Perhaps I am a hipster but I took some low paid jobs because a) I actually liked them and b) I had enough time for my shit. Or did I miss (it) again?

tuco wrote:Its a waste of time, energy and money to have cleaners with degree. Not everyone can be CEO or scientist, someone has to bake bread, clean and wait. Am I saying the obvious or does it really need to be spelled out? Reading mrjonno I am not sure which one it is.

The long history of non-professional degrees, the liberal arts, would say it's not so obvious. Maybe it's good to learn stuff in a formal setting without expecting it to contribute to your career.

I'm all for professional degrees, of course, and I'm all for the idea of making software development more professional. CS degrees at the moment are often pretty useless aside from giving you a piece of paper.

tuco wrote:Its a waste of time, energy and money to have cleaners with degree. Not everyone can be CEO or scientist, someone has to bake bread, clean and wait. Am I saying the obvious or does it really need to be spelled out? Reading mrjonno I am not sure which one it is.

In capitalism people without degree have shit life .. this is not law of nature nor law of capitalism.

Those are individual questions. Socially I think it's better to have an educated populace, but especially so in basic science, history, and literature.

I did not mean to imply that education of those in mentioned professions should end with grammar/high school. Learning is way/for life, and today its possible to educate oneself constantly. I meant to say that aiming for specific degrees through specialised courses is waste for the mentioned professions.

tuco wrote:I did not mean to imply that education of those in mentioned professions should end with grammar/high school. Learning is way/for life, and today its possible to educate oneself constantly. I meant to say that aiming for specific degrees through specialised courses is waste for the mentioned professions.

To be pedantic, if a degree is a waste for a job, then the job isn't a profession. But then, most degrees are not professional degrees. Traditionally, your professions are law, engineering and medicine.

The whole IT thing is a confusion that some IT practitioners and programmers have that they are engineers. They're not. For starters, there are no professional ethics in programming. If there were, the industry would have been sued into non-existence a long time ago, given the near universal shittiness of software.

Fair enough, in mentioned jobs then.

Globe wrote:

mrjonno wrote:I'm not really blaming long term unemployed people because they aren't really that many of them, I'm blaming low skilled people in low paid jobs who were brought up in a 1st world country with 1st world educational opportunities who did not take advantage of it. Where it really was the state fault that these people didn't get an education then that should be rectified but in most cases its just waste of space people having waste of space kids with no real expectations in life.

Polish people cross continents to improve themselves when our local excuses for human beings won't even move 50 miles to improve themselves

Every Eastern European that moves to the UK dilutes the sickness that is the British working classes, the more the better

Not everyone is equipped to "take advantage" of 1. world education.
There will never be 30 No. 1's in a class. There will always, no matter how good the educational system, be those who are better in school and those who are trailing behind.

A bit of a tangent, but this reminds me:

Q: What do you call the guy who graduates last in his class from med school?

A: Doctor.

tuco wrote:Perhaps I am a hipster but I took some low paid jobs because a) I actually liked them and b) I had enough time for my shit. Or did I miss (it) again?

As long as you're not having kids that you expect other people to pay for, more power to you.

Warren Dew wrote:

tuco wrote:Perhaps I am a hipster but I took some low paid jobs because a) I actually liked them and b) I had enough time for my shit. Or did I miss (it) again?

As long as you're not having kids that you expect other people to pay for, more power to you.

What other people? However, yes when other people enter such equation, modifications to the equation can be made. For example: b) to have enough time for kids

Other people pay for everyone's kids. They pay for them to be born, they pay for them to have hospital, GP, eye, hearing and dental care, they pay for them to have child tax credits (all of them, not just people on a low income), they pay for them to be educated.

Cito di Pense wrote:

tuco wrote:Its a waste of time, energy and money to have cleaners with degree. Not everyone can be CEO or scientist, someone has to bake bread, clean and wait. Am I saying the obvious or does it really need to be spelled out? Reading mrjonno I am not sure which one it is.

In capitalism people without degree have shit life .. this is not law of nature nor law of capitalism.

I dunno. Workday is only 8 hours or so, and getting shorter. It would be nice to have something to think about out of the office. The problem is that being poor takes up all your time.

I was watching a lecture from AronRa yesterday, where he talked about one of his early jobs providing tech-support. Low grade, call centre stuff but, he got free and unrestricted internet access out of it and all the overtime he could eat. Most of the calls were pretty basic stuff to handle, so he spent most of his time on the web learning about palaeontology and phylogenetics.

If an individual has the wherewithal, net access and the time available, they can educate themselves pretty darn well.

We employed a developer with a 1st class honors degree... He only just survived his trial period then we had to shit can him because he was just a dopey cunt with no common sense. But clearly, that guy is more economically viable than others because he has a degree.

Fallible wrote:Other people pay for everyone's kids. They pay for them to be born, they pay for them to have hospital, GP, eye, hearing and dental care, they pay for them to have child tax credits (all of them, not just people on a low income), they pay for them to be educated.

Not sure how elsewhere but over here its eventually the kids who pay for other people, specifically retired people. For example, 46% of our budget expenses is "social and welfare" where "pensions" account for 77% of it. In other words, pensions are by far the largest expense of our budget, while 87% of budget income are taxes and other payments mostly generated by those in productive age. In this sense, those without kids are likely to leech on other peoples kids when they retire. The math been done on this. Pointless math, imo, but math nevertheless.

Paying for other people .. I am not gonna engage in such debate. Someone flies to Bahamas and does not pay for CO2 produced and finite resource used. What am I gonna do about it? Make her/him pay for it as then we will be even. Do not want to pay for other people, dont live in society, move to I dunno .. Mars.

Yes, it's a silly argument that you shouldn't have kids if you're going to expect other people to pay for them. It would be far more idiotic to think that only the parents do pay for their kids, because in a society like the one in Britain, which is after all the subject of this thread, people pay for others, be they children, OAPs, the unemployed or the working people who make up the majority like me. I work; I don't know how much I've paid in taxes and NI, but I doubt it's enough to cover all the hospital drugs, equipment (life saving or otherwise) I've used, and scans, x-rays, eye tests, hearing tests and vaccinations I've had during my 30+ year stay in this country, and I'm not done yet. And that's just the medical stuff, which is just one of the publicly funded aspects of this society. I attended state schools to the age of 18. I use roads and railways. One day, other people are going to pay for me to live in old age.

Fallible wrote:I work; I don't know how much I've paid in taxes and NI, but I doubt it's enough to cover all the hospital drugs, equipment (life saving or otherwise) I've used, and scans, x-rays, eye tests, hearing tests and vaccinations I've had during my 30+ year stay in this country, and I'm not done yet.

If you've gotten more out of the system than you paid in, someone else has paid in more than they got out. Those are the people that should have the kids, as it's likely their kids that will help support the system rather than bring it down.

Having welfare and public services can cover the peaks and troughs in life, along with being more efficient to running society (like public health and education) BUT it still assumes the average person will put in roughly what they get back.

No one should be having kids if they don't think there is no reasonable chance of them covering their costs in life, someone on minimum wage all of their life with no expectation of their children doing any better should not be having kids period. If someone on tax credits wants kids and will do everything in their power so their kids will do better than themselves then fair enough, but someone who is a 3rd generation unemployed coal miner expecting the pitts to come back once we get rid of all these pesky foreigners and 'take our country' back should be sterilised if they want any benefits

mrjonno wrote:No one should be having kids if they don't think there is no reasonable chance of them covering their costs in life, someone on minimum wage all of their life with no expectation of their children doing any better should not be having kids period. If someone on tax credits wants kids and will do everything in their power so their kids will do better than themselves then fair enough, but someone who is a 3rd generation unemployed coal miner expecting the pitts to come back once we get rid of all these pesky foreigners and 'take our country' back should be sterilised if they want any benefits

As ever, Jonno reduces having children down to a ludicrously illogical fiscal line.

Warren Dew wrote:

Fallible wrote:I work; I don't know how much I've paid in taxes and NI, but I doubt it's enough to cover all the hospital drugs, equipment (life saving or otherwise) I've used, and scans, x-rays, eye tests, hearing tests and vaccinations I've had during my 30+ year stay in this country, and I'm not done yet.

If you've gotten more out of the system than you paid in, someone else has paid in more than they got out. Those are the people that should have the kids, as it's likely their kids that will help support the system rather than bring it down.

Yes, it's OK, I've seen how this goes. When your silly claim gets challenged, move the goalposts. Even the ones who pay more into the system than they get out don't raise their kids independently of anyone else's money.

Warren Dew wrote: Those are the people that should have the kids, as it's likely their kids that will help support the system rather than bring it down.

No thanks I don't want kids. I accept that my contributions to the system vastly exceed what I get out of it and that helps others get support with raising their kids to produce the productive members of society we need in the future at all levels of employment.

Not looking for a rebate for my contributions just because I don't have or want children. See, I understand the concept of living in a society where we all pitch in to help the collective good. It is something I'm really pleased to be part of.

mrjonno wrote:Having welfare and public services can cover the peaks and troughs in life, along with being more efficient to running society (like public health and education) BUT it still assumes the average person will put in roughly what they get back.

No one should be having kids if they don't think there is no reasonable chance of them covering their costs in life, someone on minimum wage all of their life with no expectation of their children doing any better should not be having kids period. If someone on tax credits wants kids and will do everything in their power so their kids will do better than themselves then fair enough, but someone who is a 3rd generation unemployed coal miner expecting the pitts to come back once we get rid of all these pesky foreigners and 'take our country' back should be sterilised if they want any benefits

First of all, sort your fucking grammar and spelling out if you're going to make claims that anyone who isn't brain damaged is capable of being educated to a high level. Secondly, no one gives a shit about whatever disjointed burblings you can conjure up to make it look like you have something to say.