chem1st Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 I think the only thing that is consistent with increases, and the least likely to backfire, is property. Property is losing money as we speak and interest rates haven't even begun to rise yet! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nightrider Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 I really cannot understand the logic of having youngsters out of work whilst working old people to death as the two bitty boys are trying to do. It does not make sense. I wonder if its cheaper to bay a youngster benefits than a retired person a final salary pension? If so thats the reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*_ash_* Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 Property is losing money as we speak and interest rates haven't even begun to rise yet! Come on chemist, you post enough about housing to know what I mean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 ... I reckon a benefits swapshop needs setting up, voluntarily of course where possible, over 60 and wanting/affording to retire to allow a young unemployed person to take their place in the workplace Not a problem. Imagine that you are the Head of HR in a large hi-tech company. You have 50 58-year old senior, highly-qualified and very experienced engineers who would be more than happy to retire. You have 100 applicants with 'degrees' in basket-weaving, flower arranging and various 'ologies' - none of which is an engineering 'ology'. Are you prepared to authorise the job swap? A couple of weeks ago I wrote a post on this forum in which I offered jobs for 75,000 (YES THOUSAND) engineers who had Master's degrees or the Europeanequivalent (Dipl.-Ing). It wasn't entirely a tongue-in-cheek offer. I'm retired. I'm not a hiring agency ... but if you want me to be, I can become a hiring agency. (5% of first year's Salary ... unless, of course, I can get it from the employer - in which case I'll settle for 3% from the jobhunter.) I'm in my 60's (as are many on this forum.) When we grew up - as I've said before we were told that we were entering a new technological age in which there would be fewer unskilled jobs and a huge demand for highly-qualified highly-skilled people. That was 50 years ago! Have we scrapped technology? Were people too stupid to listen? There is a huge shortage in the UK (and in Europe) of highly-skilled highly-qualified people. There is no shortage of people who are too poorly educated and too poorly qualified to do anything other than to shovel horse crap into a heap. Unfortunately, we no longer have many horses. There are few jobs for pile-its. There are plenty of well-paid jobs going for those who are well-qualified, highly-skilled, highly trained and highly motivated. 50 years ago, we - the children in schools - were being told "Society will need far fewer manual labourers, Society will need highly-trained highly-skilled people." That same society increased the school leaving age (at no cost to the students) but today the UK has to import skilled people from overseas (you don't have enough to meet the demand from local employers) and about half of the kids who leave school don't have the minimum qualifications necessary to get a job. Whose fault is that? Education to age 16 is compulsory. Education to age 18 is free. 60% of those who leave school at age 16 fail to achieve the basic minima. Many of those who progress to age 18 (or beyond) can't read, write and add up. I don't know what the 'going rate' is at Sheffield Poly, but I knew a student who got into Uni with two 'A' levels at grade 'U' and an 'F'. Bums on seats. Somebody else's problem. When I mentioned 75000 jobs I expected my inbox to fill rapidly. Didn't even get one applicant. There are (it seems) lots of people who want jobs. There are lots of jobs going, too - but not many people who are qualified to do them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*_ash_* Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 Is it my imagination, or are your posts getting longer and more complex these days Rupert? (not an insult by the way) Purely an observation that your posting has changed. You're striking me as a frustrated perfectionist! I could be wrong though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 Naaah! Sometimes I put the brain in gear before I engage the mouth fingers. Bad habit! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 I must admit though, Ash, I do feel very frustrated when I'm faced with the 'walls of complaint' I see on this forum. Life is indeed hard. It's always been hard. Nothing has changed. (Some of the people on this forum seem to think that, in the past, life in Sheffield was hard because of 'Thatcher the Snatcher [who can be blamed at least back until the 1830's] Nowadays it's down to the Camel Egg.) I lived in the PDR of South Yorkshire in 1971/72. I saw (and suffered under) how badly they ran the show. The lessons available then (nothing to do with 'Snatcher' - she wasn't even on the scene - should've taught people, but it seems that (40 years 0n) some of the people of the PDR are determined to re-invent the wheel. But only if the wheel has the same five equal-sized sides it had under Wilsod. (Remember the 'Harold Wilson' - 5 sided and two faced.) The 'Pound in your pocket' was worth at least 4 of those, but let's not tell anybody. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 I wonder if its cheaper to bay a youngster benefits than a retired person a final salary pension? If so thats the reason. Many who retire or take redundancy before 65yrs are not entitled to unemployment benefit even if they have worked and paid into the system all their lives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 Not a problem. Imagine that you are the Head of HR in a large hi-tech company. You have 50 58-year old senior, highly-qualified and very experienced engineers who would be more than happy to retire. You have 100 applicants with 'degrees' in basket-weaving, flower arranging and various 'ologies' - none of which is an engineering 'ology'. Are you prepared to authorise the job swap? A couple of weeks ago I wrote a post on this forum in which I offered jobs for 75,000 (YES THOUSAND) engineers who had Master's degrees or the Europeanequivalent (Dipl.-Ing). It wasn't entirely a tongue-in-cheek offer. I'm retired. I'm not a hiring agency ... but if you want me to be, I can become a hiring agency. (5% of first year's Salary ... unless, of course, I can get it from the employer - in which case I'll settle for 3% from the jobhunter.) I'm in my 60's (as are many on this forum.) When we grew up - as I've said before we were told that we were entering a new technological age in which there would be fewer unskilled jobs and a huge demand for highly-qualified highly-skilled people. That was 50 years ago! Have we scrapped technology? Were people too stupid to listen? There is a huge shortage in the UK (and in Europe) of highly-skilled highly-qualified people. There is no shortage of people who are too poorly educated and too poorly qualified to do anything other than to shovel horse crap into a heap. Unfortunately, we no longer have many horses. There are few jobs for pile-its. There are plenty of well-paid jobs going for those who are well-qualified, highly-skilled, highly trained and highly motivated. 50 years ago, we - the children in schools - were being told "Society will need far fewer manual labourers, Society will need highly-trained highly-skilled people." That same society increased the school leaving age (at no cost to the students) but today the UK has to import skilled people from overseas (you don't have enough to meet the demand from local employers) and about half of the kids who leave school don't have the minimum qualifications necessary to get a job. Whose fault is that? Education to age 16 is compulsory. Education to age 18 is free. 60% of those who leave school at age 16 fail to achieve the basic minima. Many of those who progress to age 18 (or beyond) can't read, write and add up. I don't know what the 'going rate' is at Sheffield Poly, but I knew a student who got into Uni with two 'A' levels at grade 'U' and an 'F'. Bums on seats. Somebody else's problem. When I mentioned 75000 jobs I expected my inbox to fill rapidly. Didn't even get one applicant. There are (it seems) lots of people who want jobs. There are lots of jobs going, too - but not many people who are qualified to do them Some good points but there are still plenty of low skilled jobs in the service sector; our young unskilled, uneducated people just need the motivation to take them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna B Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 50 years ago we had a two tier education system with 20% going to Grammar Schools and taking 'O' levels, and the other 80% going to Secondary Moderns and not taking 'O' levels, ie only 20% of school leavers had 5 'O' levels. Now we expect 100% of school leavers to have the equivelant of 5 'O' levels, and say that schools are failing if they don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.