Why have we allowed the stupid to colonise the media?

Research from the Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission bears this out: far from becoming a meritocracy, Britain’s professions are still a closed shop for those from more impoverished social backgrounds.

Sigh, she means the opposite of course.

Research from the Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission bears this out: far from becoming a meritocracy, Britain’s professions are still a closed shop to those from more impoverished social backgrounds.

So much for having those with post-graduate degrees doing the subbing then, eh?



5 thoughts on “Why have we allowed the stupid to colonise the media?”

  1. My English vocabulary, grammar and spelling are better than my daughter’s who read English at Cambridge: blame her school teachers, modern education theory and exam boards who have raised two generations of linguistically challenged students.

  2. And why are housing ishoos colonised by tiresome lefties?

    Dawn Foster is deputy features editor of Inside Housing and editor of Sustainable Housing magazine

    And how come if someone’s – ahem – “education” background reads something like the following, you can reliably guess what they’re going to say about any political ishoo in advance:

    University of Warwick
    English and Postcolonial Literature

    And how come complaints like these are always framed as some sort of white male conspiracy to downtread on women and brown people:

    The gender pay gap actually increased in 2013, with women disproportionately represented in the lowest paid, most precarious jobs, and black and ethnic minority workers still massively underrepresented in the upper strata of all professions. Last week, for instance, it was reported that only 3.7% of top tier civil service employees are from an ethnic minority.

    The bastards! Seriously – why aren’t women and ethnic minorities pulling their weight? Why are they leaving all the heavy lifting to white men?

  3. Rob – indeed not.

    Ms. Foster’s article is full of suspect logic:

    If you have an iPhone for a boss,

    What? Is Siri going to make you fetch a coffee? No, if you decide to find paid odd jobs via a smartphone app, you’re your own boss. Much like an independent plumber or painter and decorator.

    and are reduced to carrying out small tasks for small amounts of money on an ad hoc basis, you can kiss goodbye to any hope of employment rights.

    And responsibilities. No need to be in an office or shop at 9am every day. No need to apply to HR 30 days in advance for holidays. Nobody is going to stop you taking on other jobs if you feel like it.

    The government has held up the rise in people registering as self-employed – the biggest factor behind the fall in unemployment figures – as a triumph of its austerity policies, but this merely shows the decrease in the amount of secure work available for people who are desperate to make ends meet.

    Her assumption is that signing an employment contract with, say, Aldis is “secure”. Is it? What if they decide to close the shop you work in, or cut back your hours?

    And she assumed ad hoc work is “insecure”. Is it? There’s an infinite amount of small tasks out there that people will happily give you money for.

    An app that makes it easy for you to take on that sort of paid work sounds like it would effectively make the self employed more secure in achieving their objective – to get paid.

    Economic growth is back but there’s no sign of it in most workers’ pay packets. In fact, the gap has got worse. Top chief executives now earn 175 times the wages of the average worker.

    So it’s not so much “the workers” she’s concerned about, it’s whether or not “the bosses” are earning too much.

    With the increased precarity of the workplace, it’s no surprise productivity is still worryingly low.

    Non sequitur.

    If you’re financially sorted, but a little bit lazy, it can be tempting to outsource your more banal chores. Who really enjoys cleaning the bathroom? But by lauding these apps, which make life a tiny bit easier for the “time poor” and a lot harder for the “poor poor”, the poorest lose out – and so does the economy.

    So she’s assuming that people doing odd jobs found via an iPhone app somehow reduces full time formal employment.

    Apparently the poor “lose out” if they consent to clean somebody’s bathroom for money – um, why?

    And ultimately, all this economic activity is somehow damaging to the economy. Heavens above!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *