There are often calls for more women to be placed in high ranking positions in business. Back in 2011 a report suggested that the percentage of women on board tables to 25%. If they don't they will "be missing out on a vast array of talent at their disposal."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/12560121
Why are they missing out on talent? Surely the men that are there have the talent they need, that is why they are there? If not wouldn't they hire more women on their own?
I should state at this point I'm actually in favour of more women being on the boards of major companies. I'm playing devil's advocate.
Women should be at the board table, not to statisfy some quota or because women are the same as men, but rather the reverse. There should be women on company boards because women are different. They have different attributes that men won't have. They usually have a different way of looking at things, a different way of evaluating and processing risk and many other different attributes. It is this that makes a balanced board room so useful. If women were exactly the same as men then a board room with 25% women would be no different, no better than one with 0%. It appears that lefties tend to get this.
So if it is so obvious to those on the left that a balance of men and women can help an organisation a serious question raises its head: If a board room of all men (or presumably all women) isn't as balanced as a board room with a mix, if they don't have the same variety of skills, approaches, strengths and benefits, does the same apply to a family?
Lefties tend to think that homosexual marriage is fantastic. There was a bill on adoption that was passed years ago, some wanted there to be reference to the importance of male role models in an adopted childs life, but this was rejected. How does this make sense? A board room is argued to be better for a balance of men and women, but parents can be 100% male or 100% female and that is fine? How can these two opinions be reconciled? Surely the attributes that make it beneficial to have women at the table of FTSE 100 companies are the same attributes that make it beneficial to have them as parents, and likewise with men. Obviously there will be individual examples where two good men can raise a child better than an awful couple made up of a man and woman. Just like there will be times when a board room full of men will be better than a mixed one, but we are talking about averages here. Does it not make sense that two men cannot behave like a man and a women, because women bring unique characteristics that men alone will not possess? Does not the same apply the other way around?
To deny that women bring their own skills and perspective to a company seems odd, to say they do not bring them to a family seems absurd. Why does the left on the one hand shout out the benefits of gender balance and then on the other hand pretend they do not exist?
Saturday, 2 November 2013
Tuesday, 9 July 2013
The obsession with immigration: Part II
So in part one I covered the basic issues. Why are the questions asked about immigration never the ones that actually count. In this section I move to my next point: skills.
The other arguement that people often discuss when considering immigration is the lack of skills in our country. 'Oh, how will business survive if we can't draw from those skilled, young, hardworking migrants?'. Somehow business is unable to survive without relying on importing people to do the work. Do I agree with this argument? Well actually once again I think to bother answering the question misses the real issue in the first place: we are a developed western nation, we have a mature education system (one of the best higher education systems in the whole world) and we spend a huge amount of money on educating our children, universally, I might add. Yet we're dependent on developing countries that have far more stretched resources and non-universal education systems in order to get enough skilled workers... how does that make sense?
If business cannot find the skilled workers it needs in this country surely the obvious question that needs answering is: why? Our country pours money into the education system, everyone has the opportunity to learn, almost everyone can read and write, why can't our people do the work?
If it is an issue with the type of education we receive (people studying [insert pointless qualification here] instead of training to become a plumber or software engineer) then don't we need to inform students about the jobs available and the demands that exist in order to ensure they have the best chance of getting employed in a job they will enjoy?
In the alternative if it is because our own citizens don't work as hard as immigrants, perhaps we need to ask questions about why they work so hard and we don't. I don't know what the answer will be, but if we don't look into it, you're not going to get the answer.
Finally there is another ethical issue at hand. Is it really fair for developing nations to spend their money on educating doctors and engineers and whatever else, just for a much richer nation to come along once they have finished their training and poach them? Training is expensive, and the host country no doubt needs doctors and engineers for its own companies and hospitals, is it fair to promote a immigration policy that allows poorer nations to pay for our doctors' training, when their own country's health standard is much lower than ours? Don't get me wrong, it is certainly cheaper for us, but I'm not sure whether that is justification.
Either way whenever I heard a discussion regarding immigration I wonder where the question of family and education comes in. Sadly, I find it usually (if not always) just doesn't come up at all... perhaps if we start asking the right questions we can start to get the right answers and we can finally let the issue of immigration take a back seat to other matters.
The other arguement that people often discuss when considering immigration is the lack of skills in our country. 'Oh, how will business survive if we can't draw from those skilled, young, hardworking migrants?'. Somehow business is unable to survive without relying on importing people to do the work. Do I agree with this argument? Well actually once again I think to bother answering the question misses the real issue in the first place: we are a developed western nation, we have a mature education system (one of the best higher education systems in the whole world) and we spend a huge amount of money on educating our children, universally, I might add. Yet we're dependent on developing countries that have far more stretched resources and non-universal education systems in order to get enough skilled workers... how does that make sense?
If business cannot find the skilled workers it needs in this country surely the obvious question that needs answering is: why? Our country pours money into the education system, everyone has the opportunity to learn, almost everyone can read and write, why can't our people do the work?
If it is an issue with the type of education we receive (people studying [insert pointless qualification here] instead of training to become a plumber or software engineer) then don't we need to inform students about the jobs available and the demands that exist in order to ensure they have the best chance of getting employed in a job they will enjoy?
In the alternative if it is because our own citizens don't work as hard as immigrants, perhaps we need to ask questions about why they work so hard and we don't. I don't know what the answer will be, but if we don't look into it, you're not going to get the answer.
Finally there is another ethical issue at hand. Is it really fair for developing nations to spend their money on educating doctors and engineers and whatever else, just for a much richer nation to come along once they have finished their training and poach them? Training is expensive, and the host country no doubt needs doctors and engineers for its own companies and hospitals, is it fair to promote a immigration policy that allows poorer nations to pay for our doctors' training, when their own country's health standard is much lower than ours? Don't get me wrong, it is certainly cheaper for us, but I'm not sure whether that is justification.
Either way whenever I heard a discussion regarding immigration I wonder where the question of family and education comes in. Sadly, I find it usually (if not always) just doesn't come up at all... perhaps if we start asking the right questions we can start to get the right answers and we can finally let the issue of immigration take a back seat to other matters.
Saturday, 6 July 2013
The obsession with immigration
Immigration is always news. I don't know what day you'll be reading this but if you check a few online papers it wouldn't be unlikely that at least one of them is running a story or report on something related to UK immigration. This is because of an age old debate that I'll just go over quickly so we're all on the same page:
People argue for immigration because we have an ageing population and a lack of certain skills. They say that if we bring in young hard working people from outside the country, they will help prop up our economy, earn tax pounds, pay for our NHS (particularly for those in old age) and balance out the demographic problem of an ageing population. Subtly, but usually not mentioned explicitly, it is also suggested that they work for less, so they keep prices down in certain industries too. This arguement is usually made by lefty liberal types. They are often well educated and have highly paid jobs, that is jobs that aren't going to be under threat from cheap immigrant labour.
On the other hand you have the opposition, this is split into two camps:
Working class: these guys are just annoyed that 'their' jobs are being filled by immigrants and that they are will to work for less.
Non-working class: these guys are more concerned about what will happen socially if you invite large number of people who may not share your countries common values, and let them settle without the need to integrate into the local culture.
You maybe wondering which side I'm about to come down on... give a guess. Go on....
Nope. Unless you said, none of the above, I'm afraid you didn't get it. While the discussion on immigration brings up these arguements on a regular basis, the thing that I want to highlight right now, are the questions that are never actually asked in these debates. The questions that some how seem to get ignored, despite the fact that they seem to be the most important fundamental questions under pinning the whole issue.
If we have a demographic problem, where our population is ageing, surely the question that needs to be asked is... why isn't anyone having children any more? Does that not make sense? The reason why we have an ageing population is because people are not having at least two children. Why? What has our society done to destroy the value in having children? What has happened to our concept of the family and what is important in life to make it so that we as a society don't bother having one anymore? We could bring immigrants in if we wanted, but eventually if they integrate into society they will become more like us and stop having children. So it is just a temporary solution. Once again it is just resolving the symptom rather than looking at the deeper problem.
It maybe we need to look deeper at our society and ask why we value someone who works, but we treat people who stay at home to look after a family as a bit of a drop out. Why is it that a family that has two working adults with no children is seen as a success and an asset to society even though our society has plenty of workers but not enough parents? In contrast the image of a person who stays at home to look after their children while the other works is generally portrayed as unintelligent? Some say raising children is expensive, and I think it certainly is. But I don't think that is what stops people. BMWs are expensive but we see plenty of them. In fact a few years ago BMW 3 Series' started out selling Ford Mondeos. People are willing to pay for expensive things if they are seen as valuable in society. My concern is that in our society family, is no longer seen as valuable, it isn't something that we invest in. Some do, but less so now than in years past. Why is it no one asks how to solve this question?
There is another issue too, the work ethic of our own people... maybe that'll be part II.
People argue for immigration because we have an ageing population and a lack of certain skills. They say that if we bring in young hard working people from outside the country, they will help prop up our economy, earn tax pounds, pay for our NHS (particularly for those in old age) and balance out the demographic problem of an ageing population. Subtly, but usually not mentioned explicitly, it is also suggested that they work for less, so they keep prices down in certain industries too. This arguement is usually made by lefty liberal types. They are often well educated and have highly paid jobs, that is jobs that aren't going to be under threat from cheap immigrant labour.
On the other hand you have the opposition, this is split into two camps:
Working class: these guys are just annoyed that 'their' jobs are being filled by immigrants and that they are will to work for less.
Non-working class: these guys are more concerned about what will happen socially if you invite large number of people who may not share your countries common values, and let them settle without the need to integrate into the local culture.
You maybe wondering which side I'm about to come down on... give a guess. Go on....
Nope. Unless you said, none of the above, I'm afraid you didn't get it. While the discussion on immigration brings up these arguements on a regular basis, the thing that I want to highlight right now, are the questions that are never actually asked in these debates. The questions that some how seem to get ignored, despite the fact that they seem to be the most important fundamental questions under pinning the whole issue.
If we have a demographic problem, where our population is ageing, surely the question that needs to be asked is... why isn't anyone having children any more? Does that not make sense? The reason why we have an ageing population is because people are not having at least two children. Why? What has our society done to destroy the value in having children? What has happened to our concept of the family and what is important in life to make it so that we as a society don't bother having one anymore? We could bring immigrants in if we wanted, but eventually if they integrate into society they will become more like us and stop having children. So it is just a temporary solution. Once again it is just resolving the symptom rather than looking at the deeper problem.
It maybe we need to look deeper at our society and ask why we value someone who works, but we treat people who stay at home to look after a family as a bit of a drop out. Why is it that a family that has two working adults with no children is seen as a success and an asset to society even though our society has plenty of workers but not enough parents? In contrast the image of a person who stays at home to look after their children while the other works is generally portrayed as unintelligent? Some say raising children is expensive, and I think it certainly is. But I don't think that is what stops people. BMWs are expensive but we see plenty of them. In fact a few years ago BMW 3 Series' started out selling Ford Mondeos. People are willing to pay for expensive things if they are seen as valuable in society. My concern is that in our society family, is no longer seen as valuable, it isn't something that we invest in. Some do, but less so now than in years past. Why is it no one asks how to solve this question?
There is another issue too, the work ethic of our own people... maybe that'll be part II.
Friday, 15 March 2013
Can economic pain be good?
Right here is the question: Can economic pain be good?
At the moment everyone in the UK is faffing around because the growth of our economy isn't shooting along at 3-5% and instead it is just bouncing around 0-1% if we're lucky.
As a consequence people seem to think that the answer is more public spending. At first I thought they were wrong, after all you don't get yourself out of debt by spending more money. Then when growth didn't pick up I thought maybe they were right. Maybe spending on infrastructure projects would be really useful.
To an extent I still believe that infrastructure projects would be useful. Right now the UK is far too London-centric. You want to work in Finance? Go to London. You want to Work in Law? Go to London. You want to work in Government? Go to London. You want to work in tech? Go to the South East (London, Cambridge and Oxford).
The consequence is these places overheat while the rest of the UK flounders. Demand for housing, education etc is far too high in the South East, meanwhile in parts of the North East you can buy a house for the same price as a family saloon. It doesn't make sense. One way to help reverse this is to improve infrastructure. So, building HS2 rail seems like a good idea.
(even if it was knocked back today: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-rail-transport/9932958/Government-forced-back-to-drawing-board-on-high-speed-rail-compensation.html)
So to a certain level I am in favour of investment that will level the playing field, bring business out from the overheated South East and up to the neglected North of England, Scotland and North Wales. But many people seem to think that the answer to economic stagnation is just generally more public spending. Preventing cuts to public servies etc. This will, it is claimed, reduce unemployment, help keep people out of financial problems and help get the economy going once more. I'm not so sure however.
In the short term, public spending will reduce unemployment, that much is almost sure. But so what? There are a huge number of ways people deal with short term problems that just make the future worse. Essentially this usually involves treating the symptom rather than the problem. For example, if one has toothache and they just take painkillers, it may be that the symptom is dealt with, but the problem continues, until one day, when perhaps the mouth gets infected and teeth need to be removed. Or another option would be a broken leg, where isn't of getting it reset with a splint (which would be painful in the short term) one ignores it and their leg fixes itself in a deformed manner. I'm sure we could think of endless ways to illusrate the point. The same goes for our economy.
How does this illustrate our economy? Well, say we do give out lots of public contracts instead of cutting back. People will continue to have work in the short term, but the underlying issue will not have changed. What is the underlying issue? Our economy is stuck in the past.
How is our economy stuck in the past? Simple, it is facing the wrong way. Sure we have all the knowledge and technology we need, but who does it serve? Us, the UK, the EU and the US. In short our economy is largely arranged to serve the West. To show how this is the case people often quote how more trade is conducted between the UK and Ireland, a country with only 4,600,000 people than India, a country with over a billion people living there ( around 1,200,000,000). That is right, we trade more with the tiny republic of Ireland than with a country that comprises over a 1/6 of the world's entire population. Now obviously part of that could be explained by our proximity to Ireland, but distance doesn't stop China from trading huge amounts of goods with the US and the EU. The truth is our economy is still concerned with the question that mattered in the last few decades; 'what can we sell to rich westerners?'. The answer to that question was mainly 'cheaply manufactured products made in China'. And as a result the wealth of the so called BRIC nations has increased hugely (BRIC: Brazil, Russia, India, China). As a result of their increase in wealth and industry, we're no longer in position to pay ourselves large salleries in the form of public service jobs, because all our money is very quickly being sapped out of our country and spread to the four courners of the globe. Previously we could just keep borrowing, but that option is running out fast as money is being better invested elsewhere around the world. We as a nation need to stop huddling with the other western nations, turn around and embrace the brave new world around us. A world where is isn't all about 'us' any more.
This simply won't happen if we keep on borrowing and providing public service work. If we keep borrowing to provide work, our economy will continue to be an 'us' focused economy, we'll still be busy trying to pretend we don't have to go out and work for our standard of living, pretending we can borrow to keep ourselves in the manner to which we've become accoustom, all the while our economic position would grow precarious, and the government would be less and less likely to be able to pay its debts. In addition other economies would steal a march on us, being quicker and more ready to adapt to the new state of affairs. Once that happens it is much harder for us to play catch up....
Of course we don't need to have this happen, we could just start the change now, we could just stop looking for more debt, and start looking for what we can do to serve others in the world.... and pay our way in it.
At the moment everyone in the UK is faffing around because the growth of our economy isn't shooting along at 3-5% and instead it is just bouncing around 0-1% if we're lucky.
As a consequence people seem to think that the answer is more public spending. At first I thought they were wrong, after all you don't get yourself out of debt by spending more money. Then when growth didn't pick up I thought maybe they were right. Maybe spending on infrastructure projects would be really useful.
To an extent I still believe that infrastructure projects would be useful. Right now the UK is far too London-centric. You want to work in Finance? Go to London. You want to Work in Law? Go to London. You want to work in Government? Go to London. You want to work in tech? Go to the South East (London, Cambridge and Oxford).
The consequence is these places overheat while the rest of the UK flounders. Demand for housing, education etc is far too high in the South East, meanwhile in parts of the North East you can buy a house for the same price as a family saloon. It doesn't make sense. One way to help reverse this is to improve infrastructure. So, building HS2 rail seems like a good idea.
(even if it was knocked back today: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-rail-transport/9932958/Government-forced-back-to-drawing-board-on-high-speed-rail-compensation.html)
So to a certain level I am in favour of investment that will level the playing field, bring business out from the overheated South East and up to the neglected North of England, Scotland and North Wales. But many people seem to think that the answer to economic stagnation is just generally more public spending. Preventing cuts to public servies etc. This will, it is claimed, reduce unemployment, help keep people out of financial problems and help get the economy going once more. I'm not so sure however.
In the short term, public spending will reduce unemployment, that much is almost sure. But so what? There are a huge number of ways people deal with short term problems that just make the future worse. Essentially this usually involves treating the symptom rather than the problem. For example, if one has toothache and they just take painkillers, it may be that the symptom is dealt with, but the problem continues, until one day, when perhaps the mouth gets infected and teeth need to be removed. Or another option would be a broken leg, where isn't of getting it reset with a splint (which would be painful in the short term) one ignores it and their leg fixes itself in a deformed manner. I'm sure we could think of endless ways to illusrate the point. The same goes for our economy.
How does this illustrate our economy? Well, say we do give out lots of public contracts instead of cutting back. People will continue to have work in the short term, but the underlying issue will not have changed. What is the underlying issue? Our economy is stuck in the past.
How is our economy stuck in the past? Simple, it is facing the wrong way. Sure we have all the knowledge and technology we need, but who does it serve? Us, the UK, the EU and the US. In short our economy is largely arranged to serve the West. To show how this is the case people often quote how more trade is conducted between the UK and Ireland, a country with only 4,600,000 people than India, a country with over a billion people living there ( around 1,200,000,000). That is right, we trade more with the tiny republic of Ireland than with a country that comprises over a 1/6 of the world's entire population. Now obviously part of that could be explained by our proximity to Ireland, but distance doesn't stop China from trading huge amounts of goods with the US and the EU. The truth is our economy is still concerned with the question that mattered in the last few decades; 'what can we sell to rich westerners?'. The answer to that question was mainly 'cheaply manufactured products made in China'. And as a result the wealth of the so called BRIC nations has increased hugely (BRIC: Brazil, Russia, India, China). As a result of their increase in wealth and industry, we're no longer in position to pay ourselves large salleries in the form of public service jobs, because all our money is very quickly being sapped out of our country and spread to the four courners of the globe. Previously we could just keep borrowing, but that option is running out fast as money is being better invested elsewhere around the world. We as a nation need to stop huddling with the other western nations, turn around and embrace the brave new world around us. A world where is isn't all about 'us' any more.
This simply won't happen if we keep on borrowing and providing public service work. If we keep borrowing to provide work, our economy will continue to be an 'us' focused economy, we'll still be busy trying to pretend we don't have to go out and work for our standard of living, pretending we can borrow to keep ourselves in the manner to which we've become accoustom, all the while our economic position would grow precarious, and the government would be less and less likely to be able to pay its debts. In addition other economies would steal a march on us, being quicker and more ready to adapt to the new state of affairs. Once that happens it is much harder for us to play catch up....
Of course we don't need to have this happen, we could just start the change now, we could just stop looking for more debt, and start looking for what we can do to serve others in the world.... and pay our way in it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
