Working age

[Electro1980]

I am alright Jack said:

And don't forget the "year out" to go to Vietnam, but you wont understand because you weren't there.

I agree with you and it always strikes me at a bit odd when people who have only been in work for ten minutes complain they can't afford to buy a house.

Ten minutes in work? My father in law started work on an apprenticeship at 16, moved out of home at 18, purchased his first house, a 3 bed terrace, at 19 and paid it off by 30, working “down’ pit man and boy”.

Now the average age to buy your first property is now 34, and that is very much distorted by area. People are not complaining 10 minutes. They are waiting 10-15 years (and getting longer) to buy anything. In 1980 that age was 26.

[Electro1980]

PlywoodPascal said:

The single biggest issue with education but especially with university is the capture of it by employers.
Few would raise an eyebrow when people say things like “we need schools and universities to equip our children with the skills they need in the workforce today” or “is our education system really training young people for their careers?”.

But that attitude is fked. Employers have persuaded populace and government that the function of education is to train people to work for them. They have offloaded the costs of TRAINING onto the public purse.

But the purpose of education is to provide an education, it’s not to train people to work in businesses or to produce costs of employers.

The government and public should pay for education, employers can pay for training.

A university education will enrich and improve your life even if you just work on a checkout.

It’s reductive and foolish and, well, actually just plain intellectually weak to measure the value of an education by the salary that the student gets afterwards.

Edited by PlywoodPascal on Sunday 19th November 08:35

100% companies have lost their way. No training, no strategy. Industry in the UK has become so shorttermist and it is hurting now.

[rodericb]

Countdown said:

defblade said:

Spot on. Root cause: Blair wanting lower unemployment figures for young people. Everything else just (unintended?) consequences.

I'm not sure how it would lover unemployment figures unless it actually meant that MORE people were in jobs

If it was intended as some kind of ruse to lower the unemployment figures it would only work for 3 years. After that they'd be back up to where they were previously

You might have to show us your working on that, citation required etcetera...... It cuts a chunk of the population out of the numbers of people who would be counted as unemployed. The same with getting people to be classified as disabled. I don't know if the first item on the Master Plan was to get people into Uni as soon as they're out of school to make the unemployment numbers look better when leaders of the OECD meet up to rub their cocks together but it's a nice little side effect of setting up an export industry (that industry being education).



But getting back to the spirit of the thread, I was outta school and working at 17. I went to University when I was 23, on a part-time basis whilst working full time. I did it again to do a Masters degree and I'm in the last week of my second masters degree. All done part time whilst working full time.

Edited by rodericb on Sunday 19th November 10:20

[I am alright Jack]

Electro1980 said:

Ten minutes in work? My father in law started work on an apprenticeship at 16, moved out of home at 18, purchased his first house, a 3 bed terrace, at 19 and paid it off by 30, working “down’ pit man and boy”.

Now the average age to buy your first property is now 34, and that is very much distorted by area. People are not complaining 10 minutes. They are waiting 10-15 years (and getting longer) to buy anything. In 1980 that age was 26.

But surely that's the point I'm making. You can't start work at 25 and expect to buy a house at 26. Many people of my age started work at 16 and bought in their early to mid 20s.

[Randy Winkman]

I am alright Jack said:

Electro1980 said:

Ten minutes in work? My father in law started work on an apprenticeship at 16, moved out of home at 18, purchased his first house, a 3 bed terrace, at 19 and paid it off by 30, working “down’ pit man and boy”.

Now the average age to buy your first property is now 34, and that is very much distorted by area. People are not complaining 10 minutes. They are waiting 10-15 years (and getting longer) to buy anything. In 1980 that age was 26.

But surely that's the point I'm making. You can't start work at 25 and expect to buy a house at 26. Many people of my age started work at 16 and bought in their early to mid 20s.

More or less what took me to buying my first home in 1993. But I hadn't saved for the deposit, my dad spotted that house prices were low and loaned me the £X needed for a deposit. I suspect that then and now, lots of people did that. Not everyone, obviously.

[Tango13]

105.4 said:

>Snip<

As for kids and starting work, I’d suggest it would be better if those wanting to go into the trades could do so at 14. Do three days a week on the job, proper ten hour working days, and three days a week at a technical college focusing on theory work.

Completely agree with leaving school at 14 and splitting time between work and college. I would also suggest that as part of the academic course work the history of the subject should be taught to give the apprentices an appreciation of their trade. Take building trade apprentices to visit castles and cathedrals to give them an idea of the skills of old. Show them that building is a craft and not just a job and hopefully instill some pride into them. Same with engineering, there's plenty of working museums where they can see old machinery in action.

My late grandfather was born in 1908 iirc so he left school at 14 and did a proper indentured bricklaying apprenticeship where he was virtually 'sold' to his employer! Being particularly bright his employer then put him through a second apprenticeship as a civil engineer. So by the time he was 25 he was trained to a very high standard with 10+ years of practical experience behind him.

Admittedly back then they had to start the workers young as life expectancy was much lower but I still think it's as valid now as it was back then

[crankedup5]

Earthdweller said:

One of the biggest mistakes of the Blair era was the huge push to get everyone into university

My opinion is that we lost sight of what we need and how we need to equip and train our young to be a fit for the workforce

Vocational training was thrown in the dustbin of progress ( nursing is probably the biggest example)

Technical colleges that provided skilled workers for local industries and trades, and could react quickly to a changing economy and workforce mix became third tier universities mimicking the courses already provided elsewhere. Mechanical engineering/IT/trades courses became media and performing arts courses

Apprenticeships have a huge value and combined with day release courses benefit everyone

Keeping everyone in full time education till 18 is counterproductive in my view as not everyone is suited to school and leaving earlier into the workplace would be more beneficial for many

My experience of graduates entering the workplace is of generally ill prepared young people, wet behind the ears and no concept of starting at the bottom and grafting their way up .. there’s a real sense of self importance and entitlement with an expectation of progress quickly without effort

In summary we really need to refocus and develop third level education/training that provides a workforce for the skills needed today and tomorrow

The university system seems now to have just turned into a business based on making money for the providers rather than a service providing the future workforce we need

Accurate summary to which I fully agree.

[BoRED S2upid]

Agree there are over 150 “universities” in the U.K. most being utter garbage and you are still going to come out of it with the same £40,000 debt. Yes if you are good enough to get into the very best Universoties do it as they will guarantee you a decent job at the end of it there probably aren’t many Oxbridge graduates on benefits. Most would be better entering the jobs market earlier IMO

[crankedup5]

Killboy said:

Oooooor, we could stop screwing over the young and raise the retirement age so people can contribute to their benefits a bit longer?

Retirement. age is being, and has been raised.
Screwing over the kids, in what way do you mean, housing?

[Vasco]

Earthdweller said:

One of the biggest mistakes of the Blair era was the huge push to get everyone into university

My opinion is that we lost sight of what we need and how we need to equip and train our young to be a fit for the workforce

Vocational training was thrown in the dustbin of progress ( nursing is probably the biggest example)

Technical colleges that provided skilled workers for local industries and trades, and could react quickly to a changing economy and workforce mix became third tier universities mimicking the courses already provided elsewhere. Mechanical engineering/IT/trades courses became media and performing arts courses

Apprenticeships have a huge value and combined with day release courses benefit everyone

Keeping everyone in full time education till 18 is counterproductive in my view as not everyone is suited to school and leaving earlier into the workplace would be more beneficial for many

My experience of graduates entering the workplace is of generally ill prepared young people, wet behind the ears and no concept of starting at the bottom and grafting their way up .. there’s a real sense of self importance and entitlement with an expectation of progress quickly without effort

In summary we really need to refocus and develop third level education/training that provides a workforce for the skills needed today and tomorrow

The university system seems now to have just turned into a business based on making money for the providers rather than a service providing the future workforce we need

Well said

[irc]

"
University is much more than just the degree, for many it's the experience of independence. It gets young people out from under their parents wings and they learn a lot outside of the lectures and seminars they attend. In a time when many under 35s are still living with their parents"

All true. But the same could be said of work. Get a job. Leave home. Experience indepence. They can all be done with a degree and a 9%? tax for most of your working life.

[Bill]

Killboy said:

bhstewie said:

Isn't this just a bit too much Mail Express and Telegraph at work again?

I'm all for more vocational education but my god there's a certain generation that like pulling the drawbridge up isn't there.

Seems everything was better "back in their day".

The Victorian era??

[crankedup5]

Electro1980 said:

I am alright Jack said:

And don't forget the "year out" to go to Vietnam, but you wont understand because you weren't there.

I agree with you and it always strikes me at a bit odd when people who have only been in work for ten minutes complain they can't afford to buy a house.

Ten minutes in work? My father in law started work on an apprenticeship at 16, moved out of home at 18, purchased his first house, a 3 bed terrace, at 19 and paid it off by 30, working “down’ pit man and boy”.

Now the average age to buy your first property is now 34, and that is very much distorted by area. People are not complaining 10 minutes. They are waiting 10-15 years (and getting longer) to buy anything. In 1980 that age was 26.

Housing ‘up North’ has always been less expensive than South offerings. Still distorted by area even now, so much for levelling up.
First house purchase has been assisted by parents (boomers) handing cash to Sons/Daughters helping with deposit for home. But certainly agree with the age / years you talk of and it’s tougher now to buy a first home than at any past times.

[S600BSB]

What an idiotic thread.

[Electro1980]

I am alright Jack said:

Electro1980 said:

Ten minutes in work? My father in law started work on an apprenticeship at 16, moved out of home at 18, purchased his first house, a 3 bed terrace, at 19 and paid it off by 30, working “down’ pit man and boy”.

Now the average age to buy your first property is now 34, and that is very much distorted by area. People are not complaining 10 minutes. They are waiting 10-15 years (and getting longer) to buy anything. In 1980 that age was 26.

But surely that's the point I'm making. You can't start work at 25 and expect to buy a house at 26. Many people of my age started work at 16 and bought in their early to mid 20s.

Who’s starting work at 25? And apprentices are not starting work at 16. They are training, hence the very low pay. In the example I gave he finished the apprenticeship at 18. Undergraduate degrees are 3 years, not 6.

Regardless, people going in to higher education quite reasonably expect to be in at least the same position compared to those who started work at 16 or even did an apprenticeship 5-10 years later.

[Countdown]

rodericb said:

You might have to show us your working on that, citation required etcetera...... It cuts a chunk of the population out of the numbers of people who would be counted as unemployed. The same with getting people to be classified as disabled. I don't know if the first item on the Master Plan was to get people into Uni as soon as they're out of school to make the unemployment numbers look better when leaders of the OECD meet up to rub their cocks together but it's a nice little side effect of setting up an export industry (that industry being education).

The reduction in numbers is only temporary. They don't stay at University permanently. After 3/4 years they're back looking for jobs. So at best you hold numbers steady for 3 years. After the 3 years when all the Uni Graduates hit the jobs market the Unemployed figures start rising again. For example

Year 1: 100,000 extra people go to University. Unemployment figures are 100k lower
Year 2: 100,000 extra people go to University. Unemployment figures are 200k lower (100k + 100k)
Year 3: 100,000 extra people go to University. Unemployment figures are 300k lower (100k + 100k+100k
Year 4: ) 100,000 extra people go to University and 100,000 people graduate. no further impact on unemployment figures because the number of people starting Uni = the number of people leaving

Also if the Blair/Brown plan was to increase University attendance to reduce unemployment figures why introduce tuition fees?

[GetCarter]

Jader1973 said:

It isn’t a new thing to allow numpties in to University.

Arts degrees have been around for ages

I'm sure (as your emoji suggests) that this is a joke as, as we know, one of the few industries that the UK is the undisputed world leader is in the arts.

American film makers come here to use our studios, CGI creatives and techies as they are second to none. Our actors are considered top of the tree, our musicians are considered the best in the world, and we bring in billions of pounds into the economy. As well as this the 'soft power' that we get from all this exposure is enormous.

And where do we all learn to do this? In universities and colleges. (You'll gather I work in the industry, for both UK firms and Universal and Warner Bros. so I declare an interest).

Cutting back on arts degrees would be daft, and let's face it, a populist move to please the short sighted 'anti woke' brigade.

[105.4]

S600BSB said:

What an idiotic thread.

Thank you for your insightful reply.

Why do you think this thread is idiotic?

[GroundEffect]

As a counter for the claims that kids now "want it all" are the interns in my department. We're the R&D arm of one of the big 5 energy companies. We get ~15 interns every year from university to work in our department.

They are bloody fantastic for their age 19-21yo and have amazing heads on them. I was ahead of the curve by going to university at 16 but these guys and girls are leagues ahead of me at their age and I'm only 35.

So mature, so I insightful and driven. Brilliant.

[Derek Smith]

Bill said:

Killboy said:

bhstewie said:

Isn't this just a bit too much Mail Express and Telegraph at work again?

I'm all for more vocational education but my god there's a certain generation that like pulling the drawbridge up isn't there.

Seems everything was better "back in their day".

The Victorian era??

It's what every generation says. They suggest they had it so much harder and the kids today, they've got it so easy. Going to university and everything. Whatever they did never hurt them.

Kids today have got it so easy, swanning their way through uni, admittedly after paying for it themselves, being educated and everything. I mean, why do they need to appreciate art and the finer things in life? Shouldn't they be working in industry? Doing what we did. In the dark.

Next it'll be people wanting a better life for their kids.