So let’s privatise academia

Business wants a flexible labour market, and the right to hire and fire.

But that means it is not worth investing in training.

What is more business does not want to pay tax.

But they do want the government to ensure that the employees business refuses to train are readily available, on tap, when required.

The words cloud, cuckoo and land come to mind.

It really is time that those writing reports of the type referred to realised four things.

The first is that if they want to make profit they must invest.

Second, the biggest investment required in a skills based economy is in people.

Third, government is good at providing training but it is bound to be generic: it cannot be as specific as most businesses need.

And fourth? Training has to be paid for. And logically the person to pay is the person requiring the skill.

It really is time business stopped trying to free-ride everyone else and then blame anyone but themselves for the consequences.

So, privatise academia and business will indeed be paying for its training needs. Job done!

38 comments on “So let’s privatise academia

  1. But will it provide the choice of aspiration that people require or just drones for others in the pursuit of there aspirations,taxation provides for both outcomes,paying for what employers require doesn’t!

  2. “So, privatise academia and business will indeed be paying for its training needs.”
    Maybe, but only if you can privatise it globally, otherwise companies will cherry pick graduates from countries where governments fund tertiary education, and its McJobs for the rest.

  3. Alex: …and its McJobs for the rest.

    But students under Prof Murphy will not be qualified for much else and may have bought themselves nothing more than cockamamie theories and a sense of grievance with their £27k of student debt.

  4. Business wants a flexible labour market, and the right to hire and fire.
    But that means it is not worth investing in training.

    What the f? Really, you would have to be spectacularly stupid to believe that the second is implied by the first.

    Businesses want to be able to hire good staff and sack poor ones. And they appreciate that update or even re- training is often cheaper and much more effective than sacking somebody whose skill set is a bit out of date and hiring somebody new.

    Oh,

    RAGGING ON RITCHIE

    Okay …

  5. “The words cloud, cuckoo and land come to mind”

    I’m not surprised, after all Murphy lives there.

  6. What few of these lefty cretins, or most of the state don’t understand is the problem of incentives. You train people, they can leave. It’s why apprenticeships died out. It became easier for people to change jobs, so you got companies mooching off others. Eventually, those companies stopped training. Companies even tried having a contract for training in the 80s – leave within a few years and you have to pay it back. The courts overturned these, so companies reduced their training.

    And no, the state is terrible at training. The only stuff worth doing is City and Guilds and the courses for those are defined by a real charity. And the state undermined C&G and BTEC qualifications by turning polys into unis, meaning that my mate is turning out lots of qualified welders who can easily get jobs, but can’t meet the demand. But we’re producing lots of art history graduates. NVQs are crap. The apprenticeships are mostly crap, another YTS scheme. I looked at evening classes in web design for my wife and they were teaching with tools that Microsoft no longer supported.

  7. And fourth? Training has to be paid for. And logically the person to pay is the person requiring the skill.

    So, training costs are born by people? Unlike corporation tax? Nice to know.

    Anyway, you could read that, if you didn’t know what execrable facist wrote it, as meaning that people should pay for their own training. Which would be a justifiable point, if that was the point he was making.

    What he wants, and I may be reading a little too much in to this, is for business to pay for the training the Courageous State’s master craftsman thinks business should pay for. Whether they want it or not. Much like old-fashioned Labour types insist that the only real forms of work are metal-bashing of various types and the more dangerous sorts of mining.

  8. @Rob: Certain branches of Govt are quite good at training: the armed forces have a pretty good reputation in that area…

  9. @Anon:

    “Train people well enough so they can leave. Treat them well enough so they don’t want to.”

    – Richard Branson

  10. Who here would be applying for the degree in advanced fuckwittery in leftwing economics, tutored by Prof 0.2 R Murphy?

  11. Alex

    ” otherwise companies will cherry pick graduates from countries where governments fund tertiary education, and its McJobs for the rest.”

    No they won’t. They want graduates with the skill sets they require. At the moment that just isn’t here, tertiary education being fined or not.

  12. Businesses have been saying for years the state should do some training too. English and maths to start with.
    Every place I have worked has invested in its staff – usually not with formal training except as new staff but still training.

  13. if the people who want the skills should pay then let students take on debt and claim salaries from employers that allow them to pay it back. Oh no wait, that isn’t what he’s proposing, is it?

  14. “Businesses have been saying for years the state should do some training too. English and maths to start with.”

    That’s what 9, no 10, no 12, no 16 years of compulsary school education is for.

  15. It certainly qppears to be the case that, when it comes to the McProfessor himself, Ritchie’s employers at the Upstairs City College haven’t provided him with the slightest training in economics.

  16. Bloke in Germany,

    And how many people has Branson hired as say, apprentice programmers and then spent 2 or 3 months training?

    Most of what Branson does is branding. He might appear on the ads for Virgin Media, but his involvement is nothing more than lending them the Virgin name and his face. Even the airline is nothing more than Branson financing it. I imagine most of the ground crew and maintenance is outsourced.

  17. There is a non trivial difference between training and education and he shouldn’t be using them synonymously. To illustrate:

    I joined the army at 15 as the were doing a double intake as it was the year the school leaving age was rising. Because the Royal Signals really needed people with higher educational attainment they spent 18 months finishing of our education in mats and physics, with an emphasis on electronics. We then spent a further year being trained in the Army’s communications systems, I specialised in radio which was all valves and discreet transistors. If I’d joined the Air Force or Navy the education p[art would have been identical and the training different.

    Later in my career I was given further education to qualify for promotion to WO and on to commission, if unlucky. As that was classed as education (HND at the time now qualifies for degree) I had to commit to 5 years service after the course finished.

    Or put another way, your 14 year old daughter comes home and announces that tomorrow she will be doing sex education. You smile internally because it saves having embarrassing conversations.

    Imagine instead that she came home and announced they would be doing sex training the next day, you’d soon be up in arms at the school.

    Now that we know the difference we can go to Tim’s regular argument that education is a Public Good, we can disagree on the age, but that is something employers, as tax payers, can reasonably expect the State to perform. Training is beneficial to the employee and employer and it is quite right that they should bear the cost.

  18. Paul,

    “taxation provides for both outcomes”

    False. The very purpose for the government monopoly on education is to provide drones for the politically connected cronies.

    “paying for what employers require doesn’t”

    False. Privately provided education means that the education provided are CONSUMER driven, rather than politically driven. Since consumers choose the education they want, rather than having a politically chosen one forced down their throats, the education they get will be geared towards their own aspirations, rather than have their heads filled with political indoctrination in order to pump out the next generation’s drones.

  19. Alex,

    “Maybe, but only if you can privatise it globally, otherwise companies will cherry pick graduates from countries where governments fund tertiary education, and its McJobs for the rest.”

    Have you any evidence to back this up? Why do you simply assume that the politicians that control the government provided education do a good job at all, much less, by definition, will do a better job than privately provided education?

  20. Anon,

    “Eventually, those companies stopped training.”

    Every single company I’ve ever worked for provided detailed and competent training (over a dozen). Your assertions are not based in fact.

  21. Surreptitious Evil,

    “So, training costs are born by people? Unlike corporation tax?”

    Um… since corporations are made up of people corporation taxes are indeed paid for by people.

  22. “@Rob: Certain branches of Govt are quite good at training: the armed forces have a pretty good reputation in that area…”

    True. I doubt he was thinking about that though.

  23. “@Rob: Certain branches of Govt are quite good at training: the armed forces have a pretty good reputation in that area…”

    They used to but I’m not so sure now. The last couple of ex-armed forces people we have had in for interview (I work in electronics) have had no training at component level and little theory. They seem to be trained as board swappers only now.

  24. @Anon, March 29, 2016 at 1:33 pm

    “What few of these lefty cretins, or most of the state don’t understand is the problem of incentives. You train people, they can leave. It’s why apprenticeships died out. It became easier for people to change jobs, so you got companies mooching off others. Eventually, those companies stopped training.”

    My understanding is that trades unions demanding apprentices received similar wages to other employees who were trained/qualified was the reason apprenticeships died out.

    As for Osbourne and his NLW, Apprentice Levy (Tax), Sugar Tax, price controls on pre-paid electricity – welcome to the United Kingdom of Venezuela.

    Would someone confirm who won the 2010 & 2015 UK elections as we appear to still have a G Brown Labour government.

    P

  25. “But that means it is not worth investing in training.

    . . .

    But they do want the government to ensure that the employees business refuses to train are readily available, on tap, when required.”

    Neither of those things is true.

    Businesses are quite willing to ‘invest’ in training when its necessary. Except that businesses, as *competitive* organisms, have learned that specialization leads to greater efficiency. That’s why law firms (engineering firsm, financial firms, whatever firms) don’t train lawyers, *law colleges do*.

    Small businesses train their employees because the tasks that an employee may need to perform are varied an non-standard across businesses and explains why a small business will spend the time to develop a promising employee but a large corporation expects you to hit the ground running on your first day.

    And *nobody* is asking the government to ensure there is a pool of trained people for a business to scoop up.

    Well, except for the people who run the schools that train employees.

  26. “Alex
    March 29, 2016 at 1:02 pm

    “So, privatise academia and business will indeed be paying for its training needs.”
    Maybe, but only if you can privatise it globally, otherwise companies will cherry pick graduates from countries where governments fund tertiary education, and its McJobs for the rest.”

    Government doesn’t fund tertiary education in *any* country – government *takes* money from taxpayers and *gives* it to other people.

    And the reason that ‘mcJobs’ are a problem is *specifically due to government subsidizing of tertiary education’. If every one is a college graduate then no one is.

  27. “And fourth? Training has to be paid for. And logically the person to pay is the person requiring the skill.”

    Surely the person acquiring the skill is the logical one to pay for it?

    The person who requires the skill then pays for it indirectly, through salary.

    That solves all the problem of training an apprentice only for them to leave and work for someone else; if the person being trained pays, the cost falls (indirectly, via salary) on the businesses who employ him.

    A pity Murphy can’t deal with second order effects.

  28. “but a large corporation expects you to hit the ground running on your first day”

    I don’t think this is true. Any jobs you had in mind?

  29. So let’s ‘deconstruct’ the cretin for a minute – Company A (UK based) is competing with company B (UAE based) for a contract to build a hospital (for example) in the UK. What he is saying is that:

    ‘Business wants a flexible labour market, and the right to hire and fire.’

    Thus the Curajus State/ Democratic People Republic of Murphy removes the right of business to have a flexible Labour force – you hire people on minimum two year contracts and can only get rid of them with a tribunal run by the Murphite state saying you can. Meanwhile the RAK/ Abu Dhabi firm has an expat workforce it can get in at will as and when it needs it…

    ‘But that means it is not worth investing in training.’

    So in addition to being guaranteed tenure, training is also to be guaranteed at the employers expense- meanwhile, The RAK/ Abu Dhabi based competitor brings in a pre trained worker with no need to have any responsibility For its perpetual training

    ‘What is more business does not want to pay tax.’

    And indeed the business rates in Abu Djabi and Ras Al Khaimah are 1/10th of the U.K. And a raft of other subsidiary costs are also lower – oddly the UK firm thinks this will make their offer less attractive.

    In short, which company gesture hypothetical contract? Now if you are Lawrence from Guernsey then of course the UK should get it – however, the whole exchange from TRUK appears to be stuck somewhere in the 1970s – quite why this man’s links with Corbyn aren’t front and centre across the story blogosphere and Twitter is a mystery – he is the gift that never stops giving!!

  30. Um… since corporations are made up of people corporation taxes are indeed paid for by people.

    You’ve not been studying the pronouncements of the Lord High Panjundram (sp?) of the Courageous State for very long, have you?

  31. DBCR seems to believe that public schools serve the public, or does he, or what is he drinking today?

  32. When cultural marxism turns into full marxism. all this will be sorted..
    Everybody will be equal, diverse and cheerful. (Or else).
    Though it might be sharia marxism.

  33. @WhatsIt: I would still argue they are well trained, just what they’re trained in is no longer what you’re after. With the increasing move to contractorisation of anything beyond board swapping, or even black box swapping, training them any deeper is no longer deemed necessary. Whether this is wise remains to be determined.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.