Re-education is key to employment

Re-education is key to employment

Re-education is key to employment

First published in Your Letters
Last updated

REFERRING to Jane Burnet’s letter, August 21, ‘Have Your Say’, the Green Party’s Parliamentary Candidate.

With respect to the Green Party’s ideas, that education is the answer to the problems of encouraging highly paid jobs to the area, I would differ and say re-education.

Bosses and employers need re-educating on the fact that the problems of low pay and skills shortages need addressing.

Our local councils should set an example and enforce the living wage of £7.65 per hour and severely curtail the use of zero hour contracts so setting a precedent to the private sector.

On affordable housing, with housing developers being able to avoid building them on sites, by paying a financial settlement and with Magna Housing Association seemingly to have withdrawn from building affordable housing in the near future, drastic action is needed.

Either enforce the 35 per cent affordable homes on all sites or take the radical step of using all the small pots of financial settlements and make ‘one large pot’ and restore council housing.

Some will say this can’t be done, but Cambridge, Winchester and some London boroughs are starting or planning new council housing.

The Thatcherites will say ‘what about the right to buy?’. Well, let it continue but with a proviso that 100 per cent of all the finances is ring fenced and reinvested in rebuilding and maintenance of the council housing stick, not siphoned off to other projects. At the moment not enough affordable housing is being built for locals.

WDDC, Weymouth and Portland and DCC should all attempt to resolve the problems of low pay and housing shortages and set an example to private employers and property developers. Then, perhaps, an answer to these problems can start to be resolved locally.

Barry Thompson Chairman, Dorchester and District Labour Part

Comments (5)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

4:13pm Tue 2 Sep 14

WykeReg says...

Education is absolutely the right answer, not only for this town but for the country as a whole. It may be brushing up on one's basic education to improve language and math skills, upgrading an existing skill, or learning a new one.

The 'living wage' is, of course, impossible to calculate. Every household might have a different idea of what they think they need and a flat rate hardly takes into account the seasonal differences in necessary spending.

But if higher wages are demanded then they are only affordable if there are productivity gains to offset the extra cost to businesses that are already struggling. Since workers aren't likely to work any harder or smarter then the employer has no recourse but to reduce the hours on offer and/or reduce the number of employees. Price increases are rarely an option to recover the costs, even for the largest businesses. If costs are passed on to the customers then those on fixed incomes, such as pensioners, are made poorer.

If people want more money, the answer is education, education, education, as Tony Blair famously said. So get some.
Education is absolutely the right answer, not only for this town but for the country as a whole. It may be brushing up on one's basic education to improve language and math skills, upgrading an existing skill, or learning a new one. The 'living wage' is, of course, impossible to calculate. Every household might have a different idea of what they think they need and a flat rate hardly takes into account the seasonal differences in necessary spending. But if higher wages are demanded then they are only affordable if there are productivity gains to offset the extra cost to businesses that are already struggling. Since workers aren't likely to work any harder or smarter then the employer has no recourse but to reduce the hours on offer and/or reduce the number of employees. Price increases are rarely an option to recover the costs, even for the largest businesses. If costs are passed on to the customers then those on fixed incomes, such as pensioners, are made poorer. If people want more money, the answer is education, education, education, as Tony Blair famously said. So get some. WykeReg
  • Score: -1

10:50pm Tue 2 Sep 14

breamoreboy says...

I believe that a lot of employers would like to pay their employees more but are restricted by the tax on jobs known as Employers National Insurance Contributions. More here http://tinyurl.com/c
kkpsrc for anybody who's interested.
I believe that a lot of employers would like to pay their employees more but are restricted by the tax on jobs known as Employers National Insurance Contributions. More here http://tinyurl.com/c kkpsrc for anybody who's interested. breamoreboy
  • Score: 0

10:07am Wed 3 Sep 14

CaughtJester says...

WykeReg wrote:
Education is absolutely the right answer, not only for this town but for the country as a whole. It may be brushing up on one's basic education to improve language and math skills, upgrading an existing skill, or learning a new one.

The 'living wage' is, of course, impossible to calculate. Every household might have a different idea of what they think they need and a flat rate hardly takes into account the seasonal differences in necessary spending.

But if higher wages are demanded then they are only affordable if there are productivity gains to offset the extra cost to businesses that are already struggling. Since workers aren't likely to work any harder or smarter then the employer has no recourse but to reduce the hours on offer and/or reduce the number of employees. Price increases are rarely an option to recover the costs, even for the largest businesses. If costs are passed on to the customers then those on fixed incomes, such as pensioners, are made poorer.

If people want more money, the answer is education, education, education, as Tony Blair famously said. So get some.
You know not of what you speak.

The Living Wage is set nationally (one weighting for London and another for the regions) and recalculated every November, according to inflation. Your suggestion that it would be impossible to calculate - given individual households varying running costs - is no more relevant to the Living Wage than it is the Minimum Wage.
[quote][p][bold]WykeReg[/bold] wrote: Education is absolutely the right answer, not only for this town but for the country as a whole. It may be brushing up on one's basic education to improve language and math skills, upgrading an existing skill, or learning a new one. The 'living wage' is, of course, impossible to calculate. Every household might have a different idea of what they think they need and a flat rate hardly takes into account the seasonal differences in necessary spending. But if higher wages are demanded then they are only affordable if there are productivity gains to offset the extra cost to businesses that are already struggling. Since workers aren't likely to work any harder or smarter then the employer has no recourse but to reduce the hours on offer and/or reduce the number of employees. Price increases are rarely an option to recover the costs, even for the largest businesses. If costs are passed on to the customers then those on fixed incomes, such as pensioners, are made poorer. If people want more money, the answer is education, education, education, as Tony Blair famously said. So get some.[/p][/quote]You know not of what you speak. The Living Wage is set nationally (one weighting for London and another for the regions) and recalculated every November, according to inflation. Your suggestion that it would be impossible to calculate - given individual households varying running costs - is no more relevant to the Living Wage than it is the Minimum Wage. CaughtJester
  • Score: 0

11:52am Wed 3 Sep 14

WykeReg says...

CaughtJester wrote:
WykeReg wrote:
Education is absolutely the right answer, not only for this town but for the country as a whole. It may be brushing up on one's basic education to improve language and math skills, upgrading an existing skill, or learning a new one.

The 'living wage' is, of course, impossible to calculate. Every household might have a different idea of what they think they need and a flat rate hardly takes into account the seasonal differences in necessary spending.

But if higher wages are demanded then they are only affordable if there are productivity gains to offset the extra cost to businesses that are already struggling. Since workers aren't likely to work any harder or smarter then the employer has no recourse but to reduce the hours on offer and/or reduce the number of employees. Price increases are rarely an option to recover the costs, even for the largest businesses. If costs are passed on to the customers then those on fixed incomes, such as pensioners, are made poorer.

If people want more money, the answer is education, education, education, as Tony Blair famously said. So get some.
You know not of what you speak.

The Living Wage is set nationally (one weighting for London and another for the regions) and recalculated every November, according to inflation. Your suggestion that it would be impossible to calculate - given individual households varying running costs - is no more relevant to the Living Wage than it is the Minimum Wage.
You've hit the nail on the head (though you may not have meant to). Both the minimum and 'living' wage are impossible to calculate in any meaningful way. Even a rate for the 'regions' can't possibly account for differences existing within that region.

You must also understand that minimum/living wage rates are not just for the low paid in isolation. There is dramatic knock-on effect. The more skilled/experienced workers will clamor for their differential (higher) pay to be increased as well to maintain their status. Then supervisors will also want differentials to be maintained and so on up the chain. After a couple years of this (with inflation-linked rises) the situation returns to the same point where the lowest-paid are no better off and, along with the population at large, have suffered from self-induced inflation since the higher wages will have to be passed on through price rises. State pensions will also have to be increased to account for this unnecessary inflation.

Many studies here and in the US have shown that artificially raising wages without any improvement in productivity merely creates unemployment and retards business expansion. But the liberal mind still believes in the orchard of money trees that makes anything affordable. When will this insanity stop?
[quote][p][bold]CaughtJester[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WykeReg[/bold] wrote: Education is absolutely the right answer, not only for this town but for the country as a whole. It may be brushing up on one's basic education to improve language and math skills, upgrading an existing skill, or learning a new one. The 'living wage' is, of course, impossible to calculate. Every household might have a different idea of what they think they need and a flat rate hardly takes into account the seasonal differences in necessary spending. But if higher wages are demanded then they are only affordable if there are productivity gains to offset the extra cost to businesses that are already struggling. Since workers aren't likely to work any harder or smarter then the employer has no recourse but to reduce the hours on offer and/or reduce the number of employees. Price increases are rarely an option to recover the costs, even for the largest businesses. If costs are passed on to the customers then those on fixed incomes, such as pensioners, are made poorer. If people want more money, the answer is education, education, education, as Tony Blair famously said. So get some.[/p][/quote]You know not of what you speak. The Living Wage is set nationally (one weighting for London and another for the regions) and recalculated every November, according to inflation. Your suggestion that it would be impossible to calculate - given individual households varying running costs - is no more relevant to the Living Wage than it is the Minimum Wage.[/p][/quote]You've hit the nail on the head (though you may not have meant to). Both the minimum and 'living' wage are impossible to calculate in any meaningful way. Even a rate for the 'regions' can't possibly account for differences existing within that region. You must also understand that minimum/living wage rates are not just for the low paid in isolation. There is dramatic knock-on effect. The more skilled/experienced workers will clamor for their differential (higher) pay to be increased as well to maintain their status. Then supervisors will also want differentials to be maintained and so on up the chain. After a couple years of this (with inflation-linked rises) the situation returns to the same point where the lowest-paid are no better off and, along with the population at large, have suffered from self-induced inflation since the higher wages will have to be passed on through price rises. State pensions will also have to be increased to account for this unnecessary inflation. Many studies here and in the US have shown that artificially raising wages without any improvement in productivity merely creates unemployment and retards business expansion. But the liberal mind still believes in the orchard of money trees that makes anything affordable. When will this insanity stop? WykeReg
  • Score: -1

1:27pm Wed 3 Sep 14

JamesYoung says...

WykeReg wrote:
CaughtJester wrote:
WykeReg wrote:
Education is absolutely the right answer, not only for this town but for the country as a whole. It may be brushing up on one's basic education to improve language and math skills, upgrading an existing skill, or learning a new one.

The 'living wage' is, of course, impossible to calculate. Every household might have a different idea of what they think they need and a flat rate hardly takes into account the seasonal differences in necessary spending.

But if higher wages are demanded then they are only affordable if there are productivity gains to offset the extra cost to businesses that are already struggling. Since workers aren't likely to work any harder or smarter then the employer has no recourse but to reduce the hours on offer and/or reduce the number of employees. Price increases are rarely an option to recover the costs, even for the largest businesses. If costs are passed on to the customers then those on fixed incomes, such as pensioners, are made poorer.

If people want more money, the answer is education, education, education, as Tony Blair famously said. So get some.
You know not of what you speak.

The Living Wage is set nationally (one weighting for London and another for the regions) and recalculated every November, according to inflation. Your suggestion that it would be impossible to calculate - given individual households varying running costs - is no more relevant to the Living Wage than it is the Minimum Wage.
You've hit the nail on the head (though you may not have meant to). Both the minimum and 'living' wage are impossible to calculate in any meaningful way. Even a rate for the 'regions' can't possibly account for differences existing within that region.

You must also understand that minimum/living wage rates are not just for the low paid in isolation. There is dramatic knock-on effect. The more skilled/experienced workers will clamor for their differential (higher) pay to be increased as well to maintain their status. Then supervisors will also want differentials to be maintained and so on up the chain. After a couple years of this (with inflation-linked rises) the situation returns to the same point where the lowest-paid are no better off and, along with the population at large, have suffered from self-induced inflation since the higher wages will have to be passed on through price rises. State pensions will also have to be increased to account for this unnecessary inflation.

Many studies here and in the US have shown that artificially raising wages without any improvement in productivity merely creates unemployment and retards business expansion. But the liberal mind still believes in the orchard of money trees that makes anything affordable. When will this insanity stop?
It will stop when people realise the truth.
All of the "props" put in to help people are nothing more than a taxpayer subsidy to businesses.
Housing benefit - a subsidy to landlords. Without housing benefit, rents would fall: so hardly a benefit to the working man.
Tax credits: a subsidy to large business. Businesses in general can get away with paying less and using the NMW as a reference point, because their workforce will not starve to death with the taxpayer filling their bellies. The benefit for the business gets larger as the business gets larger; ultimately the most benefit goes to businesses that play minimum (or close to minimum) wage while avoiding tax on their enormous profits.
Low interest rates: when interest rates are high, businesses put off investment in new technology. However, when interest rates are low, they are incentivised to invest. As, by definition, most investments are designed to increase productivity (ie, decrease labour) the working man, far from benefiting from low interest rates, risks his job being replaced by a machine.
I think that capitalism in this country has reached its end game. Firstly, UK businesses were outcompeted by developing countries: manufacturing jobs were lost overseas, followed by call centres, followed by senior level IT jobs. To fix the associated problem - falling wages - the government of the day introduced tax credits. Then, credit controls were reduced so that people could withdraw "wealth" from their homes to spend in the real economy - research shows that for every £1 increase in the value of houses, the British mortgage holder spent 10p. Add that up and you can credibly argue that the growth story of the Labour years was actually mostly created by debt.
Interest rates had to fall to support this, of course. Now, we are facing a position where most people have maxed out their credit cards and real wages are falling, with more people finding themselves in the category of "underemployed". The cost of tax credits specifically and welfare in general is falling on a smaller and smaller workforce, which can be seen in rocketing government debt (Tories have added as much in 5 years as Labour did in 10).
But we are told the economy is surging ahead. How can this be, when both manufacturing and service sectors and now slowing? Simple: the clever old government removed housing costs from the inflation measure, while leaving them in the GDP measure. So the economy seems to be growing because the house price bubble is inflating. However, the inflation rate seems to be low because the increasing cost of a roof over your head is not measured, so interest rates are held low.
The argument that house prices are rising in line with inflation is therefore seen for the crock that it is (not to mention that wages are NOT rising with inflation).
But now, if you ignore the papers focussing on lag indicators and look instead at lead indicators, the property market is slowing. Will the transparent attempt to allow pensioners to invest their funds in the property ponzi succeed? We'll wait and see.
Capitalism (as practiced in our economy) can only end one way and we are not far from this end game. Businesses have driven down costs by offshoring work and dispensing with local labour. Those workers can no longer consume as much as they did, but in the short term you can fix that by allowing employed workers to replace that lost consumption by borrowing money.
There comes a point, though, where everybody has so much debt that nobody can consume.
Then comes deflation - a long downward spiral that, as in Japan, could last decades.
The cure for deflation is war.
[quote][p][bold]WykeReg[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]CaughtJester[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WykeReg[/bold] wrote: Education is absolutely the right answer, not only for this town but for the country as a whole. It may be brushing up on one's basic education to improve language and math skills, upgrading an existing skill, or learning a new one. The 'living wage' is, of course, impossible to calculate. Every household might have a different idea of what they think they need and a flat rate hardly takes into account the seasonal differences in necessary spending. But if higher wages are demanded then they are only affordable if there are productivity gains to offset the extra cost to businesses that are already struggling. Since workers aren't likely to work any harder or smarter then the employer has no recourse but to reduce the hours on offer and/or reduce the number of employees. Price increases are rarely an option to recover the costs, even for the largest businesses. If costs are passed on to the customers then those on fixed incomes, such as pensioners, are made poorer. If people want more money, the answer is education, education, education, as Tony Blair famously said. So get some.[/p][/quote]You know not of what you speak. The Living Wage is set nationally (one weighting for London and another for the regions) and recalculated every November, according to inflation. Your suggestion that it would be impossible to calculate - given individual households varying running costs - is no more relevant to the Living Wage than it is the Minimum Wage.[/p][/quote]You've hit the nail on the head (though you may not have meant to). Both the minimum and 'living' wage are impossible to calculate in any meaningful way. Even a rate for the 'regions' can't possibly account for differences existing within that region. You must also understand that minimum/living wage rates are not just for the low paid in isolation. There is dramatic knock-on effect. The more skilled/experienced workers will clamor for their differential (higher) pay to be increased as well to maintain their status. Then supervisors will also want differentials to be maintained and so on up the chain. After a couple years of this (with inflation-linked rises) the situation returns to the same point where the lowest-paid are no better off and, along with the population at large, have suffered from self-induced inflation since the higher wages will have to be passed on through price rises. State pensions will also have to be increased to account for this unnecessary inflation. Many studies here and in the US have shown that artificially raising wages without any improvement in productivity merely creates unemployment and retards business expansion. But the liberal mind still believes in the orchard of money trees that makes anything affordable. When will this insanity stop?[/p][/quote]It will stop when people realise the truth. All of the "props" put in to help people are nothing more than a taxpayer subsidy to businesses. Housing benefit - a subsidy to landlords. Without housing benefit, rents would fall: so hardly a benefit to the working man. Tax credits: a subsidy to large business. Businesses in general can get away with paying less and using the NMW as a reference point, because their workforce will not starve to death with the taxpayer filling their bellies. The benefit for the business gets larger as the business gets larger; ultimately the most benefit goes to businesses that play minimum (or close to minimum) wage while avoiding tax on their enormous profits. Low interest rates: when interest rates are high, businesses put off investment in new technology. However, when interest rates are low, they are incentivised to invest. As, by definition, most investments are designed to increase productivity (ie, decrease labour) the working man, far from benefiting from low interest rates, risks his job being replaced by a machine. I think that capitalism in this country has reached its end game. Firstly, UK businesses were outcompeted by developing countries: manufacturing jobs were lost overseas, followed by call centres, followed by senior level IT jobs. To fix the associated problem - falling wages - the government of the day introduced tax credits. Then, credit controls were reduced so that people could withdraw "wealth" from their homes to spend in the real economy - research shows that for every £1 increase in the value of houses, the British mortgage holder spent 10p. Add that up and you can credibly argue that the growth story of the Labour years was actually mostly created by debt. Interest rates had to fall to support this, of course. Now, we are facing a position where most people have maxed out their credit cards and real wages are falling, with more people finding themselves in the category of "underemployed". The cost of tax credits specifically and welfare in general is falling on a smaller and smaller workforce, which can be seen in rocketing government debt (Tories have added as much in 5 years as Labour did in 10). But we are told the economy is surging ahead. How can this be, when both manufacturing and service sectors and now slowing? Simple: the clever old government removed housing costs from the inflation measure, while leaving them in the GDP measure. So the economy seems to be growing because the house price bubble is inflating. However, the inflation rate seems to be low because the increasing cost of a roof over your head is not measured, so interest rates are held low. The argument that house prices are rising in line with inflation is therefore seen for the crock that it is (not to mention that wages are NOT rising with inflation). But now, if you ignore the papers focussing on lag indicators and look instead at lead indicators, the property market is slowing. Will the transparent attempt to allow pensioners to invest their funds in the property ponzi succeed? We'll wait and see. Capitalism (as practiced in our economy) can only end one way and we are not far from this end game. Businesses have driven down costs by offshoring work and dispensing with local labour. Those workers can no longer consume as much as they did, but in the short term you can fix that by allowing employed workers to replace that lost consumption by borrowing money. There comes a point, though, where everybody has so much debt that nobody can consume. Then comes deflation - a long downward spiral that, as in Japan, could last decades. The cure for deflation is war. JamesYoung
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree