National Service

[Arthur Hucksake]

Potentially, yes. But it would also create a lot of jobs as we'd need people to train and manage them. Plus, it creates work for those in the supply chain: uniform and tools will need to bought etc.

The fact is there is vastly more work to be done than we'd ever have enough money to pay for, so mobilising our youth to do some of this need not compromise existing labour. It's possible to use this labour sensitively so existing jobs are not compromised.

But even if we did cause public service employment to collapse, why is that a bad thing? Public service jobs don't create any wealth, so if we can provide the same services at 10% of the cost, that is a HUGE win for the nation.

That saved 90% can go towards helping people getting skills and qualifications to do more worthwhile work that will hopefully create further wealth.

We're a service driven society nowadays, unfortunately. Need to find a way of bringing back the manufacturing, creativity and enterprise.

Now that University costs are too high for most, the talent pool will shrink for awhile. More and more employers are keen to put staff through corporate qualifications, so it will iron itself out.

 

[Arthur Hucksake]

Ten hours for their dole any more and we should just make it a job and pay them properly.

That's what it should be as long as the work they are doing is relevant to their interests or what they are good at. Far better solution than this zero hour contract rubbish.

 

[Schlong&Stable]

Why do we need a head of state when we have a Parliament and elected leader? (...or not, is it might be right now)

The amount of money and property they are sat on, it's about time they paid their own way entirely. Like everyone else.

Every penny they get from the tax coffers should go into education instead.

As for National Service, they'd have no quarms sending other peoples kids to serve if they thought they could get away with it.

They do pay their way. They allow the government to collect the revenue of the Crown Estate in return for the 'Civil List' (or Sovereign Grant as it's now known). basically they give 85% of their annual income to the government and retain 15%.

 

[pooley]

They do pay their way. They allow the government to collect the revenue of the Crown Estate in return for the 'Civil List' (or Sovereign Grant as it's now known). basically they give 85% of their annual income to the government and retain 15%.

How very kind of them lol

 

[balky12]

We are a spiteful nation. How about politicians sacrifice their 10% pay increase and instead use that money towards it. Or better yet, how about we stop bank rolling the Royal family and let them provide their own private security, upkeep of property, travel expenses all out of their own pockets.

That's your deficit taken care of.

The grim reality is that there just aren't enough jobs to go around and some people will need to sit on the dole until it's their turn.

I can see the banks are about to try and put a stop to people buying houses now. Too many peasants are getting on the property ladder so their city chums can't make a killing from extortionate rents \ investments.

Ouch. I think your post killed a few of my brain cells.

Enough jobs? There are plenty of jobs out there, just people chose not to do certain jobs or the wage isn't up to their liking.

Too many peasants on the housing ladder? I would assume that if one is on the housing ladder, they are probably not a ‘peasant’.

‘The Royal Family and MPs are the cause of the deficit’ :\-Yes the Royal Family is a cost to the tax payer. Ever thought about how much money they bring into the UK through tourism? People flocking from around the globe to see the Monarchy? It probably pays for itself many many times over.

You have a very narrow minded and warped sense of reality when it comes to economics. The ‘peasants’ comment was just ignorant.

 

[Tunney]

The fact is there is vastly more work to be done than we'd ever have enough money to pay for, so mobilising our youth to do some of this need not compromise existing labour. It's possible to use this labour sensitively so existing jobs are not compromised.

But even if we did cause public service employment to collapse, why is that a bad thing? Public service jobs don't create any wealth, so if we can provide the same services at 10% of the cost, that is a HUGE win for the nation.

That saved 90% can go towards helping people getting skills and qualifications to do more worthwhile work that will hopefully create further wealth.

So, we would create jobs, have to pay millions of young people in national service at least minimum wage and somehow save 90%? How much do you think hospital cleaners earn?

I don't see how the maths add up on that one.

 

[balky12]

We're a service driven society nowadays, unfortunately. Need to find a way of bringing back the manufacturing, creativity and enterprise.

Now that University costs are too high for most, the talent pool will shrink for awhile. More and more employers are keen to put staff through corporate qualifications, so it will iron itself out.

Nothing wrong with being service driven. We can't compete on a manufacturing scale like many other countries.

I never quite understand the University costs thing. Yes they have increased, but it's 'free' until you leave. You just have to pay you're way in life (food / housing ) whilst you're there. No different to if you didn't go to Uni. Go to Uni, study a proper degree, do well, and the student debt is a non issue. Heck the repayments are stupidly low anyways.

However, I do like that less people are going to Uni. It should go back to what it was, a place for the elite. Not for 50% of the population to have a jolly up and study photography / Tourism and Health and Beauty. Well played Labour.

 

[dirtychinchilla]

most beligerent forum member goes to Arthur Hucksake

 

[Schlong&Stable]

So, we would create jobs, have to pay millions of young people in national service at least minimum wage and somehow save 90%? How much do you think hospital cleaners earn?

I don't see how the maths add up on that one.

We'll not be paying them minimum wage, it's national service. Legislation would be amended to this affect.

Also, I never said we'd save 90%. I said "if we can save 90%". Even if there was no saving, it would still be a worthwhile exercise in my view. As I said, I am more interested in social cohesion, civic responsibility and so forth.

 

[pooley]

Nothing wrong with being service driven. We can't compete on a manufacturing scale like many other countries.

I never quite understand the University costs thing. Yes they have increased, but it's 'free' until you leave. You just have to pay you're way in life (food / housing ) whilst you're there. No different to if you didn't go to Uni. Go to Uni, study a proper degree, do well, and the student debt is a non issue. Heck the repayments are stupidly low anyways.

However, I do like that less people are going to Uni. It should go back to what it was, a place for the elite. Not for 50% of the population to have a jolly up and study photography / Tourism and Health and Beauty. Well played Labour.

Yeah know your place peasant...

 

[Schlong&Stable]

Yeah know your place peasant...

I suspect he meant the most academically gifted, rather than the aristocracy.

 

[pooley]

I suspect he meant the most academically gifted, rather than the aristocracy.

You maybe right lol, if so my apologies

 

[Tunney]

However, I do like that less people are going to Uni. It should go back to what it was, a place for the elite. Not for 50% of the population to have a jolly up and study photography / Tourism and Health and Beauty. Well played Labour.

You'd like that despite the causal link between higher education entrants and GDP?

"The results of the causality test showed the presence of uni‐directional causality from higher education to economic development in the case of four countries: Japan (1885‐1975), the United Kingdom (1919-1987), France (1899‐1986) and Sweden (1910‐1986)"

This is just one of many studies.

As you said, well played Labour.

 

[balky12]

Thought it was quite clear that I was refering to academic ability, especially when mentioned in contrast to Health and Beauty.

But apology accepted

PEASANT!!

 

[MikeTheNative]

That's right bring it back and put all the benefit scroungers and foreigners to good use.

 

[thep02]

That's right bring it back and put all the benefit scroungers and foreigners to good use.

Or get all the time wasting workers on the dole give the qualified unemployed the freed up jobs then get all the newly unemployed slackers into servitude.

 

[Schlong&Stable]

You'd like that despite the causal link between higher education entrants and GDP?

"The results of the causality test showed the presence of uni‐directional causality from higher education to economic development in the case of four countries: Japan (1885‐1975), the United Kingdom (1919-1987), France (1899‐1986) and Sweden (1910‐1986)"

This is just one of many studies.

As you said, well played Labour.

It's a given that a better educated population will lead to higher GDP. What is not proven that a University degree is the only way of achieving that. There is a whole range of options available for higher education, not just forcing everyone into a University.

 

[balky12]

You'd like that despite the causal link between higher education entrants and GDP?

"The results of the causality test showed the presence of uni‐directional causality from higher education to economic development in the case of four countries: Japan (1885‐1975), the United Kingdom (1919-1987), France (1899‐1986) and Sweden (1910‐1986)"

This is just one of many studies.

As you said, well played Labour.

Why I do not disagree with what you have put, you are comparing two different periods in time. (1919-1987 /your study) to (1997-2010/my comment re Labour and 50% Uni educated).

Do you think that 50% of the country needs to be degree educated? Some of the Universities are a laugh, and some of the courses even funnier. Some poor students are sold on the idea that if they go to any uni and get any degree that they will be worth their weight in gold. When they come out and are not in demand, nor anywhere near what they thought they would be worth its a big shock to them. Sold a pack of lies.

But this is going off at a tangent now.

 

[RoboCod]

I would not like to work alongside someone who didn't really want to be there, they would be a hinderance and a potential danger to me and my other colleagues. Anyhow, the government has spent decades stream lining our forces, there is no chance they would suddenly bloat it with a large number of useless plebs


EDIT: I see a few people above making statements about how people on the dole and immigrants could "be put to good use and made to serve", etc. Clearly they don't realise the sheer cost of just training an individual at basic training, let alone having them continue on to 2nd and 3rd phase training then serve for X years.

Why I do not disagree with what you have put, you are comparing two different periods in time. (1919-1987 /your study) to (1997-2010/my comment re Labour and 50% Uni educated).

Do you think that 50% of the country needs to be degree educated? Some of the Universities are a laugh, and some of the courses even funnier. Some poor students are sold on the idea that if they go to any uni and get any degree that they will be worth their weight in gold. When they come out and are not in demand, nor anywhere near what they thought they would be worth its a big shock to them. Sold a pack of lies.

But this is going off at a tangent now.

GYPSYs.

 

[pitchfork]

Potentially, yes. But it would also create a lot of jobs as we'd need people to train and manage them. Plus, it creates work for those in the supply chain: uniform and tools will need to bought etc.

It would cost jobs in the public and private sector and not replace them but hiring a few slave drivers and then using more public money to buy goods from private sector firms.

The fact is there is vastly more work to be done than we'd ever have enough money to pay for, so mobilising our youth to do some of this need not compromise existing labour. It's possible to use this labour sensitively so existing jobs are not compromised.

No there isn't, what the hell are you talking about? Businesses underhire - not because they can't afford to hire more people but because they can survive like that and make more money. There's a reason in some companies people work so much (often unpaid) overtime.

But even if we did cause public service employment to collapse, why is that a bad thing? Public service jobs don't create any wealth, so if we can provide the same services at 10% of the cost, that is a HUGE win for the nation.

People are going to work for free, let alone do it well. Not everyone in the public sector is unskilled - do you even know what the hell you're talking about? Not only that but staffing isn't even close to the biggest cost, the savings would be minimal at best.

I work in the public sector and most people have masters degrees if not PhD's, and you couldn't rope in an 18 year old to do the job neither.

Public sector jobs don't just do nothing, the vast majority of public services fund investments which generate huge amounts of wealth in all 3 sectors, not to mention the impact outside of finance - social issues, medicine, technology, space exploration, engineering the list goes on.

That saved 90% can go towards helping people getting skills and qualifications to do more worthwhile work that will hopefully create further wealth.

And who's going to bother funding it? The public sector workers you just sacked so you can force people into slavery?

You really don't have a clue what you're talking about. Your concept of labour market economics seems to be based on "I dun red the newspaper once" and your concept of job creation is comparable to that of a small child.