The Green New Deal

There are two ways of doing this. The first involves the Treasury taking advantage of low interest rates to borrow for long-term investment. Not just in roads, railways and airports but in Britain’s digital infrastructure and its human capital. One of the country’s most glaring structural weaknesses is that the unemployment rate for young people who leave school with the most basic education is among the highest in the developed world.

Why not reduce the minimum wage that keeps them out of employment?

21 thoughts on “The Green New Deal”

  1. Why not teach them to read write and do arithmetic at school? Also to dress neatly, be good time keepers and expand vocabulary beyond grunts and “innits”. And that no one owes them a living. Revolutionary!

  2. One of the country’s most glaring structural weaknesses is that the unemployment rate for young people who leave school with the most basic education is among the highest in the developed world.

    I see the whole of southern Europe, starting at Calais, is no longer part of the developed world.

  3. I see the whole of southern Europe, starting at Calais, is no longer part of the developed world.

    Of course it isn’t. It’s “holiday house land”.

    Until Brexit, of course.

  4. Unemployment caused by minimum wage is a feature, not a bug. It creates dependent voters on dole who will reliably vote for more dole.

  5. Investment in roads, railways and airports, eh? At which point the Left, having called for this investment, will then oppose every one on environmental grounds.

  6. Is it the minimum wage keeping them out of the employment market, or are other interests competing for their time – most notably video games?

    For quite a few young people, if the parents don’t push them out of their rather cosy nest, they won’t take the leap themselves.

  7. There’s also the issue that infrastructure investment doesn’t create jobs for the ‘strong in the arm thick in the head’ mob any more. Unemployable chavs are not suddenly going to be construction engineers, or even machine operators. The most likely outcome of throwing money at infrastructure is massive wage inflation in the skilled trades and (if still possible post Brexit) a massive influx of Eastern European labour.

  8. What Rob said.

    We could go hell for leather for Shale, stimulate the North (lots of well paid semi-skilled and labouring jobs), break any lingering dependency on the loony ME for energy, and make industrial energy consumption cheap as chips for manufacturing investors.

    Hurrah! Three cheers.

    What’s that? Vivianne Westwood is upset? F**k off!

  9. The most likely outcome of throwing money at infrastructure is massive wage inflation in the skilled trades

    That’s why I was all for it! 😀

  10. Bloke in North Dorset

    Instead of waving their arms around vaguely, perhaps they would like to tell us exactly where these airports and roads will be built. Then someone could a cost benefit analysis and, as Rob says, rent-a-crowd could get their protests in early.

    It’s like the calls for more manufacturing, nobody has a clue what will be manufactured and who will buy it, but it sends virtue signals to all the right people

  11. Jim said:
    “infrastructure investment doesn’t create jobs for the ‘strong in the arm thick in the head’ mob any more”

    Not least because they wouldn’t be able to cope with the health & safety rules.

  12. And parents complain now that the curriculum is trying to raise standards that it is too hard for the poor little kiddies.

  13. Well, for those young school-leavers with no qualifications whom I have met, it’s really not the minimum wage that’s preventing them from being employed. Perhaps if you paid me minimum wage it might be sufficient incentive for me to try and find a niche for them, but it’s really not that these young people have economic value less than minimum wage, it’s that they have no economic value at all.

  14. If we can’t educate the young well enough to do a job of work with the money currently spent, ISTM that we need to examine the education provided, not throw more money at it.

    From 0-3 everyone wants you to walk and talk, but from 4-18 they want you to sit down and shut up. And at that point they ask you why you can’t do anything…..

  15. Meanwhile – in Ritchieland:

    ‘I advised Miliband, Corbyn, McCluskey, Lucas, Osborne and Cameron (when he borrowed country-by-country reporting) alike because they wanted my ideas’

    Would you buy anything from this adviser?

  16. Bloke in Costa Rica

    I imagine if you mentioned Spud’s name to anyone on that list they’d cough nervously and change the subject. Even Corbyn.

  17. Why not realise that advanced education is a benefit for the state more than the individual if directed right.
    That’s why you could get scholarships back in the 50s and why you don’t charge soldiers for their training.
    It benefits the state.
    It is the most basic infrastructure.

  18. Bloke in Costa Rica

    “advanced education is a benefit for the state more than the individual”

    Wikipedia follows things like that with a [citation needed] tag.

  19. A teacher writes,

    … but from 4-18 they want you to sit down and shut up. And at that point they ask you why you can’t do anything…..

    We might well want them to siddownanshuddup but they don’t, and that’s quite a large part of why they don’t know nuffin’.

Leave a Reply

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