The Terry Smith solution

StevieJ

Kennyboy66 wrote: »

Does it really though ?

Thatcher (and I'm no fan) changed the culture of the UK within 7 years (1980-87). It may have taken some people a lot longer to come to terms with it, but by 1987, large parts of life were a million miles away from 1979.

I guess that coincided with the oil revenues coming fully onstream providing financing for the dole queues, no such luxury now.

Kennyboy66

Thrugelmir wrote: »

There's less requirement for skilled jobs. So much of business is automated now. Growth comes from increased productivity, working harder, for longer hours.

We've become accustomed to longer holidays , all paid for. Whereas our competitors don't. As they've a hunger to succeed. Just to survive. We can't expect growth to be created for us.

This is depressingly wrong.

1) There is no less requirement for skilled jobs at all - just that the skill set demands have changed.

2) very little of GDP growth comes from working longer hours. It comes from investment, technology, mechanisation, computerisation, specialisation and increased skills.

3) Productivity is little to do with working longer hours or having less holidays. Productivity should be measured as output per labour hour - not total hours worked.

4) Historical GDP growth in almost every country is driven by expansion of the labour market. Normally by moving from agrarian to industrial, countryside to city, or immigration.

5) There is the paradox that higher skilled employees work longer hours than 20 years ago, and lower skilled work less.

grizzly1911

Kennyboy66 wrote: »

This is depressingly wrong.


5) There is the paradox that higher skilled employees work longer hours than 20 years ago, and lower skilled work less.

The strap line originally that computers and automation would lead to us all working less and having more leisure time whilst at the same time increasing productivity

StevieJ

grizzly1911 wrote: »

The strap line originally that computers and automation would lead to us all working less and having more leisure time whilst at the same time increasing productivity

I remember that one

kabayiri

grizzly1911 wrote: »

The strap line originally that computers and automation would lead to us all working less and having more leisure time whilst at the same time increasing productivity

Ahh, the Blackberry

It's like having a mobile desk tied to your leg.

Why send 1 thoughtful email when you can exchange a dozen half baked exchanges.

N1AK

StevieJ wrote: »

Don't you think that rewmoving the current deficit is enough to be going on with?

No because I don't think sticking our heads in the sand is a viable long-term solution.

BobQ

Generali wrote: »

You encapsulate the problem with the health care debate in the UK in a single sentence. That's a false choice.

What about the Aussie system where you can see a GP for free or pay for a longer GP consultation in a nicer office? You will be seen quickly and for 'free' if you have a truly life-threatening disease.

A good example of how the Aussie system works is that my BiL smashed up his knee playing soccer. He was put back on his feet for 'free' without having to wait around for any of the urgent stuff. However, as he was uninsured (and people mostly pay for their own insurance in Aus, even well paid people) he had to pay for his own physiotherapy.

He couldn't really afford it so he worked out a plan with his therapist that would keep him going for a year with enough therapy that he wouldn't suffer any long term damage. After a year he paid for an operation and the required physio afterwards.

He's back on his feet and plays soccer 2-3 times/week in winter and runs and cycles in the summer a few years on.

He earns below the median salary in Aus even now. Then he would have been 'poor'.

However, as the Aussie Government only spends 30% of GDP rather than the ~45% for the UK Government, he could afford to pay for his own treatment.

There are as many health systems as there are countries. Don't fall into the trap of thinking that it's the NHS or the US system.

So what you are saying is that the healthcare systems in UK and AUS deliver much the same care but that Austrailans have to pay for some services by private insurance and we pay an insuratnce to Government that funds the NHS. AUS still spends about 8.7% of GDP against our 8.8% on healthcare.

There are many reasons why AUS public spending is lower. They spend less on defence, they have transferred pensions to public sector funded schemes rather than using current taxation to fund pensions.

Another reason is that they have a far more enlightend attitude to the minimum wage. Instead of paying social benefits to those earning only £6 an hour ($9) they pay about $15 an hour. We prefer to allow workers to be exploited and then make up the difference in benefits.

Generali

grizzly1911 wrote: »

Apples and Pears though AUS has been able to be a little more selective over its citizens and spending over the the years (apart form the early 19thC;)).

Does AUS make £x*0bn of net contributions to to an imperfect trading zone?

* Last headline figure I read was upto £40bn but a quick Google suggest anything from £12bn, governmental, up to £65bn for the UK as a whole.

Google 'Ten Pound Pom' to see how selective Aussie immigration policy used to be.

The money paid to the EU is chicken feed. The UK Government spends almost a trillion quid a year!

grizzly1911

Generali wrote: »

Google 'Ten Pound Pom' to see how selective Aussie immigration policy used to be.

The money paid to the EU is chicken feed. The UK Government spends almost a trillion quid a year!

I know my uncle went when I was a kid.- came back though, in fairness he probably wasn't cut out for the change.

Interestingly I know another who went AUS and one went to NZ, doing specialised engineering jobs in the late 80s. When that work fell away they felt none to welcome, at that time and returned too.

Probably too soft, just watching AUS B...s of Steel eek.

Accept we spend much more than the EU budget but it would certainly put a dink in our annual overspend instead of scratching around for pennies on pasties.

Fella

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

What is it with geeks and their sense of entitlement?

The world is full of code monkeys, all willing to do it cheaper and better, and the world of IT really is a world without borders.

We outsourced most of our corporate IT dept to an overseas provider a long time ago, and it's been a delight. Better service, 24/7 support, cheaper by far, and much, much more reliable.

Outsourcing varies massively in my experience. Chinese coders for example, are superb & cheap. Similarly the guys I currently work with in Hong Kong & Singapore have a work ethic that makes the UK look sick & would have the unions & the EU screaming in outrage. My erstwhile manager in Bangkok used to work 8am-11pm regularly & thought nothing of it. Whatever anyone thinks about this it undoubtedly makes those countries are far more attractive proposition for employers than the UK.

Otoh I've dealt with Indian IT support outsource companies for years & years & still do daily & on the whole they've been very poor. Unlike call centre guys the techie guys in India are not expensively coached in English which makes the simple language barrier a huge problem. Once you get past that you basically have decently educated guys with little or no experience i.e. not much good. And when they have worked with us long enough get experience it's very common for them to simply leave & go & work somewhere that pays them more. We have constant problems with our Bangalore guys even to this day.

Just what I've experienced. But IMO anyone who thinks India is the "big threat" to UK IT employees is miles off base. It's China & some other Apac countries who will eat us for breakfast.