Depends on how well they’ll cope with the boredom of working at a lower level than they are capable of.
Millennials are likely to enjoy the biggest "inheritance boom"
- Thread starter LabR@t
- Start date
Experience usually trumps qualifications.
But I guess it depends on the degree they have. If it's a STEM subject then you can apply that to a lot of things and they will likely get promoted and be useful to the company, these people are normally quite intelligent. If they did something like "gender studies", then that's basically the same as no experience and no qualifications.
Agreed. A democracy benefits greatly from having a well-educated population. We need critical thinkers.
Yet you seem to think the young dislike the old, where are you getting this from, are you mentally impaired?
Soldato
- Joined
- 15 Feb 2003
- Posts
- 10,175
- Location
- Europe
Surely that depends on the employer and what they are looking for.
I would not employ say the Digital marketing manager of say Coke-a-cola to handle a Twitter help desk for a courier company. It would be a waste of time, skills, and I'd imagine he/she would get bored and potentially sabotage the feed, or mess around with Easter eggs or similar.
You’ve openly said you are a misanthrope and that you dislike everyone, though it seems there are some you dislike more than others.
I'm not, do explain. Or is this where you bang on about the war, as per the more recent reply? You cannot argue against the fact that as time and society has moved on, consequent generations have got richer and more better-off than their parents. This is what happens in a first-world improving society. However, with the financial and housing crises this has stopped. Sorry, but that's a fact.
That's absolutely insane!
In terms of relative wealth, this is only true since the end of WW2 until about 1980.
The Baby Boomer period saw unprecedented growth and productivity rates which were ultimately due to the shocks of the two World Wars and the Great Depression.
The biggest problem for our generation is that our parents profited from it and convinced us that it was the “new normal.”
In fact, all that’s happened since the 80s is a return to the inequality that was always present, right up until the beginning of WW1.
That’s not to say that living standards haven’t increased; the poorest in our society today are considerably better off than the poorest people in the world, or the poorest people in this country 100 years ago.
I’m also not suggesting that a return to the old levels of inequality is a good thing. However, saying that millennials are the first generation to be poorer than their parents needs to be put into context.
Definitely, but not just for democracy’s sake.
There are loads of areas that benefit including crime, health and other socioeconomic outcomes.
Agrreed better educated criminals, lets just have some edcuated crime for gawds sake!
Wtf.
lol
Better educated criminals = more white collar crime = lower security prisons = money saved on rehabilitation?
Better educated populous means lower crime rates full stop. That’s all there is to it. Mind you, whether the education is the cause or simply a side effect of other factors I couldn’t say.
There will be an assload of research on links between education and crime rates if anyone can be arsed to look it up.
There will be an assload of research on links between education and crime rates if anyone can be arsed to look it up.
Last edited:
A significant amount. Rather than 40% of the value of the estate over a limit it means those that inherit it are taxed. So if one person inherited everything they’d get taxed on the lot, but if multiple people inherited them they’d get taxed on what they actually received individually. It’s a tax on income/gain, not a tax on wealth (which the current “IHT”/death tax is).
What’s your endgame with this? More tax levied on inheritances?
So you want more of people’s eatates taxed? I don’t see why you couldn’t achieve that just by reducing the nil rate band.