To think ‘the system is broken’ but…

[Blinddatez]

We are also breaking the system.

From reading posts on here, it seems a lot of people don’t realise just how little we actually contribute to ‘the system’, how much things cost to implement, and therefore what level of service we can realistically expect from healthcare, education and so on.

40% of people are net recipients (they receive more from the state than they put in), but that doesn’t include pensioners. Yet the expectations on here of what should be provided by the state seem to be sky high - generous benefits, good quality but cheap housing for everyone, a 5* NHS, immediate and thorough mental health support, good pensions even for people who have never worked for dubious reasons.

AIBU to think, while the money could be better spent than it is right now, the expectation of what should be provided by the state on here is a bit head-in-the-clouds?

there is excellent quality education and research happening all over UK universities

Agree, important research is carried out at elite universities. But many lower tier institutions have a business model based on the exploitation of young people who'd be better off spending their time, money and energy on something else.

I am sure you are very well aware that the country has been shown in many studies to benefit financially from taking in immigrants and refugees, and I am sure you are very well aware that people with certain political ideologies will do all they can to try and prove otherwise

I mean is this necessary research?!

amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/aug/11/manchester-university-phd-masturbating-to-comics-of-young-boys

I am very aware of this and you are very aware of this and I’m sure you are aware that there are different types of immigration and I’m sure you are aware that some streams provide less of a return than others and I’m sure you’re aware it is not right wing to point this out but I’m also sure you’re aware it’s easier to shut down the conversation by saying it is.

Asylum seekers have a very specific definition.

There are some numbers here.

www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/information/refugee-asylum-facts/the-truth-about-asylum/

However, asylum seekers need permission to work and that is only granted after 12 months and with specific conditions.

People who have claimed asylum in the UK can apply for permission to work if they have been waiting 12 months for a decision, and they are not considered responsible for the delay. If permission is granted, the person will be allowed to take up jobs on the shortage occupation list only.

commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn01908/

People who have been granted asylum and settled status/other forms of right to remain or citizenship would be a different group.

So what are you suggesting?

Ah yes I am sure this one stupid Phd (which the University is looking into complaints about) proves that all UK research is a load of wank (pardon the pun) 🙄

What are you suggesting?

Of course it doesn’t, but I think there’s a lot of needless research being done in areas that we don’t have a need for.

I saw the opposite and it was like watching a car crash in slow motion. I was an external accountant working in practice, and one of our clients was a fast growing small manufacturing business. When I first started going (one day per month), it was husband and wife with about 10 staff. Yes, they worked hard and long hours, but the work got done, it was highly profitable, excellent reputation, and the staff were very well paid plus bonuses etc. None of the staff were particularly qualified/experts, they were just "growing" in ability with the business. Eg the production manager previously owned a hardware shop, so was a whiz on stock control, purchase ordering, etc., and "learned on the job" on the shop floor for supervising/managing the production staff, but had not qualifications nor experience in production management - but it worked!

It grow rapidly (doubling in size every few months). I started going 2/3 days per month, then weekly, and ultimately ended up working full time there as their finance director. As it grew, it got less and less productive, margins fell, complaints rose etc. As well as taking on me (a qualified accountant) to do "the books", they also took on a managing director to run it, qualified purchasing manager, a qualified IT manager and even some programmers, a qualified HR manager, a whole new sales team, qualified design engineers etc. Productivity/efficiency plummeted. It turned into just one meeting after another, and became VERY "top heavy" with more "office dwellers" than productive workers. Despite turnover being something like 100 times what it was when I first got involved, profit was virtually the same!

Do you have numbers to prove your point?

What proportion is net contributor?

It apparently costs around £25k to train a refugee doctor to practice medicine in the UK, compared to £200k - £250k to train a new doctor.

So if you're concerned about cash I'd be pursuing the refugee route if I were you.

Sure. That doesn't mean that there isn't loads of excellent quality research and education going on as well. Which is the point I made which you disputed with this one example.

And really often you need to have a bunch of people doing a bunch of research of all different quality to achieve the really good stuff.

@Kazzyhoward your experience seems to be replicated across business, society and politics: more and more management, less and less efficiency. There's a book called The Managerial Revolution (by James Burnham) that goes into this phenomenon. I haven't yet read it, but think I will do so.

I am very aware of this and you are very aware of this and I’m sure you are aware that there are different types of immigration and I’m sure you are aware that some streams provide less of a return than others and I’m sure you’re aware it is not right wing to point this out but I’m also sure you’re aware it’s easier to shut down the conversation by saying it is

what are you suggesting by this? Which “streams” provide less of a “return” @Blinddatez

If @Blinddatez is talking about genuine asylum seekers (as per official defintion) as streams of return that puts a serious bad taste in my mouth.

🤷🏼‍♀️

We all are; you, me, everyone. If we ignore finances and just focus on what makes you feel warm and fuzzy we won’t have a prosperous and safe future to offer asylum seekers anyway.

Disagree. People fleeing war shouldn't be assessed on their potential financial contribution. Or should we judge others who can't contribute in the same way? And if they don't end up net positive, what should we do with them? Asylum seekers are easy, just send them back to their deaths - not our problem. But what about the people in our own society? What would you have happen to them?

Two words: nail and head 🙂

I don't think it's unreasonable for people to expect reasonable wages, decent terms and conditions and a decent standard of living.

The country has money. It just chooses to prioritise subsiding MP lunches and private flights over hungry children and freezing pensioners.

We COULD have investment in schools and decent terms for school staff so that all children get a decent education. What we actually have is a huge amount of public money being directed into academy chains and bloated layers of management with large salaries.

We COULD have affordable energy and affordable public transport, but we sold them all off so other people get to rake in the profits and expect the taxpayer to foot the losses.

Our country has chosen for decades to prioritise the wealthy at the expense of average citizens.

In many cases our schools would not currently be functioning without refugee teachers. Students would be being sent home

I can tell you that for nothing

YANBU, my household is definitely net-givers (high earners, no benefits of any kind and lucky enough to have very good health so haven’t used the NHS other than for vaccines in 5 years, including for our DS) but we don’t expect the world from services provided through this limited funding.

It’s frustrating when public money is wasted, but honestly the constant moaning of people who have a net-benefit does frustrate me. Where do they think this money comes from?

I’d love to benefit more from what I put in (even in a general sense of better infrastructure/healthcare/better education which would benefit everyone) but accept that with limited funds not everything can be funded as I’d choose.

I think part of the issue is that the way the UK is run is a half way house. It's not REALLY a welfare state, and it's not really not at welfare state. People don't know what it is. Also the convervatives are not, ideologically, behind a welfare state so their policies are working to dilute that within the cultural context of an idolised NHS for example.

I think part of the issue is that the way the UK is run is a half way house. It's not REALLY a welfare state, and it's not really not at welfare state. People don't know what it is. Also the convervatives are not, ideologically, behind a welfare state so their policies are working to dilute that within the cultural context of an idolised NHS for example
The UK currently runs the image of a welfare state whilst privatising public services and sending a lot of taxpayer money to companies that are closely linked to people making the policy decisions. Privatise the profits, keep sending the money across, then nationalise the losses and nationalise the funds for infrastructure investment so the companies don't have to use their own money to improve their own infrastructure.

It's kleptocracy in action.