Its All Kicking Off Outside Tory HQ

prosaver

Unemployment is an unbalance between the supply and the demand of working hours. We all know that the efficiency of all types of machines is increasing yearly. We need fewer people to produce the same goods. Work time has been reduced in the past 200 years from about 12 hours a day to less then 8 hours per day and the working week from 7 days to 5. The way to stop Unemployment and have everybody working, is to continue the historical trend; is to distribute the available work between all persons that want to work. This we can do if each person works fewer hours per week
tell your mp to get his finger out :j

leveller2911

prosaver wrote: »

The way to stop Unemployment and have everybody working, is to continue the historical trend; is to distribute the available work between all persons that want to work. This we can do if each person works fewer hours per week
tell your mp to get his finger out :j

If your happy to stump up the income shortfall my household will have due to a cut in my hours then I game....:D

prosaver

leveller2911 wrote: »

If your happy to stump up the income shortfall my household will have due to a cut in my hours then I game....:D

your taxes will fall due to less benefits being paid out
http://images2.moneysavingexpert.com/images/forum_smilies/beerchug.gif
:j

nomoreboomandbust

prosaver wrote: »

your taxes will fall due to less benefits being paid out
http://images2.moneysavingexpert.com/images/forum_smilies/beerchug.gif
:j

When will that take place ? next millenium at the rate we are going :mad:

leveller2911

prosaver wrote: »

your taxes will fall due to less benefits being paid out
http://images2.moneysavingexpert.com/images/forum_smilies/beerchug.gif
:j

All the time my bum points downwards they won't........;)

Hank_Rearden

leveller2911 wrote: »

I agree that Graduates will pay more in taxes over the long term but many,many won't stay the course at Uni and not get these highly paid jobs.

About 10 years ago - and sorry I can't find a reference - there was some analysis done of Oxford drop-outs. Transpired that they earned almost exactly the same as those that stayed the course.

Agree that's hardly representative, but it's quite thought-provoking...
1) University doesn't add any income beyond that which the intelligence to get to university is likely to provide, so the government should fund it?
OR
2) People who spend 3yrs enjoying themselves at university don't end up paying any further taxes (or presumably adding to GDP) so they should fund themselves for their holiday camp?

hethmar

I cant see why a lot of the courses cant be reduced to 2 years rather than 3 anyway. Students seem to have an awful lot of free time - if they buckled down they could easily do the course a year quicker.

ILW

hethmar wrote: »

I cant see why a lot of the courses cant be reduced to 2 years rather than 3 anyway. Students seem to have an awful lot of free time - if they buckled down they could easily do the course a year quicker.

Does seem odd that you can do an OU degree in a couple of hours a day over 3-4 years. I would have thought if one knuckled down full time, 18 months should be more than enough.

Really2

Asheron wrote: »

I blame it on agent provocs

Don't they do underwear?

PhylPho

I always thought a definition of qualifying for a university education was that you were brighter than the average bear.

But that was donkey's years before ZanuLabor and the luvvly cozy Socialist ideal that at least half the UK population should at the age of 18 go to university.

To hell with brains. With wit. With intellect. With. . . selection. No race should any longer have a winner; all competitors should be allowed to cross the finishing line together. It's only fair.

This was the world according to Blair, Brown, Balls and a ZanuUK where even though it was blindingly obvious that the State could *never* afford to fund the higher education of 50% of the 18 age group. . . hey, what does that matter?

Just build your Socialist client state and hope that, university education notwithstanding, folks will always remain as fiscally ignorant as a pliable electorate simply has to be.

Thankfully, ZanuLabour and ZanuUK are deservedly in tatters, its most recent architect vanished off the horizon with nothing to say and no apology to offer.

All of which now surely leads to a reassertion of the process of natural selection.

Which also means that were I as brighter than the average bear today as I was when qualifying for university in the 1960s (along with that other 4 or 5% of the population) then that same process of natural selection would persuade me *not* into staging displays of adolescent self-interest outside some political party HQ or other. . .

But in not bothering to go to university at all.

NB: to all those banging on about how yesteryear students wangled a free pass to a university education, your memory's either selective or you're too young to know any different.

All grants were means-tested according to parental income. Kids who dropped out of uni left their parents with the bill for grant repayment. Kids who didn't went into jobs. Not GAP years.

My parents had to stump up towards the costs of my education, just as I would've been happy to stump up towards the price of my kids' education -- except Britain today isn't the Britain it was back then, and so wasn't a country facing the massively inflated higher education bill that ZanuLabour wilfully contrived, and whose apologists would now dearly wish everyone to forget amidst blizzards of posts about how the LibDems broke a promise (oh sob, sob.)

As for the rebels without a cause at yesterday's all-too-easily manipulated 'protest', my, how things have changed from those glory days of 1968 when there was every reason to demonstrate and, for so many, many students in so many different places around the world, also to die.