Quote:
Originally Posted by Scucca  Then you didn't understand what I said. You typed "of course there was fairness" whilst I described why inequities were rampant.
Given those inequities I've referred to, there is a lower probability of a high ability student from a poor background attending university. Thus, the extra places are more likely to be taken up by lower ability workers from a rich background.
There were numerous reasons. A mundane explanation is structural change in the economy with informal on-the-job training preferred (particularly in the service sector). However, we also have to refer to the consequences of the "free market". There was a move towards labour market flexibility which encouraged non-traditional forms of employment (particularly part time and temporary contracts). This reduced the value from employers investing in training and therefore further hampered our skills base. The return to apprenticeships is a reaction against that (and of course your hubby would know that the free market fails to deliver because of the distinction between "specific" and "general" human capital) |
Thanks, but I don't need my husband for this one. I'll fly solo if that's okay with you. I know the worth of human capital and that specific human capital can be very useful to employers who seek that person's specific knowledge and skill. Therefore, it is to the advantage of employers to cultivate employees and train them from general human capital to specific human capital. Unfortunately, in today's society there is so much emphasis on performance that employers are no longer as invested in their employees as they used to be. It is seen as a good thing to have a wide variety of knowledge and experience. Employees are encouraged to move within an organisation to promote a greater knowledge base and prevent the maintaining of the status quo.
