Wage Slaves and Wage Thieves

 

There has been sporadic articles and documentation regarding the inflated salaries of corporate execs and how they dwarf the salaries of our most senior public servants. More outrage ensues. More condemnation from the liberal press pours forth as they use the previously mentioned comparison to offer some perspective on the gross inequality in pay that exists.

Seemingly, the implication here is the difference in pay within the higher, more senior brackets between public and private sectors is large, and it shouldn’t be. However, I do not want a comparison drawn between the bosses of each sector. A much more worthy comparison would be to analyse the pay and rights of an average worker against a boss.

In our post-industrial, service driven economy, we are even outsourcing jobs citizens here are training to secure. This is freezing the price (wage) of labour here, and in some cases, driving it down (considering inflation). This is not only making society unequal by killing off any social mobility, it raises the top bracket of earners higher and higher above everybody else.

The attitude which manifests is one of spite towards the fellow/future worker who demands more via protest too. This is not so much a natural reaction, but one born of helplessness towards the rubbish we have to put up with. When we hear vacuous sound bites like “we are all in this together”, we tend to think, “we’re putting up with it, why aren’t they?” The answer is simple: none of us should, because the disconnect we are all feeling about the labour we offer and the fruits of it we receive is a very real problem that deserves our utmost attention.

This is not to mention the heavy cuts being implemented by the government, which will result in 500,000 public sector job losses, 50,000 of which will be in NHS, and the abolition of the UK Film Council which has produced Oscar winning films, among other wild swings of the axe. These are not just figures. They represent lives, mortgages, families, and a quality of life being squashed from above. Employment is the lifeblood of an economy. One can argue there are many superfluous jobs that should be shed – really?

The large size of the public sector here and other Western economies has become necessary to offset the deficiencies of the private sector, which has failed to provide not just sustainable growth, but sustainable employment. Until our casino finance sector stops operating in boom and bust cycles, the public sector will remain a dependable crutch for those who do not wish to gamble with lives. This brings me to the meat of this article: the attitude which the management class have tried to foster in their workforce and its economic consequences.

This can be first illustrated quite profoundly with a personal anecdote: I know someone who has earned well over £1,000,000 in product sales in the last business year, yet was only paid £22,000 for their troubles. This represents a 2.2% return of the value to the worker who was made solely responsible to shift the goods. Of course, there are other costs to account for, such as production costs and transport, but it would be reasonable to surmise that a large chunk of the profits made its way to the pockets of the directors and shareholders.

This is not only unjust, but symptomatic of the economic phenomenon in our age of globalisation: the value of a product is not simply determined by the seller in a simple transaction with simple market forces, but monopolised by those with the financial clout to keep workers dependent and hungry, effectively prostituting their labour as they see fit, while manipulating market conditions for their own benefit. This means that a worker in a Western country, who is no longer the producer of one given good, cannot readily identify the worth of a product outside their own contrived salary.

Detachment with the labour ensues, and apathy blooms.

This apathy is responsible for the incredible tolerance of the workforce to brave the gluttony and greed of the management classes. We simply do not care about what we do anymore because the reward is miniscule and our labour is undervalued. Corporations understand this problem, and the solution to protect their interests is not to improve worker conditions, but to drive them down further, so that workers become desperate, and finally grateful for their lot in life. After all, a starving man will think a dry biscuit is the best meal he’s ever had if there was nothing else.

Of course, this policy has two outcomes – March 26th is a testament to that.

Globalisation has fermented the economic shit-storm here and made it co-dependent on the labour situation in developing countries. Take the example of a £20 pair of jeans manufactured in South East Asia and sold on a UK high-street. The worker there is on slave pay and slave hours and just about gets by (if they’re not killing themselves en masse). The product is then priced according to the target market – in this case, the poor here. The poor producers create for the poor and the rich, it is worthy to note.

Keeping the example of the cheap pair of jeans: how about improving the pay and working rights for the outsourced labour? The price of the product increases, resulting in fewer sales and probably redundancies. All the while, the rich are unaffected and preserve their profit margins. The excuse is that the poor here cannot afford to purchase the now more expensive jeans, and have been priced out by concessions to labour movements elsewhere – which then effectively demonises development on these issues among local populations.

The sadly unorthodox reaction to such events is to support each other in a rather Marxist “workers of the world unite” fashion. It is starting to happen with messages of solidarity issued by those struggling for better conditions around the world. What needs to be remembered is that the consumers here are also producers, and the producers there are also consumers. We are not one or the other. We must not be only one or the other. The conditions one worker has to endure can be normalised – for good or for worse. That is key.

If conditions improve for workers in the North China labour market, we should support them and demand similar. If the quality of life for the workers there improves, we should demand the same concessions and readjustments. In our globalised economy, isolated progression, i.e. one that is naive to the interconnectedness of the labour markets, will damage understanding of the true economic issues of our time. Moving together is fundamental to narrowing the chasm which exists between the classes.

A revaluation of labour is necessary for a successful redistribution of income. The general discord we have for many of our jobs finds solace in our apathetic approach to the opportunities and rewards we have available. If the poor worker/consumer here cannot afford those jeans anymore, they in fact should be paid more and given better working conditions. In effect, this unilateral progression of working rights will raise the bar for workers everywhere, while simultaneously lowering the astronomically high bar of the rich profiteers.

In a blog on Brazen Careerist, a hip career-based website, Whitney May Parker advises a worker to:

3. Never tell your boss “No, I can’t do that.” Obviously if your boss is asking you to do something illegal, immoral or otherwise, that’s a different case. But when it comes to professional tasks and responsibilities, bosses like to see a can-do attitude. Instead of reacting to a challenging assignment with a sigh and immediate reasons why it can’t be done, consider what resources you’d need to actually get the job done. Maybe you need an assistant, a bigger budget, more time, access to a special resources. Think of it as an opportunity to expand your responsibilities in a way that can lead to a raise or promotion at the end of the day.

The writer clearly has immeasurable awe for her superiors and its nauseating. It is almost as if a boss is to be viewed as a benevolent being, never wrong, omniscient and noble in their judgement. This kind of material is everywhere, and it all contributes to that feeling of gratitude the management class want to instil within the workforce. Workers must remember – they do not owe them anything. Labour is not free, and 100 workers have just as much value as 100 bosses. In reality, the ratio is 1 boss to 1000 workers, looking at salaries.

Of course, that cock-tease of a line always shows up: “It can be you! You can be the tyrannical boss one day!”.

But exploring even cheaper and grateful labour might very well be “the wave of the future of human resources” one CEO has mentioned recently:

People who work for free are far hungrier than anybody who has a salary, so they’re going to outperform, they’re going to try to please, they’re going to be creative

Kelly Fallis, CEO of Remote Stylist

They will definitely be hungrier. The scandal here is that they now want us to feel grateful for working for free, and many of us do – look at interns. Entitlement is the mentality of the management classes, and gratitude is the attitude they wish to foster in their underlings. It is reducible to slavery and it should inspire our deepest contempt. But universally, it doesn’t.

Divide and sell remains the mantra…

As Marx once commented on 19th C decadence in France:

"Since the finance aristocracy made the laws, was at the head of the administration of the State, had command of all the organised public authorities, dominated public opinion through the actual state of affairs and through the press, the same prostitution, the same shameless cheating, the same mania to get rich was repeated in every sphere, from the court to the Café Borgne, to get rich not by production, but by pocketing the already available wealth of others, clashing every moment with the bourgeois laws themselves, an unbridled assertion of unhealthy and dissolute appetites manifested itself, particularly at the top of bourgeois society – lusts wherein wealth derived from gambling naturally seeks its satisfaction, where pleasure becomes debauched, where money, filth, and blood commingle."

Such is the state of affairs now, but magnified one hundred fold. To an almost fever pitch degree of greed and debauchery by the rich, the workers are deprived of a fair wage, reside in filth, and give their blood, all for a pittance. The saga of the wage slaves and wage thieves which has blighted modern civilisation to a now exhausted extent simply must end.

And it will only if we fight in solidarity.

The Erosion of Public Goods: Time to Rally

The Middle East is engulfed by the rage of millions. Its heartening to see so many realise their rights and finally mobilise to oust their dictatorships and demand a better quality of life sans white people, tanks and jets. Western governments are eager to piggyback on this public outrage despite supporting said tyrants for decades. This rage is not isolated.

We are inspired to take every breaking story as self-contained, sensitive to the inner dynamics of the event and the history of the town, city or country. Recent stories, such as  the protests in Wisconsin, the 50,000 projected job losses in the NHS here, and the upheaval of ancient regimes in the Middle East are all incredibly different issues, but are they?

I believe there is something more at work here, and to notice as such is considerably dependent on assessing the various strands of history which have led different populations to demand a better quality of life. The working and middle classes have simply had enough, everywhere, and are finally waking up to the possibilities of living in a democracy.

We band the word “democracy” around like its a done deal in the West – like its a product we manufacture and sell to the world with an ambiguous one-glove-fits-all instruction guide. Make no mistake, the democratic deficit in the West (see U.K) is a stark problem we have to address at length for there to be any progressive legislation which tackles gross inequality.

Therefore, we must be careful not to make “the banks” a scapegoat. No doubt, they are grossly dangerous organisations which actively promote inequality and simply reward wealth with wealth, but they, like everything which operates in society, are dependent on legislation which allows them to do what they do. Banks are simply not accountable, governments are.

The recent history in the United States regarding the two major (now homogeneous) political parties is a testament to what has befallen all Western countries to some degree or another regarding this last point. Nowhere in the world has such a metamorphosis taken place in the political arena given the strength and diversity of its culture.

During WW2, taxes were at an all time high in the U.S. During the boom of the 60’s and 70’s, this started to change because of the emergence of a strong pro-business, free market lobby. The Republicans enjoyed the attention of these lobbyists and took it upon themselves to pen friendly legislation. Nothing has changed there. What of the Democratic Party?

Back then, the Democrats relied on a strong labour movement embodied by powerful unions, who, without the vast riches of giant corporations, could still do one thing all political parties valued above all else: organise the electorate. Yet, the labour movement was soon splintered and abandoned by the Democrats.

This was because the activists on the left became disillusioned with lacklustre and unimaginative union leadership. Their usefulness spiralled into oblivion as different bodies of the movement started pulling in other directions, such as the growing anti-war sentiment, or feminism, or the environment. What was a clear mission became blurred by the broad spectrum of interests which emerged from the movement.

For big business and the Republicans, their interest was the singular goal of acquiring wealth, and therefore power – together creating a working relationship to acquire both respectively.

Thus, the cynical leadership of the left saw unions as becoming defunct, inefficient, and unable to do the one thing they wanted them to do – organise behind the party come campaign time.

This snippet of American history is vitally important to understand what happened there next, and what is happening here today.

Big business saw its opportunity to hold both parties in thrall to its financial muscle. The Democratic Party finally towed the line the corporate lobbyists were setting in order to keep pace alongside the Republicans. Taxes have steadily been in decline since the 60’s, and during the last 30 years, the top 1% of the population have been raping the income chart.

 

This is not to mention corporate tax levels, which have plummeted despite astronomical profits.

Reason? “We create jobs with that money”. Yes, you do, and pay them 185 times less than what you get (if they’re lucky). This is while co-opting the labour market by standardising that low wage amongst fellow CEOs and Gov. officials at the golf course on Sunday. Ahem, back to reasoned assessment…

 

Charts courtesy of motherjones.com – where you can find many more revolting ones to shake your fist at.

Now, to be in the American government, one has to be rich. Super rich, in fact. Campaign costs are always footed by corporate interests eager to have friends on both sides writing the law. It is a classic business model: dominate the market by controlling all production outlets – Kind of like Starbucks opening two shops on the same road. You win or you win.

The consequence in politics is that you limit choice and freedom.

The second half of the 20th Century can be remembered as the 50 years where the siege against public goods in society swayed in favour of big business. The U.S. has taught us that much, as they serve as something of a blueprint for the current government in the U.K. as it pursues increasing the wealth and prosperity for the blue-blooded upper classes.

It remains a fact that political parties don’t care about the electorate. To them, voters are an alien mass of hands and feet which somehow gives them power. What they do value is those who can organise the great unwashed into making a favourable decision at the ballot box. The policy has always been about seeking stability – at home and abroad.

That is, stability in funding for the political party, and the stability of low trade costs for the corporate friends who had bankrolled them into office.

The outrage in the Middle East shines a great fat light on this point. The U.S. and other Western governments have admitted to seeking stability over democracy in this region, and achieving neither (Condoleezza Rice in Cairo, 2005). They will want you to believe this sentiment has changed. It hasn’t.

The West are vocally supporting these uprisings not because they view democracy as an objective good, but as something contingent on the same old fashioned notion of stability. Now, they think Arabs living in oppressive dictatorships will behave better in a democracy. It has nothing to do with democracy as an idea in and of itself – it is still secondary to stability.

This is a microcosm of a larger point. The assault against the public good, as seen with its steady erosion in the U.S, the old/new Conservative ideologues in the the U.K, and flagging kleptocracies in the Middle East, and all the dictators around the world propped up by one foreign element or another – it all comes down to a great and engineered shift in risk.

Public goods are the bedrock of society. Not only do they limit the market with regulations, no access zones and such like, they give citizens a space where they do not have to relentlessly keep competing with each other economically. The key to big business strategy here is destroying all public goods and replacing them with individual and involuntary risk.

The risk element is important to understand, as seen with the recent financial crisis. Banks failed at the roulette table and the taxpayer bailed them out. This embodies the individual paying the cost vs. business undertaking risk. This is also why the wealthiest 1% have enjoyed such a grotesque rise in income over the poor over the last three decades.

When we win, they win bigger. When they lose, we lose bigger. This relationship is a relatively new phenomenon and has only been brought about by legislation enabling corporate entities to have more rights and lower rates of tax than the individual. A bank is liable to pay 1% in corporation tax on profits of £11.6bn. The individual always loses.

And the working individual must lose for big business to succeed in the way it has done. Corporate strategy focuses on keeping people collectively weak and dependent. It is a weird dynamic, because on one hand, new technology is personalising our media and simultaneously bringing people together regardless of government or corporate interests.

Yet, the same corporations depend on our weakness to organise to demand accountability in government, and better conditions in society and the workplace. They want to provide the leadership and the laws, but are creating the conditions with which we can empower ourselves once again.

It is the old capitalist joke: they would invent the only weapon that could destroy themselves if they thought they would be made supremely rich by it.

And they have.

The protests in Wisconsin are a throwback to the dogged labour movement which is steadily awakening once again. The downtrodden workers of the wealthiest country in the world remember the public good wistfully now more than ever. Sometimes when you are at your lowest, you are at your highest.

The people in the Middle East are fed up with their installed dictators, and one by one, by popular will, these dictators will fall on their swords for the public good, for better working conditions, and for a free and democratic vote – something we cannot even do here in the West given the myriad of business interests involved in a modern political campaign.

In the U.K, we are in the middle of it all, and by virtue of that and our history, we can contribute to the cause only by example.

This means not repeating the mistakes of the past by identifying a handful of leaders who will ultimately fail under the combined pressure of the entire corporate lobby with all its instruments of coercion and persuasion.

This means going after those accountable as an organised network emboldened by what democracy is capable of delivering here and everywhere it is championed. The public good is not just the street lamp, or a bench, or a park. It is workers rights, fair wages, health care and the freedom to organise.

The stories are indeed standalone, but the movement is global.

“Wealth Management” / Tax Dodging 101

So I have managed to get my hands on an interesting letter from a firm in London which specialises in the “wealth management” of financially comfortable people.

The letter is an invitation to a seminar on how to consolidate capital and lose none of your wealth to the already lenient and sloppy British tax system. Now, the letter bothered me not only because of the nature of the event, but how the company lauded itself as something recognisably mainstream. It may well – I wouldn’t know – but is that even right?

Naively, I was unaware that such companies operated on this kind of level. The recipient of the letter is hardly what I would call well-off, so it was surprising to see how low the bar was on the matter of income. If the country were deprived of the tax generated by those on middle as well as higher incomes, public services would turn into a privatised mess.

Here is the letter:

 

 

The key points of the seminar are the ones I have highlighted in the blood of the poor, and are worth repeating.

 

How to increase your income from your investments in spite of very low interest rates.

A completely legal strategy for paying no tax on your income and protecting your capital from taxation.

Mitigating Income Tax, Capital Gains Tax, and Inheritance Tax without losing control of your capital.

An overview of the current financial environment and the view ahead for 2011.

 

It has to be said, the first point was a large component of the recent financial crisis.

The second and third points are what have inspired widespread public anger not only amongst grassroots networks such as UKUncut, but normal people around the country.

And the fourth will likely be a baseless assessment of the economy, built on flawed assumptions and an blinkered view of growth and prosperity from the company’s self-interested sales perspective.

This isn’t happening in some far away tax haven either – this is happening under our noses, in buildings we walk passed every day filled with normal people. To add to this, such companies are authorised and regulated by the Financial Services Authority (FSA). The problem is more than the greed of a few top businessmen – it is a culture which is plainly accepted.

The company markets its investment “products” as tax avoidance, which is how the small guy can play the money game. Again, this was a large part of the last financial crisis, and will likely precipitate another one in the not too distant future.

 

Because the gravy train inevitably turns into a… failboat.

 

In order to win the argument that tax “avoidance” is wrong given the true necessity of preserving public goods such as health and education, we have to acknowledge that many normal people exacerbate the problem, not just multi-millionaires like Philip Green and the Arcadia Group.

So Neil Taylor, your company St James’ Place may have been nominated the best tax dodging strategists in three recent years by the Daily Telegraph (yes, there was actually an award for it issued by a daily national), you will not win the wider argument in the long term. This is boom and bust with a suit and tie.

Tuition Fees and Cultivating Excellence – What Does the Future Hold?

I’m going to try very hard to restrain my anger in this post, but I’m making no promises.

In a whirlwind of activism recently, thousands took to the streets for the first time to express their anger at the Coalition government voting in new legislation which raises the cap on tuition fees. It was an incredible throwback to the days of anguish felt by those under Thatcher, and the anguish is set to continue via a series of new grassroots networks.

These new organisations, which include anti tax avoidance group UK Uncut and various “occupation” movements" (who are very active on Twitter), embody the prevailing sentiment of outrage felt by vast swathes of the population here. The cuts are deemed necessary by a Coalition government looking to roll back the state, but they are not by this new generation.

Even organisations like the National Union of Students (NUS) have been criticised of twiddling their thumbs in the face of this crisis. Their chief, Aaron Porter, has been accused of weak leadership, even pandering to the elites. As such, a vote of no confidence in his position is imminent. After all, merely appearing on all of the BBC’s coverage isn’t enough, is it Aaron?

That is where I’ll end with the neutral observation. I am gravely pissed off, much like these students and soon to be students.

Having officially graduated in September this year despite completing my course at UCL last year, I have been thinking about what someone needs, or what someone has to do, to be considered “excellent". What does it even mean now? This is, after all, the task which schools and universities must put at the centre of their mission and their duty to society.

Notice, I have deemed it a duty of schools and universities to inspire and nurture excellence. In other words; education is a right, not a privilege, and this is because the people who emerge from them will be working in society, creating new ideas, and ensuring the progression of humanities on issues such as democratisation, economic justice and technological innovation.

Thus, having educated people benefits society, innovative business and, something which is seriously overlooked, the critical thinking of a nation who is at the very centre of worldwide crises and foreign policy conundrums. Phillip Green wants to reap the benefits of publically educated people in his business, but not pay towards the very system producing them.

 

“You marketise our education, we’ll educate your market”

 

Its a simple economic principle: maximise benefits and minimise costs. When legislation can include language allowing “tax avoidance” but not “tax evasion”, you will have politicians clambering to appease the corporatists who seek these loopholes. Leadership is impaired if, like you have now, our Bullingdon club of leaders simply do not represent the people.

Schools and universities are subject to government legislation, so the whole mechanism is meant to be accountable to their electorate (cue Lib Dem confusion). What we are seeing today is no accountability. The government want to privatise our education by making up to 80% cuts to the teaching budgets of universities. This will change everything.

By raising the cap to £9,000 a year, this will mean a total debt of £40-50,000 for a university education will not be uncommon if you factor in loan costs and accommodation – emphasising the belief held by the government that education is indeed a privilege. This is papered over by invoking the “nothing up front” feature the government are rather smug about.

Becoming our creditors brings them joy – how fitting. Only someone bred for power can feel this sense of entitlement from us supposed underlings.

Look at the state of the economy. We currently have the highest number of unemployed graduates for decades. The private sector has demonstrated an inability to accommodate the number of job seekers out there because of dogmatic and linear business modelling. That aside, lumping students with vast debt from the age of 18 will do two things:

1. Maintain the value of university education by making it more exclusive again.

2. Deter some from even attending because of the fees and the dismal state of the job market which lies before them.

It is, and I must emphasise this, no way meant to improve higher education. It is simply privatising it and loosening the grip the state has on these institutions so “they can get on with it” a la the invisible hand. It is an age old ideology, and that must be made clear through wave upon wave of bare-faced lies made by our government.

Thing is Mr Cameron, most of us don’t believe these lies of yours and your cronies.

 

Angry protestors outside Parliament as new tuition fees legislation is narrowly voted in

 

These two issues of tax evasion and tuition fees are intimately linked, if not by subject matter, but public sentiment. The outcry has been fierce because of a harmonious message: the cuts are not necessary, university education is a public good which requires public money, and tax cheats, whatever their stripe, should pay their dues towards a system they benefit from.

The feeling at the centre of all of this is a desire for justice and social responsibility.

In the speech opening my graduation ceremony, the vice-provost of the university declared, “excellence is not only measured in one’s achievements, but it must also exist in one’s attitude”. What surfaces within those protesting the rise of tuition fee and those who are outside the stores of tax evaders is this excellence of attitude.

A condition of victory for corporatists and the political elites who serve them is consumer apathy. We are currently being groomed to become consumers first and citizens second. The “Big Society” is positive spin for government cuts – we don’t need Wikileaks for that. By demonstrating our anger, we rob them of their greatest asset – our indifference.

Our indifference dissolves them of their responsibility to us as our elected representatives. We cannot be indifferent when they shape and mould our world as they please, to benefit them and their circle of rich buddies. By privatising more and more things, big business has access to new markets ripe for exploitation and the government has an easier job.

Our excellence is precisely measured by our awareness and our critical examination of events. Critical thinking is the bane of all elites, who prefer to keep it a dynastic privilege, if that. This is done by ensuring we keep one of our eyes fixed on an end financial incentive, whereas they have the freedom to entertain whatever means with their full attention.

To put it in the context of a student’s perspective over the Atlantic (who are basically living in a U.K. in the year 2035), I have a video to share. Here, Erica Goldson, a girl from a school in the U.S. gives a meaningful speech on her graduation. There, the free market disease has long had a firm grip on schools and universities and largely stifles critical thinking and innovation.

 

 

The full transcript of the speech can be found here

 

We all have a duty to future generations, but lets not forget this current one, our one, who is charged with affecting change for the better. Talking vaguely about what embryos deserve is not enough – we must act in solidarity to remedy the injustices in our society. These politicians must remember – they serve us – and we will light bigger fires until they accept that.

So, what does the future hold? Or better yet, what should the future hold? After all, it is our task to collectively shape it – not sit in the backseat. The royal family is not the only group with a stagnant gene pool; the media, the government, and big businesses are all inbred and self-preservationist. This will be their downfall as survival is achieved through diversity.

That is a natural law – not a policy.

Iraq’s Assyrian Christians Betrayed by a Liberal West in an Identity Crisis.

Well over 100 people were killed by extremists in Baghdad alone during the last month, including over 50 Assyrian Christians on the Black Sunday of 31st October.

Mission accomplished? I don’t think so.

Condemnation by all groups and states was received in the events that followed. The media dribbled out an isolated article here or there. There were murmurings behind closed doors about plight of the “Christians of Iraq”. However, what remains clear is the massive disparity between the anguish felt by the sizeable Assyrian Christian communities in Diaspora around the world and the inaction of their respective governments to put pressure on the Iraqi government to do much more than it is doing to ensure our safety.

A series of demonstrations dubbed the Black Marches were organised around the world in more than 20 locations. Where is this reported? They generated a few whispers, but no on-going coverage, no 24 hour fascination typical of a lecherous around-the-clock media, and no special fieldwork assignments to discover why they were undertaken and what the goals were of the people demonstrating. This is not because the story itself was uninspiring, uncontroversial or timid. It was all of the opposite and more.

 

Symbolic display of those killed by volunteers in Chicago. 

 

Why? This is my reasoning.

Western culture is increasingly becoming secular in all aspects of its society, be it politics, media, morality and communal society. This is important for a number of reasons. Chiefly, it has to do with this current perception and sentiment: the value of stories which are exclusively concerned with our humanity are more important and vital than other stories which are perceived to deviate from this norm. Its as if anything else would taint it with some nonsensical slant which would undermine its purity.

Take the story of the trapped Chilean miners – one of perseverance and strength of human spirit in a war of attrition with the earth itself. It was a simple isolated story, and it received unabated worldwide coverage with an outpouring of support from all countries. The miners survived, ensuring a happy ending and a victory for our humanity, strength of will and compassion in the face of adversity and improbable odds, all neatly packaged for us to consume. Nice.

Why was this more of a story than the Church massacre in Baghdad? This is a story where over 100 people were taken hostage in what represents an on-going assault on the Christians of Iraq. The dead had mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, wives, husbands, and children too. Where were their interviews? Where were the messages of support? Where was all of the aid and news coverage? Where was all of the coverage of demonstrations around the world which prompted tens of thousands to take to the streets?

Missing, as usual.

 

Aftermath of the Church massacre.

All of this greatly troubles me, and I have come to a number of conclusions.

My first conclusion is this: this event is painted as a religious conflict, and religious conflicts are notorious for bigoted opinions and endemic senseless violence. More importantly, religious conflicts are the stuff for savages in far away lands, not concerning us and our limited reserves of compassion we ration out when persistently prodded to by our fickle media. The siege against the Christians of Iraq is usually absorbed by the bigger picture and fuzzy message of “Hey, everyone is suffering. Everything is generally OK though”.

My second conclusion is this: the wall of apathy which manifests in light of these mass murders stems of the West’s inability to reach deeper inside this cauldron of supernatural folly (religion) and grasp the human element which lies at the heart of it. This isn’t just“one group of religious people killing another group in the name of religion”, this is one group of people being killed – for whatever reason. This is not simply a religious conflict, it is a human tragedy which is often overshadowed because of the now distasteful religious element.

Its almost as if “looking at the bigger picture” comes first now, with the particulars not even touched upon. This odd kind of relativist principle handicaps any meaningful appraisal of the problem.

The Western media is unable to report and comment effectively on this issue in Iraq. It also seems Western politicians are all too eager to downplay their power and influence when it suits them. If a picture requires a smile, expect everyone to be there. If not, you’re on your own, regardless of whether Western forces illegally invaded and rapidly accelerated the nationwide targeting and subjugation of the Assyrians. Where is the coverage of what these people want? Let us not forget the historical bond between Britain and the Assyrians too.

 

Thousands of demonstrators take to the streets in Sweden.

 

This is the reason why a mainstream liberal’s philosophy, as it is now, is bankrupt. This is also why there was (and still is) so much contempt for the Labour Party. All of this inflicts a grievous wound on my present sensibilities. After all, a liberal agenda is supposed to champion the rights of minorities and disadvantaged people. At the moment, these principles are hamstrung by a generalisation of the problem to project some kind of false grander, more worldly view. These problems are localised and considering them to be otherwise is criminal.

Newspapers which used to represent general reading for me like The Guardian have betrayed their own objectives with convenient double standards. An unlikely ally in all of this has been the Conservative base, with their appreciation of the “Christian factor” and its preservation in a hostile environment. However, as mentioned previously, this is a human tragedy. Spitting fire about those abusing Christians will not improve their lives. This energy must return its focus to the needs of the people who are being oppressed.

These “Christians” have names too, a unique culture, a unique language, and a unique history – let us not concede to the Arabisation campaign. As the first inhabitants of ancient Iraq, Assyrians have suffered at the hands of Ottoman Turks, Kurds, Nationalist Arabs and Islamic extremists. However, they are resolute in the face of this long-lived adversity. They have heart and they have spirit. They will not break, and we all must support them to finally alleviate them from the third-class citizenship they experience in their ancestral land.

 

Northern Iraq, loosely translated: No matter where the hand of evil reaches, we are not guests in this country, we are natives and we will stay.

 

Anything less would be a grand betrayal, dwarfing even the broken promise made by the Allies after WWII to finally grant their steadfast Assyrian allies a homeland. What is happening now is a threat on the Assyrians’ existence. The scattered Diaspora communities are strong, but nothing is certain without any presence in their place of origin. This highlights the key failing of today’s liberal agenda – it has no grasp, and therefore, empathy of the suffering of persecuted minorities such as the Assyrians of Iraq.

It sadly resembles something of a liberal fascism. Edges are wrongly straightened in an attempt to appear intellectually receptive to larger ideas and longer perspectives. This should not be the case. A liberal should be proud and stalwart in defending the rights of minority groups without feeling they are betraying some abstract holistic principle which has become obscure to the point of contempt. It is a sacrifice made in the mainstream of liberal media and politics. It is a wrong sacrifice to make, for liberty must be defended as well as granted.

The sacrifice is ultimately made because of an unhealthy preoccupation with the guilt only an educated westerner could feel at the colossal mess of oppressive nationalist dictatorships, ruling monarchies, and theocracies which populate the Middle East. Sadly, because this preoccupation originates in shame, great crimes are glossed over and unreported in an attempt to remain impartial. Thus, the line being towed by mainstream liberals is often one of (rightful) anger directed at Bush and Blair and their frankly stupid adventure in the region.

However, focusing the frustration on this issue is favouring the easy option of pointing the finger over actually cleaning up the mess. “Fine, but what else?” must naturally follow. The other side of the coin involves focusing on the extremists and making derogatory comments about Islam itself. This is highly unhelpful and in some cases extremely damaging for the people who have the suffer the consequences of these kind of revenge fantasies. So you have two reactions: first, “damn Bush and Blair”, and second, “damn those bloody Muslims…”.

What’s lost in all of that vitriol? The very people who are subject to the suffering.

So here is some coverage of their torturous plight now:

– There were reportedly 1.4m Assyrians in Iraq 10 years ago, now fewer than 500,000 remain. Genocide? No! “natural immigration”.

– 66 Churches have been bombed or attacked since 2003. Targeting? No! All Iraqis are suffering equally.

– Over 800 Assyrian Christians killed since 2003. Come on, this must be targeting! No! We don’t bother with population statistics and ratio of attacks when it doesn’t suit our hazy argument.

– Thousands of refugees congregate in ghettos in Syria, Jordan and Iran, stricken in poverty, with no help, employment, or voice – positively in Limbo, ready to move again. What about their stories? No! We don’t know what to ask them at this point anyway.

– Thousands more look longingly to the West, most afraid to criticise in fear of being rejected asylum and sent back to their nightmare life without rights, security and a fair shot at life. Refugee crisis? No! Ok maybe, but, er, *rewind* there are other people suffering too.

– Assyrian Christians are said to make up 3-5% of Iraq’s population, yet reports from international NGOs state they represent 40-50% of the Internally Displaced Peoples (IDPs) and refugees in surrounding territories and the West. How about now? Bigot!

Our story is simply lost amid generalisations. Iraq is viewed as a blanket mess not worth sifting through. There is no doubt that all Iraqis are suffering, but none are suffering more than the Assyrian Christian ethno-religious minority, and that must be made clear. More must be done as this is the case. What we get here is a hollow liberal agenda which condescendingly overlooks particularities and complex problems, and a conservatism more often concerned with attacking our persecutors than empowering the very people who are being attacked.

So, who says there is too much bad news? The fact is there isn’t enough.

New British Slasher Film, Starring You.

Didn’t we sack you two days ago…? 

So we’ve seen the vision George Osborne and the rest of the Tory party have for this country (the full version can be found here – it isn’t pleasant). We were never in any doubt of the severity of the cuts, but that doesn’t make it any less worse as they go deep into the fabric of our society.

I want to mention three things which our coalition government are adamant about, ignoring, or intentionally following through with. There is the constant reiteration that these particular cuts are “necessary”, contrary advice from world renowned economists, and the consequences these cuts will have for the majority of the public, respectively.

 

“Necessity”

OK, lets break this down. Osborne has said these cuts are “necessary” to correct a deficit the previous government created. Policies are never necessary. There is always a choice. The Tories and Liberal Democrats are pushing an agenda of having no choice to firstly try to mute other solutions, and secondly to relinquish any responsibility they will have for bad outcomes.

By saying there is no choice, they are in the right if the economy magically recovers through random innovation. If it slumps and we enter a double-dip recession, they can argue that, at the time, this was the only option and thus inevitable whatever course of action undertaken. It smacks of irresponsibility and, to put it bluntly, lies.

Basic economic theory suggests that in hard times, one should invest and not cut savagely. To give a simple picture: there are assets, which are profitable entities and contribute to society, taxation, and business. Then there are liabilities, which is the jargon for irretrievable costs paid by the spending entity.

In a recession, heavy investment is needed to drive an economy and fund the very things which will ensure economic growth. Sure, debt will be accumulated, but governments have an incredibly good rate of return for their loans as interest rates for developed nations are low, while the benefits associated with spending the money is relatively high.

The assets acquired by a government which chooses to maintain funding include keeping unemployment low to ensure a decent quality of life and greater tax revenues. The liabilities of cutting deep are horrendous and would entail massive swathes of unemployment, an increased welfare bill for those who are unemployed, and a likely rise in crime levels.

These things are costs which have no return other than “satisfying bond markets” or tentative investors who will be attracted to prices being lowered. The investment relied upon will be mostly foreign, as local investment depends on reluctant banks who aren’t willing to lend to small business due to the risks, and would rather deal with already wealthy clients.

 

Danny Trejo is set to star as George Osborne in the upcoming sequel to Hollywood blockbuster, Machete 2: Cutting Deep in Croxteth

I think George Osborne and his team must be relatively intelligent and thus I am unable to call them incompetent. Additionally, I do not think he now believes himself mistaken about the legislation. This can only mean one thing: this is an ideological position, and one which only presents itself as pure necessity. It is a choice, a policy, and a traditional one of the Tory Party.

 

“Don’t do it!”

We’re all sitting here and wondering how its going to pan out – it is a gamble after all. We’re not experts, and nor is George Osborne for that matter. However, two experts, who also happen to be Nobel Prize winners – Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz – have both voiced their concerns over proposed austerity plans.

Paul Krugman states:

In short: the demand for immediate austerity is based on the assertion that markets will demand such austerity in the future, even though they shouldn’t, and show no sign of making any such demand now; and that if markets do lose faith in us, self-flagellation would restore that faith, even though that hasn’t actually worked anywhere else.

The Bad Logic of Fiscal Austerity, New York Times, June 14th 2010

And it hasn’t, as Joseph Stiglitz here recalls:

Thanks to the IMF [International Monetary Fund], multiple experiments have been conducted – for instance, in east Asia in 1997-98 and a little later in Argentina – and almost all come to the same conclusion: the Keynesian prescription works. Austerity converts downturns into recessions, recessions into depressions. The confidence fairy that the austerity advocates claim will appear never does, partly perhaps because the downturns mean that the deficit reductions are always smaller than was hoped.

To Choose Austerity is to Bet it All on the Confidence Fairy, CiF, October 19th 2010

Austerity and methods suggested by organisations such as the IMF have proven to be detrimental to the recovery of an economy in dire straits. In East Asia, countries such as Malaysia, who greatly ignored the economic advice the IMF gave them, proved far more successful at maintaining its market integrity and ensuring recovery after the crisis.

Other countries like Thailand, who followed and implemented IMF programs almost perfectly, had the most disastrous time. More than three years after the East Asian crisis began, it was still in recession with a GDP roughly 2.3% below the pre-crisis level. This makes logical sense if you rightly consider a recovery meaning a good employment rate and fairer wages.

Of course, the IMF doesn’t care about employment or quality of life. Its interests are dictated by the Washington Consensus, which among other questionable policies, promotes free market fundamentalism and intensive (and immediate) trade liberalisation to suit the business interests of Western corporations who want the best possible return for their investments.

Our government has done its best to weave this false web of necessity regarding austerity while ignoring not only contrary advice from economists who have dedicated their career to mapping economic activity and analysing consequences, but hard evidence which makes a strong case against fiscal austerity as a response to economic crises and a high deficit.

 

Caroline Lucas does not approve. 

“We’re all in this together.”

This is the mantra of our current government. It is however nothing more than a vacuous soundbite repeated over and over in a rather Orwellian way. The key to this statement is recognising that it is trying to project fairness onto the policy rather than actually letting it emanate from the policy itself. I shouldn’t have to be persuaded it is fair.

Lets look at the details. Who suffers the most? George Osborne states that within this “progressive” spending review, the richest will suffer the most. However, the Institute of Fiscal Studies (you know, the group the Tories love quoting when it suits them, and don’t when it doesn’t), specifically state that it is the poorest who will suffer the most.

Students too will have to endure market forces as young as 18 when it comes determining their life choices with the imminent removal of the tuition fee cap. The government continue to say they are doing this so the next generation does not have to suffer because of the errors of this generation, but their policies are much to the contrary.

The whole spending review was undertaken already with the intention of making wholesale cuts to public services and investment. This effectively rebrands the “review” as merely a dossier expounding an ideology which has time and time again failed the majority of people wherever it is put into effect.

What really happens? Why do it if its destined to bring about mass unemployment, poorer wages and regional impoverishment? Again, it is to serve the elites in the long run. Business can be even more selective about their workforce, and will have an excuse to pay less, offer fewer benefits, and finally, try and shape education to suit their needs.

The very value of having a job increases as they become scarce. By ensuring this, more people will be open to exploitation by companies invoking the “bad times” card we’re being dealt by irresponsible media, political cronies and the very businesses themselves.  More people will not speak up about dissatisfaction, slave hours, poor pay and poor conditions.

Austerity is a mechanism for private interests to engineer our society by making it more desperate for what they offer us, more receptive of a particular political agenda, and more understanding of their greed by “looking at the bigger picture” – you know, the picture they draw for us too, not the actual one.

It maintains the status quo, further destroys social mobility, concentrates investment to low-risk already affluent areas, shapes education, and maintains the influence of business interests in public life. We can afford to maintain investment to facilitate growth. What we cannot afford are the austerity measures we will be made to feel in the years to come.

I’ll end with another quote from Krugman: The Myths of Fiscal Austerity:

So the next time you hear serious-sounding people explaining the need for fiscal austerity, try to parse their argument. Almost surely, you’ll discover that what sounds like hardheaded realism actually rests on a foundation of fantasy, on the belief that invisible vigilantes will punish us if we’re bad and the confidence fairy will reward us if we’re good. And real-world policy, policy that will blight the lives of millions of working families, is being built on that foundation.

Debt Management to Become a Standalone Course in High Schools.

Come on, it might as well be.

Lord Browne and his team issued a report on October 12th detailing the direction higher education must go because of this economic climate. We have just seen a defence review today which is cutting 42,000 jobs in the Ministry of Defence, affecting RAF, Navy, Army and civilian positions. Where do they go? Who cares! Oh, you do.

The country is on a downward downsizing spiral because of the gluttony and risk taking from the guys at the top.

Our education system has long been identified as a sector in dire need of reform, yet has gone without the attention it deserves because of the turbulent decade we have just experienced. We have been involved in two messy wars, terrorism on our shores and endured a recession so huge the effects will be felt for many years to come.

What do we know about this system which is responsible for moulding the next generation of workers, thinkers, innovators, and moralisers? Its benefits include a tuition fee cap that normalises the financial circumstances in which one can enter higher education. Then there are drawbacks, such as the rigidity of assessment procedures and the linearity of teaching.

Browne’s report aims to address the impending spending cuts which will affect higher education institutions. The cuts, which will be announced formally tomorrow, will severely squeeze an institution’s funds for teaching and research, so the impetus is on the universities to generate their own funding through private means.

I agree with the purpose of this report – to reform higher education, and later hopefully secondary education – but this effectively means the marketisation of the higher education sector.

This is a kind of a big deal. For a country which did not even charge students tuition fees a little over 12 years ago, we have rapidly got to the point where we are thinking of removing the fee cap altogether. How can something as important as a fee cap, in terms of contributing to social mobility and offering something towards building a true meritocracy, be scrapped?

 

System not responsive to the changing skills needs of the economy.
Analysis from the UKCES suggests that the higher education system does not produce the most effective mix of skills to meet business needs. 20% of businesses report having a skills gap of some kind in their existing workforce, up from 16% since 2007.

The CBI found that 48% of employers were dissatisfied with the business awareness of the graduates they hired. This evidence suggests there needs to be a closer fit between what is taught in higher education and the skills needed in the economy. It also adds force to the argument for helping existing workers to enter part time study and improve their skills.

 Securing a Sustainable Future for Higher Education in England, p.23

On the face of it, all this means is that higher education must adapt to the business market and provide a business friendly skill-set. This is one of the underlying assumptions of this report, and one which it is guided by the will to massage the various business interests which would like to see students develop skills the businesses want.

This is vitally important. The question which is ignored in this report, and any report which first considers the requirements of current short-term gains focused business first, is what should be dictated by what? Should what we study determine the jobs which are created, or should the existing jobs created by existing managers determine what we study?

Again, on the face of it, it is ridiculous to consider someone graduating from a philosophy degree starting a career as a full-time philosopher. However, isn’t it equally as ridiculous (to add very unjust) for someone who has an incredible grasp of history to enter employment as a sales representative, assuming that isn’t their burning desire?

Business can never be allowed to dictate our education because a homogenised education system, i.e. one tailored to meet the demands of business, will destroy diversity and positively halt innovation, condemning us to endlessly trying to meet unrealistic targets which exist in some areas of the working world.

What about employers who value employees with unique skill and knowledge sets, who are able to contribute creatively, rather than mechanically?

But no, lets roundly blame the beleaguered education system for not producing them while largely ignoring the employment market which does not welcome them. Schools are flooded with restrictive paperwork from the government while university leavers have to endure the rhetoric of business interests. We are being made to focus on only one of the two fronts.

 

Quality.
Students are no more satisfied with higher education than ten years ago. Employers report that many graduates lack the skills they need to improve productivity. Institutions have no access to additional investment to pay for improvements to the courses they provide. In any case the incentives for them to improve the student experience are limited.

p.23

 

Why is that? Well, it is easy to see that the blame for a graduate’s frustration falls squarely on the institution or course he has just left, either by misinforming him about prospects, or teaching him self-indulgent skills which are not easily transferable. We never really look at the employment sector to identify the great disconnect between it and our education too.

Business must be put in the spotlight. Also, we must stop using the word “economy” interchangeably with “business” in the first place, as, rather cannily, “economy” seems to have this more inclusive connotation, whereas “business” seems to describe some arbitrary organisation apart from the consumer, and crucially, with little interest in the consumer.

All in all, just another marketing ploy the government and big business utilise to dull our sensibilities when faced with their simplistic solutions (to their problems). Before even looking at the outrageous numbers, the first principle underpinning this report fails quite astonishingly:

 

Principle 1: There should be more investment in higher education – but institutions will have to convince students of the benefits of investing more.

p.24

 

I have emboldened the word “convince” not only to draw attention to it, but simply to underline it’s boldness. Students evidently are not willing to pay any more for their education, but will be powerless if universities impose higher fees to generate funding. There are a lot of problems with this strategy, never mind the numbers it entails.

Firstly, government officials and the people who are behind this report actually believe universities will give their persuasive efforts some meat and backbone. Persuasion can always be simply that: persuasion. Convincing a student of the supposed benefits of studying at a particular institution could merely accelerate the growth of the universities’ marketing arms.

Secondly, every university already outlines, in paper with a high GSM, that they are incredible and innovative. Giving a university the freedom to raise prices like a business will negatively enable it to behave like a business in other areas. Costs will be minimised regardless of quality of output, and prestige will play even more of a prominent role than it already does.

 

“Increasing competition for students will mean that institutions will have stronger incentives to focus on improving teaching quality.”

p.48

 

Creating “competition for students” through a private market would be catastrophic for society on many levels. Incentivising universities with a profit motive will see profits increase at a rate disproportionate to the standards of education. When taking into account matters such as social mobility, vast debt, and regional insensitivity, the new model leaves a lot to be desired.

Browne’s report models fees up to £12,000 per year, with fees in the region of £6,000 being earmarked as the most common sum to be requested. However, they concede there would be no cap (music to the Russell Group’s ears). It is also conceded that for most universities to break even, fees in excess of £7,000 would need to be charged.

The government, the group who have produced this review, and the universities have all remained relatively tight lipped about the ramifications of removing the cap. Of course they would! The government can make savage cuts, the universities are given the freedom to extort their students, and the this group can add a popular report to their portfolio.

Everyone wins! Except us, as always. Lets live the nightmare for a moment:

 

 

 

To illustrate what removing the cap could (and most likely would) do, I have obtained a graph with data from the Bureau of Labour Statistics in the U.S. Browne’s review and the support it has drawn from the coalition government is explained by satisfying all the parties except the new generation of students.

By adopting more of an American model, we are in danger of letting universities, the crucial institutions which (should) shape employment, innovation, and aid social mobility, concentrate on boosting profits, employing even more administrators to do so, and lumping students with horrendous mortgage style debts before they have even begun their careers.

The mantra of it being an investment for the future is unravelled by our economic cycles of boom and bust which entail little or no job security. Our volatile economic climate is controlled by business interests, and the governments elected to appease them. Employment is slashed at whim, while credit ratings are protected religiously by incompetent regulatory systems.

My cynicism is informed by our neighbours across the Atlantic, whose free market dogma has revealed itself to be a bitter pill to swallow for society at large. Institutions such as Harvard charge as much as $50,000 (£34,000) a year, over 4 years, not 3. The total comes to $200,000. How is this justifiable, other than by regressing to matters of prestige?

George W. Bush, probably the most incompetent president in recent history (and beyond), attended Yale, a renowned university in the U.S. How? Through heavy private contributions – the same contributions we are going to be asked to make to fund our institutions. That’s fairness right there in all its star-spangled glory.

Now, I don’t know about you, but I am not keen for us to produce clowns like that, reassuring English accent or not.

“Downsize your Dreams”, we are Told.

I have come across a podcast today on the Guardian website entitled Careers Talk – The Graduate Job Formula and I have to say, I was livid. (Predictable, yes, but I wouldn’t be writing this if I was delighted, would I?)

The podcast was conducted by four girls who chuckled more or less throughout, in what I believe was a botched attempt to take this serious matter seriously.

The situation presented is a familiar one:

Art student finishes enjoyable degree and enters the employment world ambitious, creative, full of ideas, and impatient to start working in a field he or she loves. Art student then finds most of the very few positions already filled by Oxbridge candidates or those who had the resources to undertake free work, travelling, and all manner CV building unrelated to the person’s actual ability. Art student, dejected and crestfallen, retreats into obscurity and works odd jobs until dream can be realised.

Unfortunately, the dream is often not realised because of the webs we are woven into.

These girls disagree. They say working in a call centre, for example, can be a very positive experience where many skills can be fleeced in return for some cognitive downtime.

The positives which were mentioned were as follows:

The training. Oh yes, the training. Knowing what button on the phone unit to press and how to speak to people, yes, I did not learn these things when I was a child, I must have been too busy dissecting Lego from my arse.

Understanding the legal issues. Call centres can be very challenging places to work in. A tech support call centre have an influx of distressed people with broken computers or broken lives which require real expert advice. But lets face it, you won’t be in a call centre like that because that requires years of training and probably a degree, and most importantly, some kind of passion for it. You’re more likely to be working in a sales role smiling your face off at a cold computer screen. Legal issues? Yeah, don’t swear at the idiot on the phone, which leads me nicely into…

Learning how to deal with difficult people. “We all have to deal with difficult people at some stage in our career…” was how this positive was framed. Indeed, we do. However, a difficult person being difficult about something you could not give a crumb of crap about is far different from a difficult person being difficult about something you are enthusiastic and passionate about. Chances are, you don’t care for that insurance you’re shotting, or the cable deal, or mobile phone, or whatever modern trinket we busy ourselves with these days.

And my favourite:

Future employers will know you are very hardworking. I can’t fault them here, they are right. You must be very hardworking, determined, dogged, resolute, and all of the other superlatives which also fit well with the Catholic Church’s attitude in covering up its child abuse scandal. Working in a call centre is textbook training for being another expendable entity in a system which is intent on maximising the commodification of labour, creating worker bots who simply generate wealth for the elites. Basically, your future employer will know you will do all your work, and usually theirs, without complaint or call for better treatment.

 

You’ll be sitting next L9JKV811.

By the way, I’m actually a balding, pugnacious man who hates you.

 

We are told we would be “work ready” after our ordeal. Having our ambitions bludgeoned by big business, who wouldn’t be ready for the particular employment market which awaits our fall from grace?

We are told to present our experiences at these call dungeons “intelligently” on our CVs, with the assumption that we won’t naively on their minds. What else are we to do? Write down we hated everything about it to the point where we daydreamed about suicide in our breaks?

“No, be honest, it was good for you. You just don’t know it.”

These four girls, who are expanding their journalism portfolio and are, from what I can surmise, doing what they want, have the cheek to preach to recent graduates about the CV goodness of putting down “Call Centre” as past or present employment, let alone actually enduring life as a call centre agent.

This is all presuming you can freely quit whenever you want, and have little debt to pay off in the inevitable gap between jobs where you have no income.

It is remarkably patronising and counter-productive to advise arts students to “be realistic” about their career prospects without simultaneously addressing the negative, oppressive system they are graduating into. Of course, as usual, it must be the graduate’s fault, or the low income worker’s fault, or the unemployed person’s fault – wealth is out there, go get it like everyone else is. They almost want to say stop sucking at life.

It is infuriating having such short-sighted people exercise some kind of false authority in this subject when they are clearly ignoring the public mood and have no idea about the global picture—and at the same time carve a career out of it in such an important field—journalism.

The most ironic part of the whole turgid conversation had later with a Professor was when he listed the key ingredients to give your job hunt the best chance. What ranked higher than anything else, according to him, was having good contacts. How worrying it is that graduates are expected to already have contacts without being previously employed.

“Dad, who was that guy you said would be interested in taking me on for a bit?”

Plainly put, we are becoming increasingly tired of papering over cracks, of having drivel being fed to us as news, of bailing out exploitative and opportunistic banks and funding illegal wars with public money, with government forever placating corporatists, with cementing the plutocracy, and with these geriatric “experts” making us feel like they “understand”.

The more we have people like these girls telling us to see the positives in slaving away in enormous call centres for people who view you as a screw in their wealth machine, the more desperate our society will become in overhauling itself.

Where is the identification of the new workforce and what it desires to do? If a lot of people are now taking arts based degrees, for example, where is the increase of arts based jobs? We are already seeing government cuts to these kind of jobs, with the Murdoch empire hovering like vultures over the BBC and any Tory plans which may call for its downsizing.

Collectively, people should determine what they want to do, and not corporations. There is a massive disconnection with the employment “market” and what people wish to do and study. We peer out of our university gates after three years only to realise these kind of jobs “are not there” and be told “not everyone can be artists”.

Of course they couldn’t; there would be no-one left to work for the elites who offer little material reward or fulfillment. There would also be even more competition for these journalism jobs.

Vote for Change

The “Win-Win Situation” That Destroys Social Mobility.

I sit here a bitter man. Not because I have been recovering from a bout of food poisoning which has hampered my contributions to this space or an unexpected computer virus which compelled me to format my computer, but more crucially, unpaid internships continuing with no real sign of being reined in.

Graduates gain an experience and employers gain free labour – what’s the problem?

Unpaid internships ruin the chances of graduates from poorer families gaining valuable experience during their course and after they finish university. They contribute greatly to the very real brick wall that manifests as companies look for individuals who can basically pay them for the “experience”.

What good is it graduating from university with a degree which was at least part subsidised by the state through capped tuition costs and helpful low interest loans, only to emerge looking for a job in an employment environment populated by organisations who largely offer only unpaid internships?

The result of this process is the creation of two working worlds – one for the rich and one for the poor. Both the public and private sectors are guilty of this practice.

Below is the job description of a post I have recently found.

 

…and make us a coffee. Cheers.

 

Now, that seems like a decent amount of work suitable for a graduate in their second role. The above is actually a position advertised on a British website inviting graduates to apply to an internship in the heart of Berlin. To compensate the graduate, a monthly “honorarium” of 500 EUR is offered to cover costs. Clearly, 500 EUR is not nearly enough to cover rent in the heart of Berlin, let alone the flight there and living expenses (nevermind actually doing the above).

This occurs everywhere, and nobody is really that bothered. Given the saturated job market due to the number of graduates, there must be some mechanism to filter out the applicants who do not make the grade required yet(?). This is necessary in today’s working world, but I believe the practice of unpaid internships unfairly discriminates against those who cannot even apply because they know they cannot afford it.

I don’t have to go to Berlin for such an example either, there are plenty much closer to home. With Thatcher’s realignment of everything valuable being in the heart of London and nowhere else, businesses have had to “go where the money is” and set up base in London, depriving the rest of the country from outlets graduates can apply to to practice their skills.

For example, a graduate from the North East of England who wants to start his career must be able to afford an internship in London to gain a foothold in their industry of choice. They cannot compete with those who are from London because Londoners simply have more opportunities to start and grow their career through unpaid internships they can afford.

This is not meritocratic; it is basically dynastic.

There remains little incentive for businesses and organisations to offer paid internships when there are affluent graduates who can depend on their parents to subsidise the “impressive” unpaid work they can choose undertake home and abroad. This is especially true in the nigh impregnable NGO sector where elitism is rife and managers tend to “revert to type”.

Many such organisations more recently complain of the economic downturn as the reason for the cycles of free labour they employ. Plain lies. I have seen very small organisations who comply with law by granting the National Minimum Wage, and I have seen some of the largest organisations make it explicitly clear they will not even pay expenses.

None are more guilty than the United Nations. Their internship offers no expenses whatsoever, despite the requirements of a flight to New York, rent and living expenses (a quoted sum of $5,000 for the internship in total). Not only do you have to pay this hefty fee to work for them for nothing, you have to be currently enrolled in graduate study.

This means the student will just have to have the money if they want the experience, with no option of working to save up for it available given the requirement to be already in full time education. Daddy’s wallet comes into play and the affluent graduate has their edge against the competition. If this isn’t simply buying experience, I don’t know what it. How is this fair?

 

“Thanks dad!”

 

The simple fact is this: nobody should have to pay to be employed. When someone has parted with money to gain experience, a market system is in place where none should be. Of course the demand is high for careerists to scribble “United Nations” on their CV, but the supply of that experience should never be determined by how much money the applicant has to offer.

This is why interns must be paid at least the National Minimum Wage.

The employment process has lost its integrity given its marketisation. Tuition fees are capped for a reason – so the top universities in the country cannot charge more than the smaller less established universities. This is fair because admission should be primarily based on merit, not quantity of payment. Employment should operate similarly, but it doesn’t.

Whenever there is an avenue to influence, to gain and demonstrate power, and to accumulate wealth, the rich will devise ways to segregate the population and distract us with other problems. Powerful positions are simply reserved for those who have the “material pedigree”. Social mobility is intrinsic to what a democracy actually means, but it is lying dead in the water.

It must be said, the common myth is that social mobility has been in sharp decline for the last 20 years. This isn’t true; it has merely stabilised – not improved or worsened noticeably. The sharp decline commenced because of the free-market religion created during the height of the Cold War, with the unholy alliance of Thatcher and Reagan, its two most prominent advocates.

What we’re experiencing now is a “don’t rock the boat” approach undertaken by market-speak neo-liberals who are bereft of ideas. The answer always seems to be “charge for it” if it is free, or “charge more” if it is supposedly in high demand. The only market regulation which seems to exist is to deprive the poor of the product or opportunity to maintain its value.

Fairness is must be rooted in equal opportunities. It is those first few jobs which shape our attitude to life and help us identify what we truly want to do. When opportunities are unnecessarily limited at this stage, we “settle” for things we otherwise would not settle for. Our dreams become distant and naive, and we accept exploitation as if it defined maturity.

It doesn’t; it simply defines exploitation.

An old funny tweet created to rib conservatives goes: “if you have inherited hard all your life, you should be able to pass it on to your children”. Too right; here’s a load of money, my mansion, the keys to the BMW and your first job. None of these things bother me at all apart from the last gift enabled by our “job market” – that phrase alone is turning my stomach again.