some questions for British liberals (or labor) - Page 7

Happy Days · 07-15-08, 07:34 PM

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.

Scucca · 07-15-08, 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Happy Days

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.

You've gone a snip wonky! The difference between specific and general training is that the latter empowers the worker (i.e. the worker can jump ship and acquire the full value of the training via a higher wage at a different firm). We essentially have a 'free market' problem generated by imperfect contracting (i.e. the employer has little incentive to provide training unless he can force the worker to stay put).

Britain suffered the full consequences of labour market flexibility. The 'free market', by encouraging low wage and temporary labour, further hampered the demand for skills investment.

Happy Days · 07-15-08, 08:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scucca

You've gone a snip wonky! The difference between specific and general training is that the latter empowers the worker (i.e. the worker can jump ship and acquire the full value of the training via a higher wage at a different firm). We essentially have a 'free market' problem generated by imperfect contracting (i.e. the employer has little incentive to provide training unless he can force the worker to stay put).

Britain suffered the full consequences of labour market flexibility. The 'free market', by encouraging low wage and temporary labour, further hampered the demand for skills investment.

Employers in some markets (think oil) are now having to find ways to make it worth their employees while to stay around. They are having to offer incentives such as stock options etc based on time served. This has more to do with the employees "specific" knowledge and skill rather than the "general" knowledge they learned at university. The "free market" for human capital allows the employee to be trained by one employer for a few years then jump ship with a massive signing bonus to another. Isn't that the point of a free market - prices get to a natural equilibrium? Therefore, if the employee has skills that are valuable then they should be paid for at a high rate than those of employees whose skills are in adequate supply.

Scucca · 07-16-08, 04:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Happy Days

Isn't that the point of a free market - prices get to a natural equilibrium? Therefore, if the employee has skills that are valuable then they should be paid for at a high rate than those of employees whose skills are in adequate supply.

Unless it is specific training (i.e. training that only increases the productivity of the worker in his/her current employment), there is no means that the employer can guarantee that- despite the expense of training- it will receive a return from the human capital investment. This will ensure that there is underprovision of general training (i.e. training that increases the productivity of the worker in current and other employment). The free market will assuredly fail.

Infinite Chaos · 07-23-08, 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by new coup for you

Might it be that while the US remains TOO focused on religion, race, nationalism and other "identity groups" perhaps British culture is similarly lopsided towards class?

The British obsession with class doesn't just manifest itself in beneficial socialist politics- it also manifests itself in bias and class based xenophobia (seemingly occupying the same position as race does in the US).

Your classes have accents. You can tell someone's wealth just by talking to them. That's weird- and nearly unthinkable in the US.

Doesn't it seem possible that while focusing on class allows beneficial class consciousness, it also reinforces class ceilings and stunts mobility?

Interesting debate, I'm off to bed shortly but on the subject of social mobility - Scucca (from my quick skim reading) seems to generally echo some interesting findings reflected HERE ON BBC PAGES

Quote:

The US has always prided itself on a rising standard of living and a fair chance for those at the bottom of the economic pile to rise to the top.

And it has tolerated a higher degree of inequality than many European countries, as long as the chance of social mobility remained strong.

But new research suggests that the belief that poor Americans can rise to the top is increasingly a myth.

And the changes to social mobility may help explain why concerns about the economy have become such a pressing issue in the US presidential election.

No rags-to-riches

According to research by the Brookings Institution, a respected Washington think-tank, social mobility is less likely in the next generation than it was in the 1950s and 1960s.

Scucca · 07-24-08, 09:54 AM

Anglo-Saxon countries are linked by their high poverty and acute income inequality. Encouraged by the nonsense of Blairite "third way" politics, we've actually tended towards American perceptions: i.e. poverty encourages a work ethic and therefore is often a short term phenomenon. This has encouraged a different understanding of class: i.e. the notion of the moral underclass where those that do not progress are the feckless and the useless. However, our desperately poor mobility rates are inconsistent with that view.

In terms of developed western nations, the Anglo-Saxon countries tend towards the most class ridden. The UK and the US, in particular, show common traits in their failure to increase intergenerational mobility rates.