Education

[BumbleBee]

From http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/profiles/commentaries/people.asp

Nearly 30 per cent of adults aged 16-74 in England and Wales have no qualifications. In the North East this reaches 34.7 per cent and in the West Midlands borough of Sandwell it is 45.5 per cent.


London, the South East and the South West have fewest with no qualifications (26 per cent or less). London has 31 per cent with degree level or higher. However, the North East has just 15 per cent and Corby in Northamptonshire is the lowest district with 8.5 per cent.

Why is there such a difference?

[byny]

Perhaps its because all the well educated people move down the country because they believe the standard of living/career prospects are better - so that leaves other parts of the country poorer and good teachers don't want to teach in the schools so people in these areas continue to suffer....

perhaps,

but I really don't know. ...Maybe its like Wales..they spend all the money on improving the South while the North suffers from underfunding, bad roads and neglect etc .

[BumbleBee]

Good point about people moving etc.

I think it has a lot to do with culture.

[kevlar85]

Originally posted by BumbleBee
From http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/profiles/commentaries/people.asp


Why is there such a difference?

Because back in "ye olden days" when it was only a small proportion of people who went to university they would almost always go to work for the government or the media or the banks in the City - all in London. So this created a natural leaning towards the South East which has only increased as more people become more qualified because people with the same qualifications tend to group together and there are less job opportunities for people with degrees in the North because there are less people with degrees in the North for firms to hire so they move south... it's a vicious cycle which should be tackled by the government but they haven't got the balls to properly address the North/South divide and it's damaging both the underused North and the overheating South.

[monocrat]

The state should possess no role in education at all. At the very least (if the state has to maintain a role in educating people), the National Curriculm must be changed.

[Darth Fred]

Originally posted by monocrat
The state should possess no role in education at all.

Why not? There is a strong externality argument for leaving education in the public sector, since the private sector will tend to underprovide.

[pnjsurferpoet]

People from the UK have been posting since I got on the Internet in 2001...on all different sites hosted both in the UK and Canada that the government funnels jobs and educational opportunities to the South. They've also claimed that's why their riots in a few Northern cities a bit ago. Is it true? I don't know but it's consistently posted that way by people who claim to be British on the Internet.

[monocrat]

Originally posted by Darth Fred
Why not? There is a strong externality argument for leaving education in the public sector, since the private sector will tend to underprovide.

So?

[kevlar85]

Originally posted by monocrat
The state should possess no role in education at all. At the very least (if the state has to maintain a role in educating people), the National Curriculm must be changed.

You really are an A grade idiot aren't you? The states role in education is not only desirable but wholly necessary - my god this has been a consensus between virtually everyone in the Western world since the 19th century. If you do not have state provision of education, education is underprovided because it would be an expensive resource for most families to afford. Also the quality would deteriorate as the best teachers were attracted by the biggest pay checks and so you'd get an infinite multiplication of the private/state divide in education. Plus you'd get some parents who would just sit their kids down in front of Channel 4 Schools shows and call that an education. The states role is necessary because if we are less educated we are poorer and more divided as a nation. Get your head out of those textbooks and into the real world!

[monocrat]

Originally posted by kevlar85
You really are an A grade idiot aren't you? The states role in education is not only desirable but wholly necessary - my god this has been a consensus between virtually everyone in the Western world since the 19th century. If you do not have state provision of education, education is underprovided because it would be an expensive resource for most families to afford.

So? Voluntary charity could provide for those with no financial means to support their education.
[b]
Also the quality would deteriorate as the best teachers were attracted by the biggest pay checks and so you'd get an infinite multiplication of the private/state divide in education. Plus you'd get some parents who would just sit their kids down in front of Channel 4 Schools shows and call that an education. Get your head out of those textbooks and into the real world!

The state's role shouldn't be to educate people. It should only protect people from force and fraud.

[BumbleBee]

Originally posted by pnjsurferpoet
They've also claimed that's why their riots in a few Northern cities a bit ago. Is it true?
If you're talking abut Oldham/Bradford/Leeds way then I think they were race riots. I live in a northern city (well, to be fair, I live between three northern cities - Sunderland, Newcastle and Durham, about the same distance from each) and there haven't been any riots in our part!

[kevlar85]

Originally posted by monocrat
So? Voluntary charity could provide for those with no financial means to support their education.


The state's role shouldn't be to educate people. It should only protect people from force and fraud.

And you seriously believe that charity could raise the same amounts of money? The rich would spend their education money on privately educating their kids and the poor would have peanuts in comparison to fund the education of poor kids - hence there would be a huge division in educational quality. Also what about the economies of scale achieved from having the state as the main single provider of education? They would be lost which would unnecessarily increase the cost of education.

Okay, assuming you're right on the role of the state but I don't believe you are but that's a matter of opinion. If you have an undereducated majority who are unable to get decent jobs and a well educated minority who are able to get the well paying jobs - you therefore increase the disparities in wealth, therefore it is much more likely that the undereducated will turn to crime to get the things they couldn't get because of their lack of education - therefore it is in the interests of the vast majority of people that there is state education to protect people from the crime which would be committed if there was no state education. And more simply for the second part - isn't it a lot easier to defraud stupid people?

[monocrat]

Originally posted by kevlar85
And you seriously believe that charity could raise the same amounts of money? The rich would spend their education money on privately educating their kids and the poor would have peanuts in comparison to fund the education of poor kids - hence there would be a huge division in educational quality. Also what about the economies of scale achieved from having the state as the main single provider of education? They would be lost which would unnecessarily increase the cost of education.

I doubt it.

[kevlar85]

Originally posted by monocrat
I doubt it.

Is that going to be a Monocrap one liner or am I going to get an explanation as to why you believe that's so?..

..or can't you find the answer in your textbooks? :lol:

[monocrat]

I don't read any textbooks.

[squat_tom]

Originally posted by kevlar85
..or can't you find the answer in your textbooks? :lol:
You do realise that you're making fun of someone for wanting to educate themselves.

[kevlar85]

Originally posted by squat_tom
You do realise that you're making fun of someone for wanting to educate themselves.

Monocrat: "I don't read any textbooks."

Clearly he doesn't want to educate himself. :) Besides, that was an in-joke, some people here think that Monocrat just gives great philosophical questions and argues his point from a theoretical textbook type perspective without applying any real knowledge of the world. That was what the joke was about.

I am always in favour of people wanting to gain knowledge and if I can help anyone with that I'm more than willing to assist someone who is seeking to further their knowledge but thank you for that wonderful pre-judgement of me. :p

[kevlar85]

Originally posted by monocrat
I don't read any textbooks.

Maybe you should start then? I suggest some economics about economies of scale, monopsonist employers and merit goods for a start.

But back on topic - can you provide a further explanation for the question I asked you earlier or not?

[monocrat]

Originally posted by kevlar85
Maybe you should start then? I suggest some economics about economies of scale, monopsonist employers and merit goods for a start.

No thanks. I already have enough knowledge of politics from the textbooks I used to read.

But back on topic - can you provide a further explanation for the question I asked you earlier or not? [/B]

To me it's no consequence that 'the poor' couldn't finance their education. Charity is better at aiding the poor then social security.

[kevlar85]

Originally posted by monocrat
No thanks. I already have enough knowledge of politics from the textbooks I used to read.

To me it's no consequence that 'the poor' couldn't finance their education. Charity is better at aiding the poor then social security.

You should throw in some economics, it explains a lot of the points about property rights and so on that you are unsure of.

So you would rather have the poor unable to develop their education to get out poverty and you would be willing to see a huge underclass with all the negative consequences that would generate? Charity is not better at aiding the poor than social security, firstly it isn't targetted for the poorest groups; secondly, you can't guarantee that everyone who needs support will get it and thirdly, the amount given to charity will be nothing like the amount social security can provide so you'd have people starving and dying in the streets - is that really what you want?

[monocrat]

So you would rather have the poor unable to develop their education to get out poverty and you would be willing to see a huge underclass with all the negative consequences that would generate? Charity is not better at aiding the poor than social security, firstly it isn't targetted for the poorest groups; secondly, you can't guarantee that everyone who needs support will get it and thirdly, the amount given to charity will be nothing like the amount social security can provide so you'd have people starving and dying in the streets - is that really what you want?

I don't think there would be an underclass.

[Clandestine]

Originally posted by monocrat
I don't think ...

That much is true! :lol:

[kevlar85]

Originally posted by monocrat
I don't think there would be an underclass.

Can you defend that point of view?

I say there would be an underclass because the lack of a decent education because of the underprovision if it wasn't provided by the state - all economic sense backs this so don't suggest charities would plug the gap; they couldn't - so you would have a huge number of undereducated people who would only be able to compete for a limited number of low skilled jobs and so those in work would be on the minimum wage while the vast majority of these people would be on Unemployment Benefit because they would be no jobs they could apply for. Meanwhile, those who did have the skills would be earning more and more as more skilled jobs are demanded thus leading to a huge gap between the privately educated minority, and the poorly educated majority thus leading to a huge underclass with the increases in poverty, ill health and crime this would lead to.

[ElysiumUnknown]

There needs to be more equal substantiated debating here. Kevlar's is going to waste. Is more than one sentence too much to ask?

I was going to join in....then I saw monocrats one-liners and hastily pressed the back button.

[monocrat]

Originally posted by kevlar85
Can you defend that point of view?

Yes.

I say there would be an underclass because the lack of a decent education because of the underprovision if it wasn't provided by the state - all economic sense backs this so don't suggest charities would plug the gap; they couldn't - so you would have a huge number of undereducated people who would only be able to compete for a limited number of low skilled jobs and so those in work would be on the minimum wage while the vast majority of these people would be on Unemployment Benefit because they would be no jobs they could apply for. Meanwhile, those who did have the skills would be earning more and more as more skilled jobs are demanded thus leading to a huge gap between the privately educated minority, and the poorly educated majority thus leading to a huge underclass with the increases in poverty, ill health and crime this would lead to.

No. With education provided for in a free market, all would be able to find suitable education for their children.

As for minimum wages, that needs to be scrapped as too high a level causes unemployment.

[kevlar85]

Originally posted by monocrat
Yes.


No. With education provided for in a free market, all would be able to find suitable education for their children.

As for minimum wages, that needs to be scrapped as too high a level causes unemployment.

Actually the free market would lead to an underprovision of education because education is a merit good - meaning it has a delayed benefit so people won't see the point on spending money on it. Also you talk about a "suitable" education, this interests me, you mean you're perfectly happy for the rich to be able to afford a high quality private school education and for the rest of the nation's kids to make do with whatever they're given even if that's just watching the schools programmes on TV or having one old battered textbook between 10 with unqualified teachers. Because that is what would happen if you got rid of state education.

Since we've had the minimum wage unemployment has only fallen, how would you explain that? Also the minimum wage has a positive effect on the economy - as poor people who benefit from the minimum wage spend a greater proportion of their income it helps contribute to growth in the economy.

[monocrat]

I'd 'explain that' since the minimum wage has been set at a reasonable level. Some unions have been calling for a five pound minimum wage, which in my opinion is too high. The fact that people can be priced out of the workforce by an overly high minimum wage is an evident danger of such a thing.

[kevlar85]

Originally posted by monocrat
I'd 'explain that' since the minimum wage has been set at a reasonable level. Some unions have been calling for a five pound minimum wage, which in my opinion is too high. The fact that people can be priced out of the workforce by an overly high minimum wage is an evident danger of such a thing.

Really? What a short memory you have - I remember back in 1999 when the minimum wage was introduced the CBI and the Tories said how the £3.60 rate would lead to huge unemployment - now it's £4.20 so why does 80p extra mean huge unemployment when we've already increased the rate by 60p already over four years? If we put the minimum wage at £4.99 would we avoid the huge increase in unemployment that you would get at £5.00 - or is it just because the unions are asking for £5.00 that you oppose it?

[monocrat]

I oppose a minimum wage because it can cause unemployment.

[Aladdin]

Well maybe if the first boss who sacked employees in order to protect his massive profits was put against a wall and shot, other bosses would think twice before firing anyone for the sake of greed.

You could then safely put the minimum wage up to £5 (which despite what capitalist greedy bastards and tories claim it would not bankrupt anybody) knowing that no employees would be sacked as a result of Company greed.

See? Problem solved! :)

[monocrat]

Originally posted by Aladdin
Well maybe if the first boss who sacked employees in order to protect his massive profits was put against a wall and shot, other bosses would think twice before firing anyone for the sake of greed.

You could then safely put the minimum wage up to £5 (which despite what capitalist greedy bastards and tories claim it would not bankrupt anybody) knowing that no employees would be sacked as a result of Company greed.

See? Problem solved! :)

I like your selective ethics. :lol:

Marxist, huh?

[Aladdin]

It makes perfect sense. :)

[monocrat]

OK..:rolleyes:

[kevlar85]

Originally posted by monocrat
I oppose a minimum wage because it can cause unemployment.

Anything can cause unemployment - the only way to guarantee no unemployment is to become Communist! Are you suggesting we become Communist Mono? :lol:

Incompetent management can lead to unemployment; Companies giving shareholders too large dividends and therefore underinvesting in their company can cause unemployment; A bad advertising campaign can cause unemployment.. do you see where I'm going with this? Anything can cause unemployment and in fact the evidence from four years of the minimum wage of falling unemployment shows the opposite is true - and that is a fact.

[monocrat]

Unemployment has been falling for over ten years and in periods when there was no minimum wage.

'Incompetent management' is irrelvant. Unemployment has been falling because the economy has been growing at a steady rate.

The government were lucky not to have set the minimum wage at TOO HIGH a level.

[kevlar85]

Originally posted by monocrat
Unemployment has been falling for over ten years and in periods when there was no minimum wage.

'Incompetent management' is irrelvant. Unemployment has been falling because the economy has been growing at a steady rate.

The government were lucky not to have set the minimum wage at TOO HIGH a level.

Yes and it has continued to fall after the introduction of the minimum wage despite the predictions of the CBI, the Institute of Directors and the Tories that it would increase.

Incompetent management is the major issue behind all British business failures, to be honest Britain has some of the most incompetent managers in the world. Who is responsible for the pension shortfalls? The managers who decided to give their workers pension surpluses to parasitic shareholders instead of saving it to cover the stock market downturn. Who is responsible for stupid branding schemes which cost millions of pounds and then have to be withdrawn such as Consignia? The managers. Who is responsible for disastrous performance at firms like Marconi and BT? The managers who award themselves hundreds of thousands of pounds in salaries, golden hellos, golden goodbyes, bonuses, share options and perks while running their firms into the ground. Far from being irrelevant it is the key behind almost all our business failures.

How high is too high? £2.00? £3.00? £4.00? £5.00? When the government set the £3.60 rate that was said to be too high, when they upped it to £4.20 that was said to be too high - time and time again these predictions are proved to be false. £4.20 hasn't caused the millions of unemployed predicted in 1999 so why should £5? Maybe if we cut out the incompetent bosses feathering their own nests and inefficencies in British business we could afford a decent minimum wage.

[BumbleBee]

Originally posted by monocrat
I oppose a minimum wage because it can cause unemployment.
Look at the words you have used there, it can cause unemployment. Why should we legislate because of potential harm? I am pretty sure you've used this argument yourself before in other cases - why legislate for potential anything? Why not just see what happens and deal with the bad stuff when and if it happens?

[BumbleBee]

Hmm, still waiting..... :chin:

[monocrat]

What I said isn't contradictory.

[BumbleBee]

Originally posted by monocrat
What I said isn't contradictory.
Yes actually it is. I advise you put your political theiry books down for a few moments and get out a dictionary.

What you have said in the past is that the government should bot legislate for potential harm but deal with the outcome when harm arises. I see why this should be no different. Why not have a high minimum wage? It might cause unemployment, but so what?

[monocrat]

Minimum wages can harm the economy. I see a difference between THAT and drink driving.

[kevlar85]

Originally posted by monocrat
Minimum wages can harm the economy. I see a difference between THAT and drink driving.

Let me get this straight - you are prepared to legislate against something that could hurt the bosses pay packets, shareholders profits and a faceless business organisation but you are not prepared to legislate against something that could destroy a human life and cause huge amounts of grief for their loved ones?

So in other words as little as few hundred pounds is more important to you than a human life?

[monocrat]

Originally posted by kevlar85
Let me get this straight - you are prepared to legislate against something that could hurt the bosses pay packets, shareholders profits and a faceless business organisation but you are not prepared to legislate against something that could destroy a human life and cause huge amounts of grief for their loved ones?


Yes. :)


So in other words as little as few hundred pounds is more important to you than a human life?

It depends on whose life, no?