This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Interesting comparisons of recent trends in disposable income here across age groups and in various countries.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/08/young-single-people-bear-the-b...
http://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2016/mar/07/whos-winning-fi...
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/08/young-single-people-bear-the-b...
http://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2016/mar/07/whos-winning-fi...
2
2
In reply to Offwidth:
It seems hard to see how things can improve in the near future, I guess rent control could be part of a making things easier, where Lemmy used to live in LA, there was/is a restricted amount by which rent can go up each year. It seems to work in other places too.
It seems hard to see how things can improve in the near future, I guess rent control could be part of a making things easier, where Lemmy used to live in LA, there was/is a restricted amount by which rent can go up each year. It seems to work in other places too.
Post edited at 15:50
2
In reply to Timmd:
If you are not careful you'll have UKC's Daily Mail readers queuing up to kick you about such 'lefty' ideas.
> It seems hard to see how things can improve in the near future, I guess rent control could be part of a making things easier, where Lemmy used to live in LA, there was/is a restricted amount by which rent can go up each year. It seems to work in other places too.
If you are not careful you'll have UKC's Daily Mail readers queuing up to kick you about such 'lefty' ideas.
4
2
In reply to Shani:
I don't mind. I've got things to do now so it might escape my notice anyway.
If it can work in privatised and capitalist America I dare say it can work here too.
I don't mind. I've got things to do now so it might escape my notice anyway.
If it can work in privatised and capitalist America I dare say it can work here too.
2
1
In reply to Offwidth:
The main message seems to be young people value living alone (rather than in flats or as a family) much more than in the past and are willing pay a lot to do this.
The main message seems to be young people value living alone (rather than in flats or as a family) much more than in the past and are willing pay a lot to do this.
6
1
In reply to Timmd:
May be, but it doesn't. As a little thought will show. At best it provides a favoured few with cheaper houses while pushing up costs for everyone else. From here
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/RentControl.html
"Economists are virtually unanimous in concluding that rent controls are destructive. In a 1990 poll of 464 economists published in the May 1992 issue of the American Economic Review, 93 percent of U.S. respondents agreed, either completely or with provisos, that “a ceiling on rents reduces the quantity and quality of housing available.”1 Similarly, another study reported that more than 95 percent of the Canadian economists polled agreed with the statement.2 The agreement cuts across the usual political spectrum, ranging all the way from Nobel Prize winners milton friedman and friedrich hayek on the “right” to their fellow Nobel laureate gunnar myrdal, an important architect of the Swedish Labor Party’s welfare state, on the “left.” Myrdal stated, “Rent control has in certain Western countries constituted, maybe, the worst example of poor planning by governments lacking courage and vision.”3 "
> If it can work in privatised and capitalist America I dare say it can work here too.
May be, but it doesn't. As a little thought will show. At best it provides a favoured few with cheaper houses while pushing up costs for everyone else. From here
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/RentControl.html
"Economists are virtually unanimous in concluding that rent controls are destructive. In a 1990 poll of 464 economists published in the May 1992 issue of the American Economic Review, 93 percent of U.S. respondents agreed, either completely or with provisos, that “a ceiling on rents reduces the quantity and quality of housing available.”1 Similarly, another study reported that more than 95 percent of the Canadian economists polled agreed with the statement.2 The agreement cuts across the usual political spectrum, ranging all the way from Nobel Prize winners milton friedman and friedrich hayek on the “right” to their fellow Nobel laureate gunnar myrdal, an important architect of the Swedish Labor Party’s welfare state, on the “left.” Myrdal stated, “Rent control has in certain Western countries constituted, maybe, the worst example of poor planning by governments lacking courage and vision.”3 "
4
In reply to MG:
It possibly only needs a little thought once one knows more about it, but that's very interesting.
Funny how 'talk down-ish' UKC can seem at times.
It possibly only needs a little thought once one knows more about it, but that's very interesting.
Funny how 'talk down-ish' UKC can seem at times.
Post edited at 16:20
1
7
In reply to Timmd:
Because suggestions that major economic changes should be based on anecdotes about dead rock singers are shown to be wrong?
> Funny how 'talk down-ish' UKC can seem at times.
Because suggestions that major economic changes should be based on anecdotes about dead rock singers are shown to be wrong?
10
1
In reply to MG:
My friend lived in Manhattan in a one bedroom apartment on Park Avenue, paying about $6k a month. In the next apartment to him there was an old couple who were paying around $1k, because of rent control and the fact that they'd been there for over twenty five years.
- I thought that was great!
> May be, but it doesn't. As a little thought will show. At best it provides a favoured few with cheaper houses while pushing up costs for everyone else. From here
> "Economists are virtually unanimous in concluding that rent controls are destructive. In a 1990 poll of 464 economists published in the May 1992 issue of the American Economic Review, 93 percent of U.S. respondents agreed, either completely or with provisos, that “a ceiling on rents reduces the quantity and quality of housing available.”1 Similarly, another study reported that more than 95 percent of the Canadian economists polled agreed with the statement.2 The agreement cuts across the usual political spectrum, ranging all the way from Nobel Prize winners milton friedman and friedrich hayek on the “right” to their fellow Nobel laureate gunnar myrdal, an important architect of the Swedish Labor Party’s welfare state, on the “left.” Myrdal stated, “Rent control has in certain Western countries constituted, maybe, the worst example of poor planning by governments lacking courage and vision.”3 "
My friend lived in Manhattan in a one bedroom apartment on Park Avenue, paying about $6k a month. In the next apartment to him there was an old couple who were paying around $1k, because of rent control and the fact that they'd been there for over twenty five years.
- I thought that was great!
2
1
In reply to MG:
That seems to be the case, I was in my mid 20s when I went to work in London and shared a room with a stranger, let alone a flat, and thought that was perfectly OK - nobody else thought it strange either.
That seems to be the case, I was in my mid 20s when I went to work in London and shared a room with a stranger, let alone a flat, and thought that was perfectly OK - nobody else thought it strange either.
2
In reply to MG:
Through not knowing a lot about rent control, I was only aware of the benefits to the people who live in those areas, and wasn't any where near suggesting that a major economic change should be based on (anecdotes about) the experiences of dead rock singers.
I suspect that you actually knew that.
> Because suggestions that major economic changes should be based on anecdotes about dead rock singers are shown to be wrong?
Through not knowing a lot about rent control, I was only aware of the benefits to the people who live in those areas, and wasn't any where near suggesting that a major economic change should be based on (anecdotes about) the experiences of dead rock singers.
I suspect that you actually knew that.
Post edited at 21:57
2
4
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
Yes, it was absolutely normal to rent a v small bedsit. I worked in London for 9 years living first in small bedsits, and then a shared house in Hampton, then a brilliant shared flat in Kensington (7 of us, each with own bedroom - mine room measured about 7 ft by 10 ft. But they were very happy times.) I was about 32 years old before I owned a v small mews cottage in west london.
Yes, it was absolutely normal to rent a v small bedsit. I worked in London for 9 years living first in small bedsits, and then a shared house in Hampton, then a brilliant shared flat in Kensington (7 of us, each with own bedroom - mine room measured about 7 ft by 10 ft. But they were very happy times.) I was about 32 years old before I owned a v small mews cottage in west london.
2
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
That's quite different from what my parents and a lot of thier circle seemed to experience (people in their late 60's and early 70's), most of them seemed to strike it lucky in in the stereotyped baby boomer way, in going to university for free, and then more or less walking into jobs and getting affordable mortgages for semi-detached houses by their 30's.
Edit: I think they were just in the right places at the right times.
That's quite different from what my parents and a lot of thier circle seemed to experience (people in their late 60's and early 70's), most of them seemed to strike it lucky in in the stereotyped baby boomer way, in going to university for free, and then more or less walking into jobs and getting affordable mortgages for semi-detached houses by their 30's.
Edit: I think they were just in the right places at the right times.
Post edited at 22:29
3
3
In reply to Offwidth:
I guess I fit under the gen. Y category and I've definitely got friends at both ends of the spectrum, those who went straight into work, bought themselves a place to live seem to be quite comfortable as opposed to those who went to uni and don't seem to have enough to buy a pint, nevermind a round. (Although I do have a few mates from uni who are definitely doing better for themselves!)
I know a few people who upon graduating didn't want to move back in with their parents, the result is that they're more than happy to pay daft amounts for rent and scrape by. They could, in fact have moved back in with their parents and saved for a place to live rather than scraping by.
I guess it depends on the background of the person but prices only seem to go up; and those of my age group who have moved out are quite happy to pay!
I guess I fit under the gen. Y category and I've definitely got friends at both ends of the spectrum, those who went straight into work, bought themselves a place to live seem to be quite comfortable as opposed to those who went to uni and don't seem to have enough to buy a pint, nevermind a round. (Although I do have a few mates from uni who are definitely doing better for themselves!)
I know a few people who upon graduating didn't want to move back in with their parents, the result is that they're more than happy to pay daft amounts for rent and scrape by. They could, in fact have moved back in with their parents and saved for a place to live rather than scraping by.
I guess it depends on the background of the person but prices only seem to go up; and those of my age group who have moved out are quite happy to pay!
1
In reply to Timmd:
Well if you want to go back to an era when far smaller number of women were in employment and a far smaller percentage of kids went to university, then you can have those times again. If mortgages hadn't been "freed" but were still limited to 3 to 3.5 times salary then we wouldn't have seen rampant house price inflation. It's not a generational thing, it's a rich / poor issue and that's not about age.
Well if you want to go back to an era when far smaller number of women were in employment and a far smaller percentage of kids went to university, then you can have those times again. If mortgages hadn't been "freed" but were still limited to 3 to 3.5 times salary then we wouldn't have seen rampant house price inflation. It's not a generational thing, it's a rich / poor issue and that's not about age.
Post edited at 23:02
6
1
In reply to Orgsm:
What is it with this site? Where did I say I wanted to go back to those times with those negative things? I was simply contrasting Gordon's experience with others of his age.
No wonder the hippies and chilled people don't post anymore, there's a civil way and an antagonistic way of making exactly the same point.
> Well if you want to go back to an era when far smaller number of women were in employment and a far smaller percentage of kids went to university, then you can have those times again. If mortgages hadn't been "freed" but were still limited to 3 to 3.5 times salary then we wouldn't have seen rampant house price inflation. It's not a generational thing, it's a rich / poor issue and that's not about age.
What is it with this site? Where did I say I wanted to go back to those times with those negative things? I was simply contrasting Gordon's experience with others of his age.
No wonder the hippies and chilled people don't post anymore, there's a civil way and an antagonistic way of making exactly the same point.
Post edited at 23:55
4
4
In reply to Timmd:
I think the poster you're replying to to had been a little bit too sarky in making a valid point and you've taken it bit too much to heart. However he/she is right in that those were very different times.
Looking at this post you made a little later:
You're talking about a small minority, maybe 5% to a maximum of 10% of the population. This has morphed over time into “everyone went to University for free“. Nope, most people left school at 14/16 and paid for the top tier to go to university for free.
> What is it with this site? Where did I say I wanted to go back to those times with those negative things? I was simply contrasting Gordon's experience with others of his age.
I think the poster you're replying to to had been a little bit too sarky in making a valid point and you've taken it bit too much to heart. However he/she is right in that those were very different times.
Looking at this post you made a little later:
> ... most of them seemed to strike it lucky in in the stereotyped baby boomer way, in going to university for free, and then more or less walking into jobs...
You're talking about a small minority, maybe 5% to a maximum of 10% of the population. This has morphed over time into “everyone went to University for free“. Nope, most people left school at 14/16 and paid for the top tier to go to university for free.
2
1
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
Agreed. I lived in rented accommodation from the time I left home until I had saved a deposit for a mortgage, (I was 31 by that time.)
> Yes, it was absolutely normal to rent a v small bedsit.
Agreed. I lived in rented accommodation from the time I left home until I had saved a deposit for a mortgage, (I was 31 by that time.)
2
In reply to Ridge:
Exactly!! 6% of the population went to Uni when I left school.
The rest of us were lucky to get apprenticeships.
Mine was in a place like this. (Although this is shot in the 50's, believe me, little had changed by 1975!)
youtube.com/watch?v=kxhIV0yHhFg&
> You're talking about a small minority, maybe 5% to a maximum of 10% of the population. This has morphed over time into “everyone went to University for free“. Nope, most people left school at 14/16 and paid for the top tier to go to university for free.
Exactly!! 6% of the population went to Uni when I left school.
The rest of us were lucky to get apprenticeships.
Mine was in a place like this. (Although this is shot in the 50's, believe me, little had changed by 1975!)
youtube.com/watch?v=kxhIV0yHhFg&
5
In reply to Timmd:
I think perhaps there were the right number of degree courses for degree level jobs. These days people spend a couple of years on A levels, 3 or 4 in Uni, a gap year etc.. before they find a job that they often didn't need a degree for. That is often 7 or 8 years of not earning, but also debt building, it is little wonder people don't have any savings for a deposit for a house until they are 30+. Or you get a job much earlier or whilst you study, don't build up debt, buy a house often a decade earlier.
It is not the right place/time etc.. it's is picking the right education and employment route etc.. for their chosen career. How many youths have gap years etc.. it's spending money, building debt in many cases.
> Edit: I think they were just in the right places at the right times.
I think perhaps there were the right number of degree courses for degree level jobs. These days people spend a couple of years on A levels, 3 or 4 in Uni, a gap year etc.. before they find a job that they often didn't need a degree for. That is often 7 or 8 years of not earning, but also debt building, it is little wonder people don't have any savings for a deposit for a house until they are 30+. Or you get a job much earlier or whilst you study, don't build up debt, buy a house often a decade earlier.
It is not the right place/time etc.. it's is picking the right education and employment route etc.. for their chosen career. How many youths have gap years etc.. it's spending money, building debt in many cases.
Post edited at 06:19
9
1
In reply to Big Ger:
in my school less than 15 out of a year of 180 stayed on to 6th form and that was in 1987. Granted some went to colleges else where for A levels, but that was very few of us.
> Exactly!! 6% of the population went to Uni when I left school.
in my school less than 15 out of a year of 180 stayed on to 6th form and that was in 1987. Granted some went to colleges else where for A levels, but that was very few of us.
1
In reply to summo:
I think too few went to university then and too many now - too many in the sense that, as Summo says, there aren't enough graduate jobs for the number of graduates but also that it has squeezed out and devalued other types of further education (for areas in which there are substantial skills shortages) and made the whole thing unaffordable.
Educating people is a national good and it should be free at the point of delivery.
> I think perhaps there were the right number of degree courses for degree level jobs. These days people spend a couple of years on A levels, 3 or 4 in Uni, a gap year etc.. before they find a job that they often didn't need a degree for...
I think too few went to university then and too many now - too many in the sense that, as Summo says, there aren't enough graduate jobs for the number of graduates but also that it has squeezed out and devalued other types of further education (for areas in which there are substantial skills shortages) and made the whole thing unaffordable.
Educating people is a national good and it should be free at the point of delivery.
4
In reply to NathanP:
Hang on, you just said that too many people go to university, that it is devaluing education, that there are not enough graduate jobs and that it is unaffordable but then go on to say education is a good thing and should be free.
Hang on, you just said that too many people go to university, that it is devaluing education, that there are not enough graduate jobs and that it is unaffordable but then go on to say education is a good thing and should be free.
2
2
In reply to Timmd:
I certainly had a grant (and i think my father had to pay a 'parental contribution'). The grant was quite small so we had to live v frugally. What was good about this is that people from all backgrounds could go to university in the late 60s. I certainly didn't walk into a job, but that was because I was determined to get into the film industry. I got a First so the doors were open to me to do a B Phil at Oxford, but I turned my back on that and went to London. It took me nearly 5 years to get a union ticket, though I managed to work on two quite big Arts council and BFI films without a union ticket. And made a film with BBC South West. The first few years were very tough but, looking back, I wouldn't want to change anything, it was just so exciting. Once I had the Union Ticket everything went well, and exactly 8 years after going to London I found myself suddenly and very unexpectedly sitting next to Stanley Kubrick cutting the last half hour of The Shining.
I don't regard myself ever as having been in 'the wrong place at the wrong time', because even the disappointments in retrospect were helpful and useful in different ways. But then I wasn't looking for a conventional life. When I eventually bought a house (after years of saving) I was able to pay off my mortgage very quickly, so this gave me just enough financial freedom to obstinately pursue an interesting career (and split infinitives).
> That's quite different from what my parents and a lot of thier circle seemed to experience (people in their late 60's and early 70's), most of them seemed to strike it lucky in in the stereotyped baby boomer way, in going to university for free, and then more or less walking into jobs and getting affordable mortgages for semi-detached houses by their 30's.
> Edit: I think they were just in the right places at the right times.
I certainly had a grant (and i think my father had to pay a 'parental contribution'). The grant was quite small so we had to live v frugally. What was good about this is that people from all backgrounds could go to university in the late 60s. I certainly didn't walk into a job, but that was because I was determined to get into the film industry. I got a First so the doors were open to me to do a B Phil at Oxford, but I turned my back on that and went to London. It took me nearly 5 years to get a union ticket, though I managed to work on two quite big Arts council and BFI films without a union ticket. And made a film with BBC South West. The first few years were very tough but, looking back, I wouldn't want to change anything, it was just so exciting. Once I had the Union Ticket everything went well, and exactly 8 years after going to London I found myself suddenly and very unexpectedly sitting next to Stanley Kubrick cutting the last half hour of The Shining.
I don't regard myself ever as having been in 'the wrong place at the wrong time', because even the disappointments in retrospect were helpful and useful in different ways. But then I wasn't looking for a conventional life. When I eventually bought a house (after years of saving) I was able to pay off my mortgage very quickly, so this gave me just enough financial freedom to obstinately pursue an interesting career (and split infinitives).
2
In reply to Big Ger:
That's exactly the same as me.
> Agreed. I lived in rented accommodation from the time I left home until I had saved a deposit for a mortgage, (I was 31 by that time.)
That's exactly the same as me.
1
In reply to ChrisNaylor:
When I left University there was absolutely no question of going back and living at home with my father, and he certainly wouldn't have wanted it. In our family there's always been a 'get up and go' ethic.
> I know a few people who upon graduating didn't want to move back in with their parents, the result is that they're more than happy to pay daft amounts for rent and scrape by. They could, in fact have moved back in with their parents and saved for a place to live rather than scraping by.
When I left University there was absolutely no question of going back and living at home with my father, and he certainly wouldn't have wanted it. In our family there's always been a 'get up and go' ethic.
2
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
Although I suspect a few years after you, I had a grant to go to university and as Dad's income was fairly modest I had a full grant, plus travel allowances etc. That was in the mid/late 1970s when relatively few went to university (10% ?) and although maybe half my class (state grammar school) went to university almost no one from the local secondary moderns did. As many here, I lived in a series of shared flats & houses but then went to France as a Postdoc and discovered that in France there was little tradition of house sharing (it has developed since) so for the first time since leaving home I had my own rented flat (aged about 30). When I came back to the UK I ended up living on my own mostly as there were no house shares on offer in the areas where I worked (west coast of Argyll) & eventually bought my own (very small) house a little before I turned 40.
Although I suspect a few years after you, I had a grant to go to university and as Dad's income was fairly modest I had a full grant, plus travel allowances etc. That was in the mid/late 1970s when relatively few went to university (10% ?) and although maybe half my class (state grammar school) went to university almost no one from the local secondary moderns did. As many here, I lived in a series of shared flats & houses but then went to France as a Postdoc and discovered that in France there was little tradition of house sharing (it has developed since) so for the first time since leaving home I had my own rented flat (aged about 30). When I came back to the UK I ended up living on my own mostly as there were no house shares on offer in the areas where I worked (west coast of Argyll) & eventually bought my own (very small) house a little before I turned 40.
1
In reply to Doug:
That sounds like an interesting life. I still think that a degree is by no means necessary to be successful, and certainly no guarantee. The beauty of the film industry (in the 1970s, as now) was that you needed no qualifications whatever, just huge amounts of determination and the ability to work exceptionally hard at all hours of the day or night. When I was in the film industry, the vast majority of technicians and actors had never been near a university.
That sounds like an interesting life. I still think that a degree is by no means necessary to be successful, and certainly no guarantee. The beauty of the film industry (in the 1970s, as now) was that you needed no qualifications whatever, just huge amounts of determination and the ability to work exceptionally hard at all hours of the day or night. When I was in the film industry, the vast majority of technicians and actors had never been near a university.
1
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
That sounds like a very determined life path. I guess it was easier for people who trained as engineers and teachers and similar to find jobs, which could explain why a lot of my family friends seemed to find things easier than people can do now when finding jobs.
That sounds like a very determined life path. I guess it was easier for people who trained as engineers and teachers and similar to find jobs, which could explain why a lot of my family friends seemed to find things easier than people can do now when finding jobs.
1
1
In reply to Dax H:
There's other ways of changing the amount of people who go to university than applying costs which students have to pay or take out loans for though.
At the moment things seem askew, in how there's not enough graduate jobs for the people who have paid for their degrees, while at the same time there's people who work in universities talking about having to train students up to the level they should already be at when they first arrive. A relative who's worked with/in different universities says that it seems to be the case that a Masters is turning into the new degree, from how more people are going to university now.
Possibly due to the views which seem to be societal, about the value of other training compared to degrees, I haven't been to university (yet) and would like to through feeling somehow vaguely lacking because I haven't (and because so many of the jobs I'd like to do require you to have a degree), but if higher standards of degrees ment that I couldn't, but also ment that they were free for people attending in being paid for through general taxation (including mine), I'd be happy with that if it ment that it was (more) the best people who were getting degrees and that they came from all levels of society in terms of how rich ones parents were.
In the mean time, I start my first job for 15 years in the next few weeks after dealing with mental health issues, so it could be an OU degree would be the way forward for me, so I'll have my degree by my early to mid 40's.
> Hang on, you just said that too many people go to university, that it is devaluing education, that there are not enough graduate jobs and that it is unaffordable but then go on to say education is a good thing and should be free.
There's other ways of changing the amount of people who go to university than applying costs which students have to pay or take out loans for though.
At the moment things seem askew, in how there's not enough graduate jobs for the people who have paid for their degrees, while at the same time there's people who work in universities talking about having to train students up to the level they should already be at when they first arrive. A relative who's worked with/in different universities says that it seems to be the case that a Masters is turning into the new degree, from how more people are going to university now.
Possibly due to the views which seem to be societal, about the value of other training compared to degrees, I haven't been to university (yet) and would like to through feeling somehow vaguely lacking because I haven't (and because so many of the jobs I'd like to do require you to have a degree), but if higher standards of degrees ment that I couldn't, but also ment that they were free for people attending in being paid for through general taxation (including mine), I'd be happy with that if it ment that it was (more) the best people who were getting degrees and that they came from all levels of society in terms of how rich ones parents were.
In the mean time, I start my first job for 15 years in the next few weeks after dealing with mental health issues, so it could be an OU degree would be the way forward for me, so I'll have my degree by my early to mid 40's.
Post edited at 15:11
1
2
In reply to summo:
Most of my family friends who went to uni during the 60's seem to see conditions as harder now than they used to be, for people finding their first jobs. A hard working relatively young lady my dad spoke to in China while my parents were on holiday there in 2001, apparently seemed rather offended at the idea of a gap year which students took/take.
> It is not the right place/time etc.. it's is picking the right education and employment route etc.. for their chosen career. How many youths have gap years etc.. it's spending money, building debt in many cases.
Most of my family friends who went to uni during the 60's seem to see conditions as harder now than they used to be, for people finding their first jobs. A hard working relatively young lady my dad spoke to in China while my parents were on holiday there in 2001, apparently seemed rather offended at the idea of a gap year which students took/take.
Post edited at 17:25
1
1
In reply to Timmd:
it will be harder now, more degree qualified people from around the world chasing degree level jobs. And that's ignoring the quality of the degrees themselves. I have no objection to gap years, but it is another year, not studying/working/saving etc.. so there are consequences or knock on effects.
> Most of my family friends who went to uni during the 60's seem to see conditions as harder now than they used to be, for people finding their first jobs. A hard working relatively young lady my dad spoke to in China while my parents were on holiday there in 2001, apparently seemed rather offended at the idea of a gap year which students took/take.
it will be harder now, more degree qualified people from around the world chasing degree level jobs. And that's ignoring the quality of the degrees themselves. I have no objection to gap years, but it is another year, not studying/working/saving etc.. so there are consequences or knock on effects.
In reply to Timmd:
I did OU many years ago. It's pretty tough if you have a busy life. I did kind of object to the fact I was paying £600-900 per year to obtain my degree, whilst working and paying tax, when had I gone to Uni it would have been free. Sadly now OU courses are pretty expensive when as a route many take whilst working, I think they should be more heavily subsidised for those in employment and studying for their first degree.
> , so it could be an OU degree would be the way forward for me, so I'll have my degree by my early to mid 40's.
I did OU many years ago. It's pretty tough if you have a busy life. I did kind of object to the fact I was paying £600-900 per year to obtain my degree, whilst working and paying tax, when had I gone to Uni it would have been free. Sadly now OU courses are pretty expensive when as a route many take whilst working, I think they should be more heavily subsidised for those in employment and studying for their first degree.
1
In reply to Dax H:
Not quite. I was trying to say that having so many going to University devalued and squeezed out other education options that might be more appropriate and useful. My thought was that access to a particular course does need to be rationed / limited but it would be better if it was done on the basis of aptitude / likelihood of making the most of that particular opportunity rather than ability to afford the fees or willingness to take on debt.
> Hang on, you just said that too many people go to university, that it is devaluing education, that there are not enough graduate jobs and that it is unaffordable but then go on to say education is a good thing and should be free.
Not quite. I was trying to say that having so many going to University devalued and squeezed out other education options that might be more appropriate and useful. My thought was that access to a particular course does need to be rationed / limited but it would be better if it was done on the basis of aptitude / likelihood of making the most of that particular opportunity rather than ability to afford the fees or willingness to take on debt.
1
In reply to summo:
That's probably true about more people chasing degrees, possibly a negative opinion held by myself about gap years might have been implied, I have no objection to gap years either, I just found the different perspective interesting, from somebody in a country where there's less to take as given to do with life chances and that kind of thing. I was talking to a drunk Frenchman a couple of years ago, and he seemed to think the essence of university education was different in the UK to that in France, where in France it is about learning how to think and investigate, and how to learn, where in the UK it is (now) more about taking on the information needed to pass the degree, he seemed to think something has been lost in the UK.
> it will be harder now, more degree qualified people from around the world chasing degree level jobs. And that's ignoring the quality of the degrees themselves. I have no objection to gap years, but it is another year, not studying/working/saving etc.. so there are consequences or knock on effects.
That's probably true about more people chasing degrees, possibly a negative opinion held by myself about gap years might have been implied, I have no objection to gap years either, I just found the different perspective interesting, from somebody in a country where there's less to take as given to do with life chances and that kind of thing. I was talking to a drunk Frenchman a couple of years ago, and he seemed to think the essence of university education was different in the UK to that in France, where in France it is about learning how to think and investigate, and how to learn, where in the UK it is (now) more about taking on the information needed to pass the degree, he seemed to think something has been lost in the UK.
Post edited at 20:00
1
2
In reply to NathanP:
the university issued degree become the dream ticket that failed to deliver. All those technical colleges and polys etc.. that become Unis, it didn't really benefit anybody in the long run.
I agree on aptitude, but with A level grade creep, it's tougher for Uni's to vet people now.
> Not quite. I was trying to say that having so many going to University devalued and squeezed out other education options that might be more appropriate and useful. My thought was that access to a particular course does need to be rationed / limited but it would be better if it was done on the basis of aptitude / likelihood of making the most of that particular opportunity rather than ability to afford the fees or willingness to take on debt.
the university issued degree become the dream ticket that failed to deliver. All those technical colleges and polys etc.. that become Unis, it didn't really benefit anybody in the long run.
I agree on aptitude, but with A level grade creep, it's tougher for Uni's to vet people now.
2
In reply to NathanP:
That is something that I strongly disagree with, education should be available to everyone regardless of aptitude or finances.
I left school without one single qualification to my name, they would not let me do the GCSE courses because I was not smart enough so I ended up on what was called "the city and guilds vocational preparation course" we did things like numeracy and literacy and covered vital things like how to fill out a check.
On the basis of aptitude I would never have got any further education but I got a place at a technical collage after leaving school and aced every exam.
The difference was interest and being treated as an adult rather than a dumb kid.
> My thought was that access to a particular course does need to be rationed / limited but it would be better if it was done on the basis of aptitude / likelihood of making the most of that particular opportunity rather than ability to afford the fees or willingness to take on debt.
That is something that I strongly disagree with, education should be available to everyone regardless of aptitude or finances.
I left school without one single qualification to my name, they would not let me do the GCSE courses because I was not smart enough so I ended up on what was called "the city and guilds vocational preparation course" we did things like numeracy and literacy and covered vital things like how to fill out a check.
On the basis of aptitude I would never have got any further education but I got a place at a technical collage after leaving school and aced every exam.
The difference was interest and being treated as an adult rather than a dumb kid.
1
In reply to Offwidth:
Back to the OP:
The graphs seem to suggest that every age group up to 54 in UK is now worse off than previous generations at the same time, apart from a small blip of the 30 - 39 years who are slightly better off (perhaps they're not having kids like the previous 30+ generations did).
this seems a bit pessimistic, but I guess if someone's done the analysis "it must be right".
Closing the doors on the super generous early pensions has probably caused some of the cliff edge at 54 (more over 55's benefitting from it and having a better life than their parents?) but it still feels odd. I don't feel too badly off despite being on the "wrong" side!
Also the stats choosing to look at 1979 to 2010 is pretty strange. I'm guessing if they added in the recent Coalition and Tory years the under 55's will have taken even more of a nosedive.
Back to the OP:
The graphs seem to suggest that every age group up to 54 in UK is now worse off than previous generations at the same time, apart from a small blip of the 30 - 39 years who are slightly better off (perhaps they're not having kids like the previous 30+ generations did).
this seems a bit pessimistic, but I guess if someone's done the analysis "it must be right".
Closing the doors on the super generous early pensions has probably caused some of the cliff edge at 54 (more over 55's benefitting from it and having a better life than their parents?) but it still feels odd. I don't feel too badly off despite being on the "wrong" side!
Also the stats choosing to look at 1979 to 2010 is pretty strange. I'm guessing if they added in the recent Coalition and Tory years the under 55's will have taken even more of a nosedive.
Post edited at 20:32
In reply to Dax H:
It sounds like you had a great aptitude for whatever course you did but this wasn't recognised this until it was almost too late. It's a shame that potential wasn't seen earlier but I don't see why that proves everybody should have an absolute right to spend as long as they want studying whatever regardless of ability or aptitude. At least not if it is to be free to the user and publicly funded.
It sounds like you had a great aptitude for whatever course you did but this wasn't recognised this until it was almost too late. It's a shame that potential wasn't seen earlier but I don't see why that proves everybody should have an absolute right to spend as long as they want studying whatever regardless of ability or aptitude. At least not if it is to be free to the user and publicly funded.
In reply to NathanP:
If we don't have evening classes, and further/adult education too, then won't an awful lot of potential be lost and leave the country poorer for it (in all ways - culturally and financially, and in picking up on personal qualities like aptitudes for child/care work)?
I spent a fairly long time doing the GCSE's I didn't pass first time around, the four or five years after leaving school at 16. Fast forward and they're enabling things like my access to the Diploma I did for free from being on benefits (something the Conservatives cut), which is equal to 2 A levels at some universities from my getting a distinction . My parents could have paid for the Diploma if required, but what is somebody to do from a poorer background than mine?
Along with the NHS, I think further education is one of the good things about this country. Imho people just don't want to pay what is required for a nice country to live in and all that entails, with things like decent health services, and in this case further education to tap into people's potential, which is investing in the future.
> It sounds like you had a great aptitude for whatever course you did but this wasn't recognised this until it was almost too late. It's a shame that potential wasn't seen earlier but I don't see why that proves everybody should have an absolute right to spend as long as they want studying whatever regardless of ability or aptitude. At least not if it is to be free to the user and publicly funded.
If we don't have evening classes, and further/adult education too, then won't an awful lot of potential be lost and leave the country poorer for it (in all ways - culturally and financially, and in picking up on personal qualities like aptitudes for child/care work)?
I spent a fairly long time doing the GCSE's I didn't pass first time around, the four or five years after leaving school at 16. Fast forward and they're enabling things like my access to the Diploma I did for free from being on benefits (something the Conservatives cut), which is equal to 2 A levels at some universities from my getting a distinction . My parents could have paid for the Diploma if required, but what is somebody to do from a poorer background than mine?
Along with the NHS, I think further education is one of the good things about this country. Imho people just don't want to pay what is required for a nice country to live in and all that entails, with things like decent health services, and in this case further education to tap into people's potential, which is investing in the future.
Post edited at 22:17
1
1
In reply to Timmd:
This thread is a fine example of "the woes of generation whine". You have no idea of the hardships that those who grew up in the 60's 70's and even 80's had, yet seem to think that you have it so tough because you do not get what you want handed to you. A few shifts down a mine or in a steel and iron foundry may disabuse you if how hard life is.
Over my 4 year apprenticeship one kid was killed by electrocution, one by steel falling on him, and I was stood next to a mate when he lost 2 fingers in a plate press, ( he didn't go on to be Tony Iommie.)
This thread is a fine example of "the woes of generation whine". You have no idea of the hardships that those who grew up in the 60's 70's and even 80's had, yet seem to think that you have it so tough because you do not get what you want handed to you. A few shifts down a mine or in a steel and iron foundry may disabuse you if how hard life is.
Over my 4 year apprenticeship one kid was killed by electrocution, one by steel falling on him, and I was stood next to a mate when he lost 2 fingers in a plate press, ( he didn't go on to be Tony Iommie.)
4
2
In reply to Big Ger:
This thread is a fine example of the Four Yorkshiremen sketch
Actually the OP was about some analysis on how under 55's are worse off than the previous generation. But I guess they do mainly have all 10 fingers so what's there to moan about?
> This thread is a fine example of "the woes of generation whine". You have no idea of the hardships that those who grew up in the 60's 70's and even 80's had, yet seem to think that you have it so tough because you do not get what you want handed to you.
This thread is a fine example of the Four Yorkshiremen sketch
Actually the OP was about some analysis on how under 55's are worse off than the previous generation. But I guess they do mainly have all 10 fingers so what's there to moan about?
3
In reply to Big Ger:
Would you like to show me where I've said that things are hard or have been hard for myself? I've mentioned 15 years gradually dealing with mental health issues before finding work, but that's just the truth, and I'm not looking for sympathy. I'm probably mentally stronger because of it.
I've known of people who have been killed and injured at work (who were born in the 80's) too, do I get a 'My generation had things hard' badge too? Ha.
> This thread is a fine example of "the woes of generation whine". You have no idea of the hardships that those who grew up in the 60's 70's and even 80's had, yet seem to think that you have it so tough because you do not get what you want handed to you. A few shifts down a mine or in a steel and iron foundry may disabuse you if how hard life is.
> Over my 4 year apprenticeship one kid was killed by electrocution, one by steel falling on him, and I was stood next to a mate when he lost 2 fingers in a plate press, ( he didn't go on to be Tony Iommie.)
Would you like to show me where I've said that things are hard or have been hard for myself? I've mentioned 15 years gradually dealing with mental health issues before finding work, but that's just the truth, and I'm not looking for sympathy. I'm probably mentally stronger because of it.
I've known of people who have been killed and injured at work (who were born in the 80's) too, do I get a 'My generation had things hard' badge too? Ha.
Post edited at 23:25
1
2
In reply to Timmd:
Are not the majority of your posts in this thread moans about how much easier my generation had it, or am I misreading you? I'm on my kindle at the moment, so cannot cut and paste but will give you some choice quotes tomorrow if you wish.
Are not the majority of your posts in this thread moans about how much easier my generation had it, or am I misreading you? I'm on my kindle at the moment, so cannot cut and paste but will give you some choice quotes tomorrow if you wish.
2
In reply to Big Ger:
They're not moans, because the things I've talked about haven't been factors affecting my life, because of 'the bank of mum and dad', for which I'll always be grateful. I can see how it 'reads' like I'm moaning, but in my head I don't 'sound' like it, because I'm not.
Also, there are global factors which mean there is some truth in what's being posted about finding jobs being harder now than it was, but again, I'm not moaning, because I've posted about recently finding one.
Also, I've posted views of people I know from the generation older than mine, saying that jobs ARE harder to find, which I wouldn't call moaning, either, but others might, but I'm not because I'm a hopeful sort who thinks he's find a decent one in the end, given long enough.
> Are not the majority of your posts in this thread moans about how much easier my generation had it, or am I misreading you? I'm on my kindle at the moment, so cannot cut and paste but will give you some choice quotes tomorrow if you wish.
They're not moans, because the things I've talked about haven't been factors affecting my life, because of 'the bank of mum and dad', for which I'll always be grateful. I can see how it 'reads' like I'm moaning, but in my head I don't 'sound' like it, because I'm not.
Also, there are global factors which mean there is some truth in what's being posted about finding jobs being harder now than it was, but again, I'm not moaning, because I've posted about recently finding one.
Also, I've posted views of people I know from the generation older than mine, saying that jobs ARE harder to find, which I wouldn't call moaning, either, but others might, but I'm not because I'm a hopeful sort who thinks he's find a decent one in the end, given long enough.
Post edited at 23:35
1
2
In reply to Timmd:
Maybe if UK tax was higher to pay for better education, health etc.. bank of mum & dad might not have so much spare money. You would then have stand on your feet in all respects and your life would be a direction reflection of your efforts. There are plenty folk who hide for decades in education, learning more and more stuff etc... then telling other people what to learn, despite never having done a days non-education work in their lives. We don't need to encourage more.
The UK has a low tax obsession, generally people will vote for a party that lets them keep more of their pay, but provide less well funded public service, they prefer this so they can spend their money on more materialistic things. The population makes it's choice.
> They're not moans, because the things I've talked about haven't been factors affecting my life, because of 'the bank of mum and dad', for which I'll always be grateful. I can see how it 'reads' like I'm moaning, but in my head I don't 'sound' like it, because I'm not.
Maybe if UK tax was higher to pay for better education, health etc.. bank of mum & dad might not have so much spare money. You would then have stand on your feet in all respects and your life would be a direction reflection of your efforts. There are plenty folk who hide for decades in education, learning more and more stuff etc... then telling other people what to learn, despite never having done a days non-education work in their lives. We don't need to encourage more.
The UK has a low tax obsession, generally people will vote for a party that lets them keep more of their pay, but provide less well funded public service, they prefer this so they can spend their money on more materialistic things. The population makes it's choice.
7
In reply to summo:
>> The UK has a low tax obsession, generally people will vote for a party that lets them keep more of their pay, but provide less well funded public service, they prefer this so they can spend their money on more materialistic things. The population makes it's choice.
Sad, but very true.
>> The UK has a low tax obsession, generally people will vote for a party that lets them keep more of their pay, but provide less well funded public service, they prefer this so they can spend their money on more materialistic things. The population makes it's choice.
Sad, but very true.
In reply to MG:
Yes, this (and guilty!)
The solution to me is not distorting the market with rent controls. The solution to me is building lots and lots of suitable homes (quality smallish 2 bed flats) to accommodate that market. If the private housebuilders won't do it, why can't the Government commission it? They could still be sold on at a profit.
Neil
Yes, this (and guilty!)
The solution to me is not distorting the market with rent controls. The solution to me is building lots and lots of suitable homes (quality smallish 2 bed flats) to accommodate that market. If the private housebuilders won't do it, why can't the Government commission it? They could still be sold on at a profit.
Neil
In reply to Neil Williams:
more profit in a 4 bed detached. Even if the garden is postage stamp of lawn laid over rubble, a garage too small for a modern car and the detached bit is the wheelie bins wind tunnel. People keep buying them, because there is little choice.
> If the private housebuilders won't do it, why
more profit in a 4 bed detached. Even if the garden is postage stamp of lawn laid over rubble, a garage too small for a modern car and the detached bit is the wheelie bins wind tunnel. People keep buying them, because there is little choice.
In reply to Timmd:
Are they negative?
I think it's much, much better if a child is brought up in its early years, as I was, by his/her own parent(s). It doesn't matter if that is the mother or father, or if it is both via some kind of jobshare or part time work. But I *do* want to return to the days where families could afford for there to be one parent at home to look after the kids until about age 12 or so (basically until they go to "big school"), yes. Latch-key kids used to be the exception, now they are the rule, and I think it's really, really sad, both for the kid and the parent(s).
I really, really dislike the way some people think of "childcare" as something that's just a nuisance getting in the way of their careers, like having the bins emptied or getting someone in to paint the back fence.
Obviously this doesn't work for single-parent families, but that doesn't mean it should be universal.
As for universities, I similarly think we need to have a serious push on apprenticeships etc and bring back the respect we used to have for more manual types of work. We seem to have got to a place where an extra 3-4 years in education is seen as universal, and it doesn't always bring an actual benefit to everyone.
Neil
> What is it with this site? Where did I say I wanted to go back to those times with those negative things? I was simply contrasting Gordon's experience with others of his age.
Are they negative?
I think it's much, much better if a child is brought up in its early years, as I was, by his/her own parent(s). It doesn't matter if that is the mother or father, or if it is both via some kind of jobshare or part time work. But I *do* want to return to the days where families could afford for there to be one parent at home to look after the kids until about age 12 or so (basically until they go to "big school"), yes. Latch-key kids used to be the exception, now they are the rule, and I think it's really, really sad, both for the kid and the parent(s).
I really, really dislike the way some people think of "childcare" as something that's just a nuisance getting in the way of their careers, like having the bins emptied or getting someone in to paint the back fence.
Obviously this doesn't work for single-parent families, but that doesn't mean it should be universal.
As for universities, I similarly think we need to have a serious push on apprenticeships etc and bring back the respect we used to have for more manual types of work. We seem to have got to a place where an extra 3-4 years in education is seen as universal, and it doesn't always bring an actual benefit to everyone.
Neil
3
1
In reply to summo:
I know (you snipped mid sentence ) - no reason the Government or indeed local Councils couldn't commission the building, and sale for profit, of more smaller homes. Or indeed impose planning restrictions or relevant controls on what can be built where.
The housing market is as pure a market as you can get, near enough, prices are simply based on supply vs. demand. Up the supply massively, and prices will reduce.
And, having done so, get rid of "help to buy", subsidised shared ownership etc, as all that does is distort the market - upwards.
> more profit in a 4 bed detached. Even if the garden is postage stamp of lawn laid over rubble, a garage too small for a modern car and the detached bit is the wheelie bins wind tunnel. People keep buying them, because there is little choice.
I know (you snipped mid sentence ) - no reason the Government or indeed local Councils couldn't commission the building, and sale for profit, of more smaller homes. Or indeed impose planning restrictions or relevant controls on what can be built where.
The housing market is as pure a market as you can get, near enough, prices are simply based on supply vs. demand. Up the supply massively, and prices will reduce.
And, having done so, get rid of "help to buy", subsidised shared ownership etc, as all that does is distort the market - upwards.
Post edited at 11:18
1
In reply to summo:
I'm doing OU on transitional fees as a second degree. I wouldn't at full fees, it's just too expensive.
I suspect the OU will be killed off by this (or will simply near enough abandon the UK in favour of other more enlightened countries).
I'm doing OU on transitional fees as a second degree. I wouldn't at full fees, it's just too expensive.
I suspect the OU will be killed off by this (or will simply near enough abandon the UK in favour of other more enlightened countries).
In reply to Timmd:
In my eyes the truth is a little grimmer than that.
Almost everyone goes to university. But few have the aptitude to study STEM or vocationally focused subjects, few do, and many (if not the majority) are just there to "get a degree, any degree".
I think I'm speaking from first hand experience (having studied humanities and worked in a humanities focused institution for over a decade) when I say most of our students (two thirds?) should absolutely not be at university, and many of the humanities subjects being taught are an utter waste of time, money and teaching resources.
The end result is tens of thousands of kids are going through 3 or 4 year university degrees simply because they feel they have to, are getting very average grades and are learning little that couldn't be studied either i) part-time or ii) in their own time outside of work. This isn't helped by the structure of university degrees being so drawn out - 6-12 hours contact time a week for just 22 weeks of the year. Compare that with the bootcamp style teaching that takes place at coding academies, where much more is probably learnt in a tiny fraction of the time, and where the work has a direct connection with what industry is seeking.
> At the moment things seem askew, in how there's not enough graduate jobs for the people who have paid for their degrees,
In my eyes the truth is a little grimmer than that.
Almost everyone goes to university. But few have the aptitude to study STEM or vocationally focused subjects, few do, and many (if not the majority) are just there to "get a degree, any degree".
I think I'm speaking from first hand experience (having studied humanities and worked in a humanities focused institution for over a decade) when I say most of our students (two thirds?) should absolutely not be at university, and many of the humanities subjects being taught are an utter waste of time, money and teaching resources.
The end result is tens of thousands of kids are going through 3 or 4 year university degrees simply because they feel they have to, are getting very average grades and are learning little that couldn't be studied either i) part-time or ii) in their own time outside of work. This isn't helped by the structure of university degrees being so drawn out - 6-12 hours contact time a week for just 22 weeks of the year. Compare that with the bootcamp style teaching that takes place at coding academies, where much more is probably learnt in a tiny fraction of the time, and where the work has a direct connection with what industry is seeking.
5
In reply to David Martin:
You're confusing 'education' with 'training.'
> Compare that with the bootcamp style teaching that takes place at coding academies, where much more is probably learnt in a tiny fraction of the time, and where the work has a direct connection with what industry is seeking.
You're confusing 'education' with 'training.'
4
In reply to Rob Parsons:
Yes and no. Certainly, the University of Buckingham (a private university offering 2 year degree courses) would argue that education can still be provided perfectly well in a more compressed timescale. I would be inclined to agree, and if moving to 2-year degrees with shorter terms meant it was viable for more students to go to university with financial support (or even free of charge) would it not at least be worth considering?
Yes and no. Certainly, the University of Buckingham (a private university offering 2 year degree courses) would argue that education can still be provided perfectly well in a more compressed timescale. I would be inclined to agree, and if moving to 2-year degrees with shorter terms meant it was viable for more students to go to university with financial support (or even free of charge) would it not at least be worth considering?
In reply to summo:
I would suggest you're in no position to speak about my life or the efforts involved in my getting to the stage at which I currently am, but how pleasant of you to attempt to judge. :-|
I agree.
> Maybe if UK tax was higher to pay for better education, health etc.. bank of mum & dad might not have so much spare money. You would then have stand on your feet in all respects and your life would be a direction reflection of your efforts. There are plenty folk who hide for decades in education, learning more and more stuff etc... then telling other people what to learn, despite never having done a days non-education work in their lives. We don't need to encourage more.
I would suggest you're in no position to speak about my life or the efforts involved in my getting to the stage at which I currently am, but how pleasant of you to attempt to judge. :-|
> The UK has a low tax obsession, generally people will vote for a party that lets them keep more of their pay, but provide less well funded public service, they prefer this so they can spend their money on more materialistic things. The population makes it's choice.
I agree.
Post edited at 13:35
2
In reply to Neil Williams:
Yes, possibly. But it wasn't the timescales I was referring to; it was more the previous comment that 'much more is learnt in a tiny fraction of the time, and the work has a direct connection with what industry is seeking.'
It is not the job of education to turn out automatons who match exactly what industry might currently be seeking; that's what 'training' would be - and there is nothing wrong with expecting industry to provide that themselves.
> ... moving to 2-year degrees with shorter terms meant it was viable for more students to go to university with financial support (or even free of charge) would it not at least be worth considering?
Yes, possibly. But it wasn't the timescales I was referring to; it was more the previous comment that 'much more is learnt in a tiny fraction of the time, and the work has a direct connection with what industry is seeking.'
It is not the job of education to turn out automatons who match exactly what industry might currently be seeking; that's what 'training' would be - and there is nothing wrong with expecting industry to provide that themselves.
Post edited at 13:38
1
In reply to Rob Parsons:
Indeed true. Apprenticeships are a good way to go for this kind of training.
Indeed true. Apprenticeships are a good way to go for this kind of training.
In reply to Timmd:
Don't take things so literally. It is a simply a fact, if we (the royal we), had better tax funded public services, the post war baby boomers would not have had or will have less disposable income. You can't have both. It wasn't a dig at you. I'm sure there are thousands if not millions being assisted by relatives. You can argue that if tax was higher and services better, help would of course not be required in the first place.
The question is now, at which point do people start really paying. The youngster, or the pensioners with their triple lock pensions.
> I would suggest you're in no position to speak about my life or the efforts involved in my getting to the stage at which I currently am, but how pleasant of you to attempt to judge. :-|
Don't take things so literally. It is a simply a fact, if we (the royal we), had better tax funded public services, the post war baby boomers would not have had or will have less disposable income. You can't have both. It wasn't a dig at you. I'm sure there are thousands if not millions being assisted by relatives. You can argue that if tax was higher and services better, help would of course not be required in the first place.
The question is now, at which point do people start really paying. The youngster, or the pensioners with their triple lock pensions.
1
2
In reply to summo:
ah yes...but which one of these two categories actually vote.....?
the youngster or the pensioner?
ah yes...but which one of these two categories actually vote.....?
the youngster or the pensioner?
In reply to Rob Parsons:
Unfortunately the education isn't often even that. It (HE) is just an outdated form of learning costs far more than it should, takes far longer than it should, and most importantly, drags people out of the workforce for far longer than is necessary.
Our institution almost prides itself on the fact that no direct connection can be made between what we teach and our student's subsequent employment. That strikes me as absurd, and it is abundantly clear that you do not need to spend three whole years at an institution in London to learn what we teach. Many seem to mistake the "growth" and maturity they see in a student over the length of their degree as being is some way the result of being at an academic institution, when that same personal progress may simply result from three years of life in general.
> You're confusing 'education' with 'training.'
Unfortunately the education isn't often even that. It (HE) is just an outdated form of learning costs far more than it should, takes far longer than it should, and most importantly, drags people out of the workforce for far longer than is necessary.
Our institution almost prides itself on the fact that no direct connection can be made between what we teach and our student's subsequent employment. That strikes me as absurd, and it is abundantly clear that you do not need to spend three whole years at an institution in London to learn what we teach. Many seem to mistake the "growth" and maturity they see in a student over the length of their degree as being is some way the result of being at an academic institution, when that same personal progress may simply result from three years of life in general.
Post edited at 14:25
1
In reply to Rob Parsons:
That was the attitude where I worked. I think that is misguided. It is quite possible to gain an education and be vocationally trained. And it sounds somewhat elitist to assume that someone who doesn't go through the university route, or indeed what industry and employers require, is an "automaton".
Instead, we are churning out sub-average students, with over-inflated sense of entitlement, massive debts, short on work experience and through a system that is stupidly expensive. It becomes a self-perpetuating cycle, with students wanting an easy degree as possible, so choosing a BA in Yoghurt Knitting, which then requires the employment of an academic who has that as their specialty. End result is a load of 20 year olds having learnt something with little practical application and which could have been perfectly well learnt in their own time rather than claiming "student" status and a pretty certificate.
> Yes, possibly. But it wasn't the timescales I was referring to; it was more the previous comment that 'much more is learnt in a tiny fraction of the time, and the work has a direct connection with what industry is seeking.'
> It is not the job of education to turn out automatons who match exactly what industry might currently be seeking; that's what 'training' would be - and there is nothing wrong with expecting industry to provide that themselves.
That was the attitude where I worked. I think that is misguided. It is quite possible to gain an education and be vocationally trained. And it sounds somewhat elitist to assume that someone who doesn't go through the university route, or indeed what industry and employers require, is an "automaton".
Instead, we are churning out sub-average students, with over-inflated sense of entitlement, massive debts, short on work experience and through a system that is stupidly expensive. It becomes a self-perpetuating cycle, with students wanting an easy degree as possible, so choosing a BA in Yoghurt Knitting, which then requires the employment of an academic who has that as their specialty. End result is a load of 20 year olds having learnt something with little practical application and which could have been perfectly well learnt in their own time rather than claiming "student" status and a pretty certificate.
2
In reply to David Martin:
That is not what I meant at all (and strike the particular word if you don't like it.) What I was suggesting is that the *educational* role isn't to teach here-today-and-gone-tomorrow 'facts' or specific 'techniques' - even though those might be critical for a particular job or task.
> ... And it sounds somewhat elitist to assume that someone who doesn't go through the university route, or indeed what industry and employers require, is an "automaton".
That is not what I meant at all (and strike the particular word if you don't like it.) What I was suggesting is that the *educational* role isn't to teach here-today-and-gone-tomorrow 'facts' or specific 'techniques' - even though those might be critical for a particular job or task.
1
In reply to Rob Parsons:
Again, I don't think I agree with that. What a university teaches should surely have some form of societal impact and contribute economically, even if it may be difficult to see the direct connection between the two? For a lot of a degrees that connection becomes less than tenuous and is certainly coming out negative in the cost-benefit analysis. Is there really any benefit if every student followed up their high school years by 3 years studying English Lit, or African History?
Just because a handful of people find a certain topic interesting, doesn't mean it should be taught at a university, or that someone should be employed as an academic (in a job where it is incredibly difficult to be removed from) to do so. This is being done at huge expense despite huge swathes of the population attaining the same or greater level of expertise by conducting their own study, in their own time. The idea that you take 3 years out of life, much of it spent procrastinating, to spend your days reading, attending a smattering of classes, most of it pretty uninteresting, strikes me as a huge waste of time.
If something is to be taught in an institution it needs some form of marketability. That's fine if students themselves are willing to pay for the privilege and all the associated costs - then you can teach whatever you want. But the idea that the tax-payer/state should fund this kind of thing is ridiculous if there isn't some subsequent pay-off to the tax-payer/state. It really appears much of the time that we are sending kids to uni simply because they feel they must get a degree, any degree, and because they don't know what else to do.
Again, I don't think I agree with that. What a university teaches should surely have some form of societal impact and contribute economically, even if it may be difficult to see the direct connection between the two? For a lot of a degrees that connection becomes less than tenuous and is certainly coming out negative in the cost-benefit analysis. Is there really any benefit if every student followed up their high school years by 3 years studying English Lit, or African History?
Just because a handful of people find a certain topic interesting, doesn't mean it should be taught at a university, or that someone should be employed as an academic (in a job where it is incredibly difficult to be removed from) to do so. This is being done at huge expense despite huge swathes of the population attaining the same or greater level of expertise by conducting their own study, in their own time. The idea that you take 3 years out of life, much of it spent procrastinating, to spend your days reading, attending a smattering of classes, most of it pretty uninteresting, strikes me as a huge waste of time.
If something is to be taught in an institution it needs some form of marketability. That's fine if students themselves are willing to pay for the privilege and all the associated costs - then you can teach whatever you want. But the idea that the tax-payer/state should fund this kind of thing is ridiculous if there isn't some subsequent pay-off to the tax-payer/state. It really appears much of the time that we are sending kids to uni simply because they feel they must get a degree, any degree, and because they don't know what else to do.
Post edited at 15:38
1
In reply to David Martin:
There should always be learning and research done at Universities for learning and research's sake, e.g. in the Arts and Philosophy, as well as vocational and STEM subjects. But admittedly, not by many. (Cf. Cardinal Newman, 'The Idea of a University')
There should always be learning and research done at Universities for learning and research's sake, e.g. in the Arts and Philosophy, as well as vocational and STEM subjects. But admittedly, not by many. (Cf. Cardinal Newman, 'The Idea of a University')
1
In reply to David Martin:
It isn't just the content of what is being taught. It's things like students' epistemological development (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_G._Perry - research shows not everyone goes through the stages in exactly the same way, and there are indications that it's cyclical when we enter new learning situtations but necessary stuff all the same), their development from adolescent to adult psychology, socialisation, and higher level subject knowledge that is necessary for doctors, teachers, engineers, social scientists, civil servants, social workers...etc.
I think the pride in what is being taught not being 'relevant' to work (beside being untrue - some of it may just be transferable skills or in developing dispositions to the concept og work, but all of it will be relevant and useful), is backlash against things like the employability agenda and graduate employment benchmarks.
It isn't just the content of what is being taught. It's things like students' epistemological development (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_G._Perry - research shows not everyone goes through the stages in exactly the same way, and there are indications that it's cyclical when we enter new learning situtations but necessary stuff all the same), their development from adolescent to adult psychology, socialisation, and higher level subject knowledge that is necessary for doctors, teachers, engineers, social scientists, civil servants, social workers...etc.
I think the pride in what is being taught not being 'relevant' to work (beside being untrue - some of it may just be transferable skills or in developing dispositions to the concept og work, but all of it will be relevant and useful), is backlash against things like the employability agenda and graduate employment benchmarks.
In reply to David Martin:
Over what timespan? I doubt many people remember many of the "facts" they learnt at university for more than a few years, even if they work in the same field. It's the wider things that count longer term, and there the subject is much less important. Separately, taking your example of African History, do you not think politicians and others could have done with some people a little more knowledgeable in this area in recent history?
> Again, I don't think I agree with that. What a university teaches should surely have some form of societal impact and contribute economically,
Over what timespan? I doubt many people remember many of the "facts" they learnt at university for more than a few years, even if they work in the same field. It's the wider things that count longer term, and there the subject is much less important. Separately, taking your example of African History, do you not think politicians and others could have done with some people a little more knowledgeable in this area in recent history?
In reply to David Martin:
What about the study of Art? Literature? History? Philosophy? Etc. etc. What kind of 'pay-off' are you expecting?
> ... But the idea that the tax-payer/state should fund this kind of thing is ridiculous if there isn't some subsequent pay-off to the tax-payer/state.
What about the study of Art? Literature? History? Philosophy? Etc. etc. What kind of 'pay-off' are you expecting?
3
In reply to David Martin:
I agree with your sentiments but where in this equation lies the responsibility of Generation Y to wake upto " employability". I have absolutely no objections to them going off to university to improve their minds etc, but for them to moan about the fact that they cannot get jobs ( especially when they narrow it down to their chosen subjects) really winds me up.It does not take much thinking to work out in this day and age which careers attract good salaries and which do not.Even the universities can tell them.
I agree with your sentiments but where in this equation lies the responsibility of Generation Y to wake upto " employability". I have absolutely no objections to them going off to university to improve their minds etc, but for them to moan about the fact that they cannot get jobs ( especially when they narrow it down to their chosen subjects) really winds me up.It does not take much thinking to work out in this day and age which careers attract good salaries and which do not.Even the universities can tell them.
1
In reply to MG:
This is true, but - and this is just an hypothesis - I suspect times have changed.
Rent controls indeed could prevent a supply response in the markets, however, at this point we already have a very high demand and very high prices, and no significant supply increase. the main thing preventing it is the availability of urban land with planning permission.
In this situation moderate rent controls could indeed work - but by no means a satisfying solution.
> May be, but it doesn't. As a little thought will show. At best it provides a favoured few with cheaper houses while pushing up costs for everyone else. From here
> "Economists are virtually unanimous in concluding that rent controls are destructive. In a 1990 poll of 464 economists published in the May 1992 issue of the American Economic Review, 93 percent of U.S. respondents agreed, either completely or with provisos, that £a ceiling on rents reduces the quantity and quality of housing available.£1 Similarly, another study reported that more than 95 percent of the Canadian economists polled agreed with the statement.2 The agreement cuts across the usual political spectrum, ranging all the way from Nobel Prize winners milton friedman and friedrich hayek on the £right£ to their fellow Nobel laureate gunnar myrdal, an important architect of the Swedish Labor Party£s welfare state, on the £left.£ Myrdal stated, £Rent control has in certain Western countries constituted, maybe, the worst example of poor planning by governments lacking courage and vision.£3 "
This is true, but - and this is just an hypothesis - I suspect times have changed.
Rent controls indeed could prevent a supply response in the markets, however, at this point we already have a very high demand and very high prices, and no significant supply increase. the main thing preventing it is the availability of urban land with planning permission.
In this situation moderate rent controls could indeed work - but by no means a satisfying solution.
Post edited at 00:14
1
In reply to neilh:
I think part of the problem is that many university cursus are too narrow.
It's very useful and in fact essential in a democracy to have lots people who know about geography, literature, philosophy, history...
But on top on that they need to be given skills to be able to leverage this knowledge in the workplace.
> I agree with your sentiments but where in this equation lies the responsibility of Generation Y to wake upto " employability". I have absolutely no objections to them going off to university to improve their minds etc, but for them to moan about the fact that they cannot get jobs ( especially when they narrow it down to their chosen subjects) really winds me up.It does not take much thinking to work out in this day and age which careers attract good salaries and which do not.Even the universities can tell them.
I think part of the problem is that many university cursus are too narrow.
It's very useful and in fact essential in a democracy to have lots people who know about geography, literature, philosophy, history...
But on top on that they need to be given skills to be able to leverage this knowledge in the workplace.
1
In reply to Timmd:
As promised.
So while you don't specifically state that you that things are hard or have been hard for yourself, your inference is that my generation had it easier.
Believe me mate, not all of us did.
> Would you like to show me where I've said that things are hard or have been hard for myself?
As promised.
> That's quite different from what my parents and a lot of thier circle seemed to experience (people in their late 60's and early 70's), most of them seemed to strike it lucky in in the stereotyped baby boomer way, in going to university for free, and then more or less walking into jobs and getting affordable mortgages for semi-detached houses by their 30's.
> I guess it was easier for people who trained as engineers and teachers and similar to find jobs, which could explain why a lot of my family friends seemed to find things easier than people can do now when finding jobs.
> Most of my family friends who went to uni during the 60's seem to see conditions as harder now than they used to be, for people finding their first jobs.
So while you don't specifically state that you that things are hard or have been hard for yourself, your inference is that my generation had it easier.
Believe me mate, not all of us did.
1
In reply to Timmd:
As promised.
So while you don't specifically state that you that things are hard or have been hard for yourself, your inference is that my generation had it easier.
Believe me mate, not all of us did.
For a start only less than 10% of the 60's and 70's generation went to Uni, (even fewer females did,) so you are not comparing like with like. Working in industry, not services, was the norm then.
> Would you like to show me where I've said that things are hard or have been hard for myself?
As promised.
> That's quite different from what my parents and a lot of thier circle seemed to experience (people in their late 60's and early 70's), most of them seemed to strike it lucky in in the stereotyped baby boomer way, in going to university for free, and then more or less walking into jobs and getting affordable mortgages for semi-detached houses by their 30's.
> I guess it was easier for people who trained as engineers and teachers and similar to find jobs, which could explain why a lot of my family friends seemed to find things easier than people can do now when finding jobs.
> Most of my family friends who went to uni during the 60's seem to see conditions as harder now than they used to be, for people finding their first jobs.
So while you don't specifically state that you that things are hard or have been hard for yourself, your inference is that my generation had it easier.
Believe me mate, not all of us did.
For a start only less than 10% of the 60's and 70's generation went to Uni, (even fewer females did,) so you are not comparing like with like. Working in industry, not services, was the norm then.
1
In reply to Timmd:
As promised:
So while you do not claim that things are hard or have been hard for yourself, you do seem to think that my generation had everything given to us easy.
Believe me, that's not the case.
This was the reality for many of us;
youtube.com/watch?v=P05n3w3rxKY&
As promised:
> That's quite different from what my parents and a lot of thier circle seemed to experience (people in their late 60's and early 70's), most of them seemed to strike it lucky in in the stereotyped baby boomer way, in going to university for free, and then more or less walking into jobs and getting affordable mortgages for semi-detached houses by their 30's.
> I guess it was easier for people who trained as engineers and teachers and similar to find jobs, which could explain why a lot of my family friends seemed to find things easier than people can do now when finding jobs.
> Most of my family friends who went to uni during the 60's seem to see conditions as harder now than they used to be, for people finding their first jobs.
So while you do not claim that things are hard or have been hard for yourself, you do seem to think that my generation had everything given to us easy.
Believe me, that's not the case.
This was the reality for many of us;
youtube.com/watch?v=P05n3w3rxKY&
1
1
In reply to Ridge:
here...here....here....
whoopsy, don't know how that happened...
here...here....here....
whoopsy, don't know how that happened...
Post edited at 06:51
2
In reply to Big Ger:
Generation Y will be paying your care home costs, I'd be a little bit nicer if l were you.
Generation Y will be paying your care home costs, I'd be a little bit nicer if l were you.
In reply to XXXX:
That presumes
1) I end up in a care home
2) My self funded retirement runs out of cash
3) My missus and daughter aren't able to afford to look after me.
4) I live long enough to need care.
That presumes
1) I end up in a care home
2) My self funded retirement runs out of cash
3) My missus and daughter aren't able to afford to look after me.
4) I live long enough to need care.
1
In reply to Timmd:
Here you go, reasons to be cheerful.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/14/22-reasons-why-good-to...
Here you go, reasons to be cheerful.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/14/22-reasons-why-good-to...
2
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...