Selfish Ungrateful People

[worm]

I referred to three groups of people, while you referred only to two. Learn to f**king read.

Edited January 19, 2011 by worm

[Greeny_Musicchild]

I think you said something along those lines worm, yes, but what I was suggesting is that if appenticeships were better ecognised and funded more people would choose to take them up as a viable option to working after finishing school.

I don't believe that potential graduates would take up apprenticeships in place of a regular degree, not on a large scale. I suppose that's a matter of opinion. Even if they did by expanding on them you create more possibilities of education for everyone, especially those not suited to a university degree. Which can't be a bad thing surely? I still feel those with the desire or aptitude (or of course both) to do a university degree should.

Edited January 19, 2011 by Greeny_Musicchild

[eFestivals]

And a graduate is someone that has graduated from university.

no, strictly and literally, it's someone who has graduated.

Otherwise, what the f**k are we talking about when we say 'graduate job'? Semantic bullshit Neil. I'm bored to tears now.

the sementic bullshit is yours, via your own mis-use of language, or buying into others mis-use of language as tho their language is valid when it's not.

Oh dear. The basis of just about everything you've said in this thread is both factually and literally wrong. I'd have thought that someone who thinks themselves so very educated would be beyond such very basic errors.

[worm]

I think you said something along those lines worm, yes, but what I was suggesting is that if appenticeships were better recognised and funded more people would choose to take them up as a viable option to working after finishing school.

I don't believe that potential graduates would take up apprenticeships in place of a regular degree, not on a large scale. I suppose that's a matter of opinion. Even if they did by expanding on them you create more possibilities of education for everyone, especially those not suited to a university degree. Which can't be a bad thing surely? I still feel those with the desire or aptitude (or of course both) to do a university degree should.

Edited January 19, 2011 by worm

[eFestivals]

Did I f**k!

''My point is that potential graduates will take on apprenticeships rather than univeristy placements, thereby not helping out the plight of non-graduate workers.''

So potential uni students will take on apprenticeships, thereby having no impact upon the situation of non-graduate workers.

Your "non graduate workers" can be the same people as those who do apprenticeships.

I very specifically worded what I said so that I spoke of people who had neither been to uni or done an apprenticeship.

And you say that I can't read.

that's because you can't. You even continue to get it wrong when it's been specifically pointed out to you, as has been the case here.

Edited January 19, 2011 by eFestivals

[Greeny_Musicchild]

Are apprenticeship based workers going to be paid more than (what shall we call them?) unskilled workers?

You see, we've still got unskilled workers to consider, which was the point Phil was originally getting at and I'm still interested in.

[eFestivals]

Well those unskilled workers are created from two things in my opinion. Lack of opportunity and apathy.

Lack of opportunity is right for some, as is apathy for others.

But that doesn't account for them all. I used to know a guy with a Phd (I forget what in) who'd given it up to be a road tarmac-er, for no reason other than choice. It certainly wasn't apathy.

After all, there is no law that says "people must achieve the greatest amount possible for themselves". Some people choose to not be a part of the rat race (and I count myself as one of those), choosing instead a life on their own terms rather than a life achieving nothing meaningful (which is ultimately what a "life of achievement" is) on other people's terms.

And all that aside, we as a society NEED people who are happy to stack shelves, collect the bins, say "have a nice day" when you get your burger, and any other 'unskilled' job that you can think of. We will never get away from that.

And the simple fact is that those people - and so society overall - are happier overall if they're not looked down on by arrogant arseholes like worm who think it 'sad' that other aren't as 'educated' as he laughably thinks himself, and if they don't have their aspirations raised and then dashed by false promises of a better tomorrow that society can never deliver.

Edited January 19, 2011 by eFestivals

[RABun]

Are apprenticeship based workers going to be paid more than (what shall we call them?) unskilled workers?

You see, we've still got unskilled workers to consider, which was the point Phil was originally getting at and I'm still interested in.

EDIT: I'm only interested in rational and relevant responses based upon the discussion in hand now, not a continuation of another Worm/Neil train wreck.

[worm]

Well those unskilled workers are created from two things in my opinion. Lack of opportunity and apathy.

Edited January 19, 2011 by worm

[worm]

However initially while doing the apprenticeship i think they get paid less than a check-out operator at a supermarket which i think is probably classed as an unskilled worker.

[eFestivals]

Hence, a strong motivation to get and stay in a shit job for those without the background and education to see the longer term benefits.

Someone has to do a "shit job" - otherwise it'll be YOU that's the one flipping burgers and not them.

And having realised that fact, an educated man would be smart enough to realise that they're not doing a "shit job", they're doing a job that is no less essential to society than any other, and not call it a "shit job" as a result.

The "benefits" of a good job can not be and are not available to everyone. Only when you're educated enough to recognise that truth are you in any place to start properly considering the job opportunities for each equal member of society.

Edited January 19, 2011 by eFestivals

[Greeny_Musicchild]

But doesn't this require education? This was my opining point, that education was/is the key to uncovering the inner tools to overcome such nagativities.

I don't know if you've read much on these type of discussions, but Phil made a good point regarding putting funds towards education at the lower end of the spectrum. It's just that these people generally come from a poverty striken background and will more than likely miss out on an education if they're motivated towards choosing a shit job.

[Greeny_Musicchild]

Someone has to do a "shit job" - otherwise it'll be YOU that's the one flipping burgers and not them.

Edited January 19, 2011 by Greeny_Musicchild

[eFestivals]

Now I know you've already said you don't feel such corporate sponsorship is a part of the kind of education you seem to feel is better. But are you telling me that more government subsidies to make this kind of thing more common place isn't a decent way to introduce education to those in menial jobs?

because worm doesn't know what the f**k he's talking about on much of this subject, he wouldn't know that apprenticeships are older than academia in this country, or that - until his hero Thatcher - they were far better respected in society as a whole than degrees (and certainly the degree he has, even amongst just uni graduates at that time).

And he'd also know that if Thatcher hadn't abolished the funding for the govt-supported (supported, not fully funded) apprenticeship scheme at that time, then we wouldn't be having this conversation now, because the opportunities for young people would be far better than they've been for the last 30 years (with the expansion of uni's taken fully into account in what I've said there).

While what Thatcher did is extremely sad for the effects it's had (which includes a thick-as-pigshit arrogant arsehole posting the moronic bollocks he's been pulled up on today ), the greatest irony of all about it is that everything they've tried to replace it with since has had far less benefit to those individuals as well as to the country than what it replaced, while being of much greater cost. It was a part of what caused the phrase "knows the price of everything but the value of nothing".

And like at a funfair, the same is coming round yet again. Thatcher thought she could slash and burn her way thru funding of all kinds for the young which caused all of those disastrous effects, and Dave Moron is doing exactly the same thing. The specific targets are different this time - after all, the things Thatcher abolished aren't there to hit again - but the principle is the same, and the results will be too, but to a MUCH greater extent.

Because the difference between now and then is that now is starting from a position of 20% youth unemployment, while back then it all started with youth unemployment at less than 4%.

PS: it should be noted that there's also a significant difference between then and now in the society behind those unemployment percentages - and that's that nearly everyone left school back then at 16, while it's a minority nowadays.

Edited January 19, 2011 by eFestivals

[worm]

And also this. Not everyone is going to be skilled. Not everyone is going to be educated. There will always be a bottom rung.

[worm]

Now I know you've already said you don't feel such corporate sponsorship is a part of the kind of education you seem to feel is better. But are you telling me that more government subsidies to make this kind of thing more common place isn't a decent way to introduce education to those in menial jobs?

Edited January 19, 2011 by worm

[Greeny_Musicchild]

Not if we learn the socio-economic effects of consuming burgers as a society i.e. become more educated.

Edited January 19, 2011 by Greeny_Musicchild

[grumpyhack]

because worm doesn't know what the f**k he's talking about on much of this subject, he wouldn't know that apprenticeships are older than academia in this country, or that - until his hero Thatcher - they were far better respected in society as a whole than degrees (and certainly the degree he has, even amongst just uni graduates at that time).

And he'd also know that if Thatcher hadn't abolished the funding for the govt-supported (supported, not fully funded) apprenticeship scheme at that time, then we wouldn't be having this conversation now, because the opportunities for young people would be far better than they've been for the last 30 years (with the expansion of uni's taken fully into account in what I've said there).

While what Thatcher did is extremely sad for the effects it's had (which includes a thick-as-pigshit arrogant arsehole posting the moronic bollocks he's been pulled up on today ), the greatest irony of all about it is that everything they've tried to replace it with since has had far less benefit to those individuals as well as to the country than what it replaced, while being of much greater cost. It was a part of what caused the phrase "knows the price of everything but the value of nothing".

And like at a funfair, the same is coming round yet again. Thatcher thought she could slash and burn her way thru funding of all kinds for the young which caused all of those disastrous effects, and Dave Moron is doing exactly the same thing. The specific targets are different this time - after all, the things Thatcher abolished aren't there to hit again - but the principle is the same, and the results will be too, but to a MUCH greater extent.

Because the difference between now and then is that now is starting from a position of 20% youth unemployment, while back then it all started with youth unemployment at less than 4%.

PS: it should be noted that there's also a significant difference between then and now in the society behind those unemployment percentages - and that's that nearly everyone left school back then at 16, while it's a minority nowadays.

[lost]

Nothing wrong with shit jobs, infact I sometimes think those people are the bright ones. My last job that I quit, the guys in my team in their 40's who had been on the oncall rota for a longer period of time all had long term health problems, heart attacks, thyroid issues etc..

The problem seems to be that any incentive to take them seems to have been removed. For example I worked in a bakery for a short period of time as a student, there was one particular job which was pretty uncomfortable working in the freezers in big protective clothing, because it was so shit it paid better than other roles there (about £18k a year) this was back in 1998 when that sort of money would get you a nice house (£50k) cover the bills and you could live for the weekend and have a massive blow out. Now the same job is done by the polish for minimum wage and the same house costs £150k. People will happily take the trade off of no stress for less money but they still have to have some quality of life outside work. I remember envying my mates who didn't go to uni, they had their own place and seemed to always have a decent wedge down the pub, nowadays the choice seems to be uni or bugger all.

[worm]

Quite.

Capitalism would have to cease of course, at least in it's current form. "Debt slaves" are built into the system. Maintaining the bottom rung is what keeps the well off rich and makes them richer still. The world in which every man is educated in the manner you suggest is a distant dream as long as politics continues in the manner it currently is doing.

Learning skills applicable to business is a good way to get along in the meantime. In my opinion anyway.

[worm]

Nothing wrong with shit jobs, infact I sometimes think those people are the bright ones.

[worm]

p.s. if we accept that some people aren't suited to academic education and are better suited to shit jobs and such like, why are we educating everyone at school level? Surely we should have burger flippn' classes.

Edited January 20, 2011 by worm

[grumpyhack]

p.s. if we accept that some people aren't suited to academic education and are better suited to shit jobs and such like, why are we educating everyone at school level? Surely we should have burger flippn' classes.

[worm]

Because education isn't, or shouldn't be, simply about equipping people for employment. It's about broadening people's minds, opening them to new ideas - for example discovering new music or cultures or food. There's more to life than a Big Mac.

Edited January 20, 2011 by worm

[eFestivals]

So then why are we saying that as some people are going to work in jobs that don't require an education, a further education is not necessary? This makes absolutely no sense at all.

If we accept that a further education is superfluous to some people because they take jobs that don't require a further education, then we have to accept that they don't need an education at school level either.

To be clear, I'm for the opportunity of further education for all and think that it should be defined by personal interest, not the needs of industry.

it makes just as much sense as stopping someone's education at 16, at 18, at 21, or any other arbitrary age or level of education.

Ultimately, if we went with your idea that everyone should be educated to degree level, why stop there? There's always more to be learnt, and there's always a benefit somewhere from that learning. So just as you say "they don't need an education at school level", it's just as pertinent for someone to say "you don't need an education at degree level".

People much smarter than you (the world is overflowing with them) have decided that there should be an attempt to educate all people to a particular level without them having a choice about it until a certain age, but that beyond that it's a matter of personal choice. I believe that's about right.

After all, forcing people to get extra education just on your personal and patronising belief that everyone should do has no greater rational basis behind it than the system-based-on-choice-after-a-particular-age that we operate at the moment, and in fact it has less; it's simply your prejudice over-riding a person's right to choose.