NSS - migrants displace workers.

[doodab]

Best thing to do is get them in a job and get the employers to develop them.

But few employers are interested in that, they want the finished article without having to pay for it. Training someone is often seen as a last resort.

[sasguru]

But few employers are interested in that, they want the finished article without having to pay for it. Training someone is often seen as a last resort.

Why should employers pay for training somebody? I don't expect that an employer should train me - I get the qualifications, then I look for work.
It's just another example of the entitlement mentality espoused by vetran (sic).

[vetran]

But few employers are interested in that, they want the finished article without having to pay for it. Training someone is often seen as a last resort.

so make it in their interests to train. My employer runs a number of government funded training courses for staff every year.

Also while they have the choice of cheap resources they will not bother training.

[doodab]

Why should employers pay for training somebody?

Why should the taxpayer? At least if employers took responsibility for it they might get the people they want, and I suspect if you look at the real success stories such as RR, Mclaren, Astrium etc they do exactly that.

I don't expect that an employer should train me - I get the qualifications, then I look for work.

That makes sense if the cost of training is going to be paid back in higher earnings, but if that isn't the case for a particular skill then why should individuals bother to invest in it? They invest in the ones that are seen to pay more (or publicised as such) so you end up with a surfeit of witless MBAs and a shortage of engineers and chemists.

It's just another example of the entitlement mentality espoused by vetran (sic).

That's one way of looking at it. One could also argue that as taxpayers pay tax they are entitled to expect the education system to give their kids an education. I doubt there are many people paying for a private school who don't expect their kids to have a chance of a job at the end of it.

In a more general sense, is something as strategically important as the management of the UK's future skills base best left to the whims of 16 year old school leavers? I'd suggest that freedom of choice is at least part of the reason the current situation has arisen.

[sasguru]

Why should the taxpayer? At least if employers took responsibility for it they might get the people they want, and I suspect if you look at the real success stories such as RR, Mclaren, Astrium etc they do exactly that.



That makes sense if the cost of training is going to be paid back in higher earnings, but if that isn't the case for a particular skill then why should individuals bother to invest in it? They invest in the ones that are seen to pay more (or publicised as such) so you end up with a surfeit of witless MBAs and a shortage of engineers and chemists.



That's one way of looking at it. One could also argue that as taxpayers pay tax they are entitled to expect the education system to give their kids an education. I doubt there are many people paying for a private school who don't expect their kids to have a chance of a job at the end of it.

In a more general sense, is something as strategically important as the management of the UK's future skills base best left to the whims of 16 year old school leavers? I'd suggest that freedom of choice is at least part of the reason the current situation has arisen.

Perhaps the tax-payer shouldn't.
And it should be up to the individual to educate themselves after 16.
Part of the problem with the UK is that the nanny state leads to adults being infantilised especially if from birth to death they've had a council house, free education, free health care, free this and free that.
I've often noticed how many adults behave like infants - I want that, I must have it now.
There doesn't seem to be any deferred gratification in the Uk i.e. I have to plan to get to where I want. It'll take me a few years and require hard work and sacrifice.
Unless only the middle and upper classes think like that.
Although I've noticed in the US, that that attitude is more prevalent probably because people don't get everything handed to them.

[doodab]

Perhaps the tax-payer shouldn't.
And it should be up to the individual to educate themselves after 16.

I think that creates it's own problems with social mobility, and provides no incentive for people to choose the skills employers claim they want.

There doesn't seem to be any deferred gratification in the Uk i.e. I have to plan to get to where I want. It'll take me a few years and require hard work and sacrifice.

That seems to be fairly prevalent at all levels, there seems to be a lack of long term vision particularly among senior decision makers beholden to share prices or 5 year electoral cycles. To some extent that's a systemic failure IMO, the system actively rewards short-termism.

[sasguru]

I think that creates it's own problems with social mobility, and provides no incentive for people to choose the skills employers claim they want.



That seems to be fairly prevalent at all levels, there seems to be a lack of long term vision particularly among senior decision makers beholden to share prices or 5 year electoral cycles. To some extent that's a systemic failure IMO, the system actively rewards short-termism.

It's a legacy of empire.
If you can plunder the empire for years for raw materials and have captive markets where you can re-sell the finished products for a massive profit then there is no need for forward planning.
Just like the French.
That's why Germany's and Switzerland's economic models are so different. Without Empire they had to compete on their own back.
It's made them tougher economically - they save for a rainy day.

[Zero Liability]

I sympathise with Mich, as I am not fond of protectionism either. However, if you have the government subsidising employers and low pay workers, there is a clear issue, and requiring migrants to be economically self-sufficient and precluding them from welfare is one way of limiting that problem.

Regarding employers and training, it's understandable that they may want to offload the costs they may spend training workers onto the taxpayers, but there's no justification for such transfer payments, even from the crudest utilitarian POV.

There's also the fact that with the sheer amount of QE going on on a global scale, where this money is seeping out of the banks, it is seeping into asset markets, which has included commodities. All this serves to do is fuel speculation of the useless sort, where speculators are trying to protect and/or increase their wealth in an environment of incredibly low interest rates and uncertainty created by government policy. So this pushes up the prices of 'vital' consumer goods. Add on taxes like the VAT, plus employment taxes like NIC and the income tax (over a certain threshold), in return for services of declining value that are provided inefficiently, which you may never see (e.g. pensions), and your reservation wage goes up, particularly if benefits are on offer. And the massive subsidy the government provides to stock markets by shoving people into them for their pensions, since savings accounts are close on worthless.

It's not like this country does itself any favours through these policies. I think Sasguru is on the mark with his comments re the nanny state here. This, plus the "peasant" mentality inculcated in the poor, usually in the form of faux-Marxist class analysis implying the 'rich' are screwing them over and it's the fault of the 'rich' (usually this term is applied indiscriminately to capitalists, entrepreneurs and landlords, irrespective of how they earn their income), that they are helpless passive recipients of wages blah blah blah, and yes, you see little drive to move up in life, plus this moronic idea that it's "evil" or "wrong" or w/e to be rich. Feck that. What you need nowadays is an entrepreneurial mentality and adaptivity, not this notion that one company will provide for you throughout your life when most firms aren't even assured of their existence over this period of time. Or the idea that the government is there to be your parent. You can't say most people innately lack these skills when the government educates them for the majority of their youth.

Additionally, it's fair to say the educational system has failed to equip the young with much understanding of their finances. Perhaps because if they possessed this, they would see the stupidity of their government and its policies.

Introducing work permits, limiting immigration to the self-sustaining, slashing taxes and introducing a flat rate tax above a certain income threshold and introducing a minimum income (a.k.a negative income tax) in lieu of most welfare would all be preferable to the mess we have now, in addition to forbidding the government from borrowing against future tax receipts or manipulating the credit markets on a whim to fulfil whatever moronic policy objectives it has in mind at the time, its spending then limited to the minimum required for it to provide infrastructure, law, order and defence. I am actually quite in favour of apprenticeships and the like over and above traditional welfare measures. If the government does get involved with trying to 'retrain' people it should at least pay heed to market pricing, and not just educate people in useless schemes with no commercial value.

[Zero Liability]

Why should employers pay for training somebody? I don't expect that an employer should train me - I get the qualifications, then I look for work.
It's just another example of the entitlement mentality espoused by vetran (sic).

It may be in the employer's interest to do so, e.g. with graduate schemes. But that's purely a consideration that should be left to market forces.

[Goatfell]

Why should employers pay for training somebody? I don't expect that an employer should train me - I get the qualifications, then I look for work.
It's just another example of the entitlement mentality espoused by vetran (sic).

These are very different aspects of a skill set though. Your attractiveness to firms will depend on a balance of qualifications, experience and cost.

Probably why they're are willing to pay more for skilled contractors rather than highly qualified new graduates.