a coherent strategy to build up our industries which if given a chance, are actually excellent.

sloppyschleckonds

VTech wrote:

SloppySchleckonds wrote:

Anyway In the end, all a person can do is try to live their life in such a way that it doesn’t require 700 armed guards to protect their coffin.

Just to be clear

You seem to struggle getting your point across LOL

Frank the tank

VTech wrote:

"I pay a lot of tax, I dont want it going to lazy people unwilling to work. I would rather it go on healthcare, childcare for people wanting to work, schools, education but NOT to lazy buggers not willing to work".

I'm sure most people in work feel the same,unfortunately this lot and it's hatred of the public sector would sooner sack public sector workers (paid for by your tax pound) and shove them on benefits (paid for by your tax pound)

Personally I,d sooner the former rather than the Thatcherite latter.