Here's your jobs led recovery you one eyed toss piece
Discussion
Warning these figures might not have been massaged yet:-
http://uk.biz.yahoo.com/22042010/389/britain-s-occ...
http://uk.biz.yahoo.com/22042010/389/britain-s-occ...
b2hbm said:
230,000 extra educational assistants ??????
66,000 extra housing and welfare officers ????
why ?
I feel a victor meldrew moment approaching. Still, at least we know there's plenty to go at for the coming round of public spending cuts.
Yep, undoubtedly the 230,000 educational assistants will say they've got too many teachers, the housing welfare officers will say they're spending too much on maintaining houses etc and the public spending gravy train of waste will go thundering on doing less and less that could in any way be seen as useful.66,000 extra housing and welfare officers ????
why ?
I feel a victor meldrew moment approaching. Still, at least we know there's plenty to go at for the coming round of public spending cuts.
Puggit said:
Aren't Educational Assistants the teaching equivalent of PCSOs? ie a cheap version created to make it look like they were doing something, but in reality at half the price...
You don't mean that the alternative would have been 'only' 115,000 extra teachers, leading to smaller class sizes and better education for the children? You do know that Education is one of the governments top priorities and of course they will always do the right thing.Puggit said:
Aren't Educational Assistants the teaching equivalent of PCSOs? ie a cheap version created to make it look like they were doing something, but in reality at half the price...
As far as I know they don't actually take classes by themselves, but work with teachers, hence these 230,000 extra people on the payroll don't actually reduce class sizes at all.I'm not saying they don't do anything useful, and I believe some of them go on to teaching after this, but it's still a huge waste of money.
Incidentally I don't necessarily buy the argument that more teachers and smaller classes are the only route to better education. I think better teachers would be a good place to start. People who have some real world experience and something useful to teach, rather than people who simply want long holidays and feel their none degree means they're too good to wash dishes.
"Electrical product assemblers have suffered biggest decline - a cut of 69pc since 2001."
tell me about it. At one point I could have gone anywhere and walked into SMT manufacturer OEM/Sub contract and got a job. Due to Labour not giving a toss and companies heading to low cost geography that industry has vertually disappeared.
Pesty said:
"Electrical product assemblers have suffered biggest decline - a cut of 69pc since 2001."
tell me about it. At one point I could have gone anywhere and walked into SMT manufacturer OEM/Sub contract and got a job. Due to Labour not giving a toss and companies heading to low cost geography that industry has vertually disappeared.
I'm not convinced you can actually blame the government for that.tell me about it. At one point I could have gone anywhere and walked into SMT manufacturer OEM/Sub contract and got a job. Due to Labour not giving a toss and companies heading to low cost geography that industry has vertually disappeared.
Consumers have a choice. They can choose to buy electrical goods assembled by people earning £6+ per hour, or they can choose to buy electrical goods assembled by people earning 20p an hour.
If you ask the average person in the street if they would prefer to see the UK manufacturing sector doing well, they'll say yes.
If you ask those same people if they'd prefer to pay £30 for a DVD player assembled in China or £70 for one assembled here, and all of a sudden the UK manufacturing sector can go screw itself! The government can't change that mentality, and import tariffs aren't going to work, because that just puts prices up for everyone here, without actually making UK manufacturing any more competitive globally.
The figure I thought was really interesting was the almost 50% decline in telesales people. I'm sure some of that will be down to off-shoring, but probably not much, given that most companies keep UK sellers and only offshore customer services. More realistically, I'd say that's a direct correlation between the increase in corporate voicemail systems being used for call screening.
I take your point.
However I am pretty sure the prices of goods I have made in the past did not come down once they moved production to czech/China the companies just made more profit( different argument).
The government did watch it happen and did nothing. Other industries were helped banks bailed out etc etc.
In the end it worked out well for me I have changed industries and enjoy what I am doig now. It is a pity though because a lot of these factories were in towns already in decline.
However I am pretty sure the prices of goods I have made in the past did not come down once they moved production to czech/China the companies just made more profit( different argument).
The government did watch it happen and did nothing. Other industries were helped banks bailed out etc etc.
In the end it worked out well for me I have changed industries and enjoy what I am doig now. It is a pity though because a lot of these factories were in towns already in decline.
AJS- said:
Kermit
The government has a hand in making UK workers 6GBP an hour though.
When I worked in a factory in the mid 90s pre minimum wage I was on about half this, I know prices rise but not much else has doubled since 1996. Not even petrol, if memory serves.
Blimey! I was earning £4.50 an hour working as a silver service waiter when I was 17 in the late 80s with no particular skills other than the ability to manipulate a spoon and fork without drooling on the customers. I'd always assumed it was only the completely unemployable or the illegal immigrant who was working below minimum wage when it was introduced.The government has a hand in making UK workers 6GBP an hour though.
When I worked in a factory in the mid 90s pre minimum wage I was on about half this, I know prices rise but not much else has doubled since 1996. Not even petrol, if memory serves.
Kermit power said:
AJS- said:
Kermit
The government has a hand in making UK workers 6GBP an hour though.
When I worked in a factory in the mid 90s pre minimum wage I was on about half this, I know prices rise but not much else has doubled since 1996. Not even petrol, if memory serves.
Blimey! I was earning £4.50 an hour working as a silver service waiter when I was 17 in the late 80s with no particular skills other than the ability to manipulate a spoon and fork without drooling on the customers. I'd always assumed it was only the completely unemployable or the illegal immigrant who was working below minimum wage when it was introduced.The government has a hand in making UK workers 6GBP an hour though.
When I worked in a factory in the mid 90s pre minimum wage I was on about half this, I know prices rise but not much else has doubled since 1996. Not even petrol, if memory serves.
It was a pretty ropey job, and the company run by a bit of a miser, but still it wasn't out of the way compared to friends of my own age. I do drool loads as well, and like most people in Northumberland struggle with forks.
I remember seeing security guard jobs advertised, typically 55 hours a week at about 2.50GBP around the same time.
AJS- said:
Puggit said:
Aren't Educational Assistants the teaching equivalent of PCSOs? ie a cheap version created to make it look like they were doing something, but in reality at half the price...
As far as I know they don't actually take classes by themselves......So generally...
Jobs hands-on making 'stuff' and/or jobs related to production of something physical, tangible and saleable - down.
Labour non-jobs just sending (borrowed) public sector money around in circles from wages paid for newly thought-up 'work' via taxes back to Winky again after a large proportion is creamed off in balance of payments (remember that?) - up.
Gordon, it's not working, we can't base an economic recovery on beauticians and leisure park attendants.
Labour - a future f
ked for all.
Jobs hands-on making 'stuff' and/or jobs related to production of something physical, tangible and saleable - down.
Labour non-jobs just sending (borrowed) public sector money around in circles from wages paid for newly thought-up 'work' via taxes back to Winky again after a large proportion is creamed off in balance of payments (remember that?) - up.
Gordon, it's not working, we can't base an economic recovery on beauticians and leisure park attendants.Labour - a future f
ked for all.Kermit power said:
Pesty said:
"Electrical product assemblers have suffered biggest decline - a cut of 69pc since 2001."
tell me about it. At one point I could have gone anywhere and walked into SMT manufacturer OEM/Sub contract and got a job. Due to Labour not giving a toss and companies heading to low cost geography that industry has vertually disappeared.
I'm not convinced you can actually blame the government for that.tell me about it. At one point I could have gone anywhere and walked into SMT manufacturer OEM/Sub contract and got a job. Due to Labour not giving a toss and companies heading to low cost geography that industry has vertually disappeared.
Consumers have a choice. They can choose to buy electrical goods assembled by people earning £6+ per hour, or they can choose to buy electrical goods assembled by people earning 20p an hour.
If you ask the average person in the street if they would prefer to see the UK manufacturing sector doing well, they'll say yes.
If you ask those same people if they'd prefer to pay £30 for a DVD player assembled in China or £70 for one assembled here, and all of a sudden the UK manufacturing sector can go screw itself! The government can't change that mentality, and import tariffs aren't going to work, because that just puts prices up for everyone here, without actually making UK manufacturing any more competitive globally.
The figure I thought was really interesting was the almost 50% decline in telesales people. I'm sure some of that will be down to off-shoring, but probably not much, given that most companies keep UK sellers and only offshore customer services. More realistically, I'd say that's a direct correlation between the increase in corporate voicemail systems being used for call screening.
He, like others, thought it was a 'job for life'.
Jobs for life have gone.
The only place to find them now, are the energy sector (under attack) and difficult to get into unless you're just out of uni, and perhaps transport.
Politicians keep saying on the news that we need skills and engineers. This is just not true. We think we need skills and engineers, but we're awash with those who have not yet left the country, or who have gone into other fields.
Most of this stuff isn't that difficult, but the employers know that there are many people who want to compete for the job, so they raise their standards. It is only then that "suitable" people cannot be found. Employers don't really need anyone and although they're still looking for miracles, normal mortals are not sufficient to bring the perceived benefit to their companies.
So for example, if someone falls from an industry leading position, they'll happily take them on and extract their usefulness in a lesser role. If, however, you're just a perfectly capable nobody, then you don't stand much of a chance.
The employers know that they can maintain this position because they can't see a need for expansion, and they know the people who would easily pick up whatever work they have, will come back if things change.
That's the really troublesome thing with the Labour outlook. They don't realise that they are saying that the country needs to be manufacturing industry leaders. They think they're saying we need to be manufacturing ordinary technicians and graduates. They think that the power of a business comes from it's workers, but it's just not true.
The real power of a business comes from it's leaders.
In the Labour model, businesses work for, and are subordinate to the state, but in practice businesses are peers and they collectively nurture the state.
It's just life. It's cost us eleventy billion pounds, and we probably still haven't learned. In consolation, we're not alone. The whole of Europe is the same. In fact the only people who seem to have learned is the Chinese and Russians. Even there it seems to have been an accidental discovery, rather than a decision and resolution.
More worrying perhaps, is that they may have been waiting for us to forget. The only ones that can tell you the power of "staying on top" is them. Why would we ask or believe? Why would they tell us the truth?
If you ask me the power of "staying on top" is great, and not to be neglected. I think the likelihood is that we gave away the last diamond we had.
Although we fail to appreciate the financial cost of the situation, the truth is that the intangible cost in potential (which is over and above the financial cost) is much greater.
The only place to find them now, are the energy sector (under attack) and difficult to get into unless you're just out of uni, and perhaps transport.
Politicians keep saying on the news that we need skills and engineers. This is just not true. We think we need skills and engineers, but we're awash with those who have not yet left the country, or who have gone into other fields.
Most of this stuff isn't that difficult, but the employers know that there are many people who want to compete for the job, so they raise their standards. It is only then that "suitable" people cannot be found. Employers don't really need anyone and although they're still looking for miracles, normal mortals are not sufficient to bring the perceived benefit to their companies.
So for example, if someone falls from an industry leading position, they'll happily take them on and extract their usefulness in a lesser role. If, however, you're just a perfectly capable nobody, then you don't stand much of a chance.
The employers know that they can maintain this position because they can't see a need for expansion, and they know the people who would easily pick up whatever work they have, will come back if things change.
That's the really troublesome thing with the Labour outlook. They don't realise that they are saying that the country needs to be manufacturing industry leaders. They think they're saying we need to be manufacturing ordinary technicians and graduates. They think that the power of a business comes from it's workers, but it's just not true.
The real power of a business comes from it's leaders.
In the Labour model, businesses work for, and are subordinate to the state, but in practice businesses are peers and they collectively nurture the state.
It's just life. It's cost us eleventy billion pounds, and we probably still haven't learned. In consolation, we're not alone. The whole of Europe is the same. In fact the only people who seem to have learned is the Chinese and Russians. Even there it seems to have been an accidental discovery, rather than a decision and resolution.
More worrying perhaps, is that they may have been waiting for us to forget. The only ones that can tell you the power of "staying on top" is them. Why would we ask or believe? Why would they tell us the truth?
If you ask me the power of "staying on top" is great, and not to be neglected. I think the likelihood is that we gave away the last diamond we had.
Although we fail to appreciate the financial cost of the situation, the truth is that the intangible cost in potential (which is over and above the financial cost) is much greater.
Edited by dilbert on Saturday 24th April 15:20
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff