As a recent graduate now unemployed, I find myself being told constantly that I do not have the expertise or experience to do the jobs for which I am applying. Thank god then, for the current crisis of rising unemployment among young people and graduates, for it is only here where i find myself able to be both expert and experience! What then, is my expert and insiders view of this current burning political issue? Why can young people not get jobs? Based on my less than scientific sample size of one (i.e. me), these are the possibilities:
1. Saturated job market:
The general economy is, of course, going down the toilet. This means a fair few older people have lost their jobs, and are applying for the same vacancies as those fresh out of school/college/university. In a boom time, graduates and young people have less competition from experiened workers, so are more likely to get that elusive first job. Now, we are coming up against older folk with more experience, better qualifications, and proven ability. The company's doing the hiring are much less keen to take a gamble on an unproved yoof given the unpredictable economic climate, if indeed they are hiring at all!
2. High expectations:
This may only apply to graduates, or indeed only to myself and some of the people I know. We are of a generation who were brought up in relative comfort. Our parents were reasonably successful, and there wasn't an overwhelming worry about money. Consequently, we have tended to, and been encouraged to, pursue careers and courses of study which are enjoyable and satisfying, not just financially rewarding. We've also had access to great education. We want fulfillment from our profession, and not just something to pay the bills. So there is a huge pool of intelligent, balanced individuals all fighting for a small number of interesting and rewarding jobs, where in previous generations many would have taken anything. That the 'anything that pays the bills' category is mainly call centre work may be a factor in keeping the fussy unemployed out of work.
3. Over-qualified, but under-experienced:
I think this is really the major obstacle. I have applied for tons of jobs in offices, doing general dogsbody admin. The requirements are ability to do filing, ability to type and use Microsoft Office, and other fairly simple skills. I have these skills. Its hard to do a degree without having them. But my degree (in International Relations & Politics) doesn't show this so much as my ability to accurately analyse how the organisational dynamics of government has affected immigration disourse or how the concept of Undecidability can be used to build constructive policy within post-modern theory. I got a first for both of them, but employers quite frankly don't give a shit, and why should they? Those are qualifications for a senior policy advisor, not a menial desk clerk. I'm qualified for the job i'll have in twenty years.
Furthermore, there isn't much of a structure for converting these skills into tradeable qualities. When i went to the job centree and inquired into their training schemes to give me something to put on my CV, the and nothing. The courses they offer are how to write a CV, how to search for jobs on the internet, how to tie your shoelaces etc. Nothing to help me stand out.
What links all these points is a looming chasm between what the world was meant to look like and how it actually looks. Kids have been educated and trained for a burgeoning international economy where highly trained individuals are in great demand for satisfying, important jobs. Instead, we have an inward looking, shrinking economy where no one wants to take risks and opportunities are scarce. We, the yoof, are the ones caught in the middle as this chasm opens, and if we're not careful, we're not going to be able to climb out.
Tuesday 18 August 2009
Monday 20 July 2009
Need a new left? The Liberal Democrats fit the bill.
Today in the Guardian, James Purnell and Jon Cruddas talk about their new 'open left' project (www.openleft.com, www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree), along with famous lefties like Billy Bragg. They want a new definition of the left, and bemoan Labour's inability to follow the leftist agenda they, and presumably all the 'grass-roots' members who you always here are committed socialists, believe in. There's a simple solution to these concerns, and it doesn't involve a long and tortuous reform of the labour party. It's to vote Lib Dem.
Whatever prejudice people have about the LibDems, they are the party with the most re-distributive, the most radical, the most socialist, agenda currently; and have been since at least 1997. Jon Cruddas wants to tackle 'top-end issues such as tax avoidance or the imperative to take millions of low-paid people out of tax altogether'. These are two of the main policies the party has had in the last year. Other key policies include nationalising banks, which we were for a long time before Brown did it; and regulating financial markets so investors couldn't make billions by losing poor people's savings.
It would be quite suprising if Cruddas or Purnell switched allegiances: they're MP's and have invested in the party. But for all the Labour supporters who cling to the party despite its constant failure to match up to their beliefs, it's a lot easier. All they have to do is put a cross in a different box. The LibDems - the people and the policies - are much more in line with their beliefs. In ten years this might change, and Labour may again be the party further to the left. If that happened, I would personally have to question my allegiance. But until that happens, it does no good to carry on voting for the wrong party.
Need a new left? Well here's one they made earlier: the Lib Dems.
Whatever prejudice people have about the LibDems, they are the party with the most re-distributive, the most radical, the most socialist, agenda currently; and have been since at least 1997. Jon Cruddas wants to tackle 'top-end issues such as tax avoidance or the imperative to take millions of low-paid people out of tax altogether'. These are two of the main policies the party has had in the last year. Other key policies include nationalising banks, which we were for a long time before Brown did it; and regulating financial markets so investors couldn't make billions by losing poor people's savings.
It would be quite suprising if Cruddas or Purnell switched allegiances: they're MP's and have invested in the party. But for all the Labour supporters who cling to the party despite its constant failure to match up to their beliefs, it's a lot easier. All they have to do is put a cross in a different box. The LibDems - the people and the policies - are much more in line with their beliefs. In ten years this might change, and Labour may again be the party further to the left. If that happened, I would personally have to question my allegiance. But until that happens, it does no good to carry on voting for the wrong party.
Need a new left? Well here's one they made earlier: the Lib Dems.
Thursday 16 July 2009
Media Influence over the question of military deaths in Afghanistan is too great
In this fast paced world, I'm a bit behind in writing about the latest trouble in Afghanistan. The whole debate reached a head at least two days ago, and therefore is no longer important to the media. One assumes this means its no longer important to most political parties as well, since they usually follow suit. It only became an issue because the media talked about it, and the lines of the debate exactly followed the media framing, with parties (including the Lib Dems, who usually have enough credibility to avoid this kind of thing) competing to see who could bend the most to media demands.
The whole episode accurately illustrates several of the central issues facing British politics at the moment. In terms of content, some good comments were made, but much more bad ones emerged. Many commentators observed the valid point that a military response to the problems in Afghanistan won't really solve anything. In this respect, the current operation which has caused an increased mortality rate is a waste of time and lives.
However, the majority of reports, and that which dominated the headlines at the Mail, Sun, Telegraph etc and set the tone for the debate in parliament, concerned the number of British deaths and the supposed lack of support for troops there. The debate was whether or not the government are adequately supporting our troops with equipment and financing. Nowhere was it mentioned that there is currently an operation to push the Taliban out of Helmand. Nowhere was it mentioned how many civilians may have died in this period. Nowhere was it said that being a soldier is a dangerous job, and indeed that so few British servicemen have been killed is remarkable.
The debate needs to mention these points. It is far less tragic if a soldier dies than a civilian. In a war, soldiers die: this is to be expected. It makes it no less sad, but it is a fact of war. If they were poorly equipped, then it is more tragic, but none-the-less a pervading sense that we must protect our forces at all costs, rather than the security of Afghani civilians, is present. Of course the media prefer the more interesting story of under-funding and blaming the government, but that Cameron, and to my regret Clegg, continued their argument and did not mention these important points is sad.
The problem in British politics is politicians blindly following the media framing and refusing to consider the aspects of an issue which are less likely to win votes and risk upsetting media sources. Forget expenses and corruption, the problem with politicians is their lack of metaphorical balls to take on the press.
The whole episode accurately illustrates several of the central issues facing British politics at the moment. In terms of content, some good comments were made, but much more bad ones emerged. Many commentators observed the valid point that a military response to the problems in Afghanistan won't really solve anything. In this respect, the current operation which has caused an increased mortality rate is a waste of time and lives.
However, the majority of reports, and that which dominated the headlines at the Mail, Sun, Telegraph etc and set the tone for the debate in parliament, concerned the number of British deaths and the supposed lack of support for troops there. The debate was whether or not the government are adequately supporting our troops with equipment and financing. Nowhere was it mentioned that there is currently an operation to push the Taliban out of Helmand. Nowhere was it mentioned how many civilians may have died in this period. Nowhere was it said that being a soldier is a dangerous job, and indeed that so few British servicemen have been killed is remarkable.
The debate needs to mention these points. It is far less tragic if a soldier dies than a civilian. In a war, soldiers die: this is to be expected. It makes it no less sad, but it is a fact of war. If they were poorly equipped, then it is more tragic, but none-the-less a pervading sense that we must protect our forces at all costs, rather than the security of Afghani civilians, is present. Of course the media prefer the more interesting story of under-funding and blaming the government, but that Cameron, and to my regret Clegg, continued their argument and did not mention these important points is sad.
The problem in British politics is politicians blindly following the media framing and refusing to consider the aspects of an issue which are less likely to win votes and risk upsetting media sources. Forget expenses and corruption, the problem with politicians is their lack of metaphorical balls to take on the press.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
