Making the news today....

[AHPP]

11 minutes ago, Steven P said:

better than throwing thousands of employees on the scrap heap.

I’d say it isn’t. If something’s dying, let it die quickly and with dignity. Don’t effectively put the workers on the dole where they still go in and pull the levers but know in themselves it’s fake. 

Edited 12 hours ago by AHPP

[Steven P]

I haven't looked at the age demographic though - yes, I'd tend to agree that let them go quick so that they can get out there, retrain, enter a new line of work and be happy productive workers. All well and good if you are under say 35. Once you get past 50, retrain and enter the workforce is going to take 5 to 7 years... you are starting a new career aged nearly 60.. and who is going to employ a near 60 year old 'new start' knowing they'll only get 5 years profitable work from them?

 

Aligned with this near 60 year old looking for a new career, there could be another 4000 of them similarly recently trained looking for new jobs in a town where there are not that many vacancies. Let them move for work? Away from their lifelong homes, kids and grandkids? Look to the North East, it takes generations to revitalise an area when the sole major employer closes, holistically a managed decline is a better option I think, let them retire where they work, and develop the young to move into new industries.

[AHPP]

The north east’s decline is being managed by giving everyone the dole, either at home with drugs and television or in some government job. How’s that going? Poorly. Not much real industry. Distorted markets. Swathes of pointlessness. 
 

Paternalism might be well intentioned but it doesn’t work. Have the humility to accept individuals can’t push components of societies round like chess pieces. The pieces WILL do their own thing and you’ll end up with a weird mess.

[openspaceman]

2 hours ago, Steven P said:

Unfortunately a consequence of Thatcher - the Right wing hero - breaking the miners unions and subsequently the downfall of the UK coal industry. 40 years ago.

Funnily enough,  and apart from the way she set about it, it was the only good thing I think she did.

 

The worst thing was the moving of the social housing stock into private landlords' hand  and enriching her banking sector friends at the same time.

 

The second worst was going with Keith Joseph  rather than Goldsmith over GATT.

Edited 10 hours ago by openspaceman
Keith not Kieth