We are reinvigorating what retirement means

[Mich the Tester]

Most people have to work part time while studying anyway. That's why the courses are only 10 hours a week.

Do they really? Most of them? OK, a few of them, but I think most students are middle class kids who are largely financed by their parents and perhaps work an evening in the pub for a little extra money.

[doodab]

Do they really? Most of them? OK, a few of them, but I think most students are middle class kids who are largely financed by their parents and perhaps work an evening in the pub for a little extra money.

I suspect the parents are finding the tuition fees eat up a lot of the money they had set aside so that little extra money is more important than you think, and there are a lot more people who aren't funded by mummy and daddy than there used to be.

Edit: I've no hard facts though, so if you can be bothered to dig some up that would be interesting.

[Mich the Tester]

I suspect the parents are finding the tuition fees eat up a lot of the money they had set aside so that little extra money is more important than you think, and there are a lot more people who aren't funded by mummy and daddy than there used to be.

Edit: I've no hard facts though, so if you can be bothered to dig some up that would be interesting.

Yep, well that's what happens if you send 50% of kids to university; you can't give them all proper student grants. Why not give full, decent student grants to 10 or 15% of young people, based purely on ability, and let the rest finance their own way through part time or OU courses, or simply get on the job training or an apprenticeship to do something useful? They could even join the forces, which provide excellent education for young people.

End the obsession with sending too many kids to university and you've solved the problem of student finances AND got people working for longer in one step.

[doodab]

Yep, well that's what happens if you send 50% of kids to university; you can't give them all proper student grants. Why not give full, decent student grants to 10 or 15% of young people, based purely on ability, and let the rest finance their own way through part time or OU courses, or simply get on the job training or an apprenticeship to do something useful? They could even join the forces, which provide excellent education for young people.

End the obsession with sending too many kids to university and you've solved the problem of student finances AND got people working for longer in one step.

Well yes, it's a valid point.

Personally I fear we've made the world too complicated that the average 16 - 18 year old can be that useful in the workplace though, and while apprenticeships are a possible solution to that problem the modern corporation (unsurprisingly) doesn't seem to keen on giving young people a free tertiary education only to have them leave for a higher paid job. In the days of state owned monopolies it was perhaps more viable because there was nowhere for them to go and they would repay the investment over many years.

[stillooking]

FFS we're contractors, why worry about the measly state pension. I'll be retiring at 50 anyway only 7 years to go !

Retiring at 50? That would be nice, but not feasible (for me)