This was recent the title for an essay competition organised by Baille Gifford. This is my submission. It made the final short-list and I won a £25 book voucher. Not too bad?
“As in all successful ventures, the foundation
of a good retirement is planning.”
In the current economic climate, our financial future is somewhat blurred,
forcing us to prepare for retirement at a much younger age. However, with an
unstable national economy, rising inflation and huge government spending cuts;
it is becoming more and more difficult to do so. As the title suggests, the
problem of retirement is split up into two clear sections. When to retire, and
perhaps even more importantly, how to fund it.
People are ambitious, we all want to be a millionaire and not have to work,
we’ve all had the conversation about what we will do when we win the
lottery, and we’ve all dreamed about the luxury lifestyle that comes with it.
So why worry about retirement? Well, as much as it pains me to say it, it’s not
going to happen is it? We know that its very unlikely that we’ll be able to
stop working at thirty, so it makes sense to plan ahead. Just in case.
Everyone is living longer now, with the average life expectancy being 78 for
men, and 82 for women. There is a high chance that by the time we seventeen
year olds hit retirement, medical advances could allow people to live much
longer, and more importantly, stay healthier for longer. So should we
anticipate being physically able to work until a later age? If so, we can aim
to retire later, giving us more time to financially plan, but also expect to
live longer, giving us more time to live the lifestyle we have always dreamed
of.
There are also other psychological factors that can affect when we retire. Most
jobs today are highly stressful, and retiring could be a way to escape from the
pressure of everyday life. This links in with the longevity argument that
states people will retire earlier if they think it will enable them to live
longer.
Despite these ideas, I think that the financial burden of retirement is
pivotal, and often outweighs any other factors. No matter when somebody wants
to retire, if they can’t afford to, then they don’t really have a choice.
There are a number of ways that somebody could financially plan for retirement,
varying from stocks and shares to pension schemes. All of these methods
work in theory, but which is the best? Of course, the word ‘best’ could be
misinterpreted, the fact is, we want as much money as possible so my idea of
the ‘best’ method, is the one that makes you the most money, with the least
risk.
The first and arguably most common method is the good old fashioned pension
scheme. The government gives you tax relief on any contributions you make, and
you typically pay a certain amount every month. Nice and simple.
After a new legislation, businesses have to offer pension schemes by law. The
terms of these schemes vary between employers, but some can be very generous,
offering to match any contributions you make. It’s effectively free money. This
scheme provides members of the public with some financial security, as well as
a quicker way to finance retirement. However, the fact that businesses have to
contribute will raise costs, which could then lead to further unemployment.
So why doesn’t everybody have one? The real question here is whether or not you
trust the government. With spending cuts on the rise, and a long road to
recovery blurring our future prospects, pension schemes are almost certainly
going to change. The fact that we are planning for something so far in the
future means that if we don’t trust the government, we are ploughing money into
a system that shows no real sign of a positive return.
Alternative retirement schemes include property and stocks and shares. If used
wisely, these investment opportunities could yield very high returns, but also
come with a large amount of risk attached. In order to invest in property, or
trade on the stock market, you will need quite a high level of initial capital
to make it worth your while. Plus, with unstable house prices, and declining
profits within businesses, is now the best time to invest in such methods? I
think not.
There is of course a less risky method, but it still requires large initial
capital or some sort of loan. With house prices increasing, more people are
looking to rent property, as opposed to buying it. This provides an opportunity
to buy a property, and then rent it out. This method could provide a constant
stream of income, and is quite sustainable in the long run, as you can increase
the rent as house prices increase and vice versa.
With all these different schemes it really is hard to pinpoint the ‘best’
method. Instead I would suggest a mixture of all the previous methods. After
all, it would be unwise to ‘put all your eggs in one basket’. So why not opt
into a pension scheme, invest in the stock market, and rent out a property. The
downside to this is quite obviously time and expertise. Chances are that along
the line one of the methods will fail, and it will take a lot of time to manage
the investments but I think it is definitely worth it. It may take a bit
of research and risk, but how much do you value the luxury lifestyle of
retirement? How much do you want that holiday home in Spain?
Of course the cost of retirement varies from person to person, and depending on
how much money somebody feels they need should heavily influence what
scheme/schemes they opt into.
So, to finally answer the above question, of when I want to retire and how I
want to fund it, I think it’s quite simple. I’ll just win the lottery, and
retire at thirty.
Why not?
I'm pretty sure if this actually happened, it would make it into the
shortlist.
Our lead guest writer Leo Thorncroft is back with another wise and insightful post. His previous article (view it
here) became an instant success, and now he's back with more. Read On!
A couple of nights ago, the last episode of the second series of Black Mirror aired, titled 'The Waldo Moment'. As I've only just got around to watching it, I thought I'd talk about it a little.
I'm going to spare the details, but essentially it was about a blue bear named Waldo who was a sketch on a comedy show, pretending to be a children's character to politicians before turning on them. Not exactly shocking stuff.
Someone then has the bright idea of making him run as a political candidate. Suddenly, this swearing blue animated bear is everywhere. The animated screen even takes part in a question time scene, where the guy voicing him eventually snaps at all the other candidates, calling them all fake, etc, etc. He begins to represent a way for people to show their resentment to the politicians, and he becomes popular. Really popular. Social networks become obsessed with him, and his YouTube videos' are watched by pretty much everyone.
In the end, Waldo loses. But not before he's become a worldwide symbol, everywhere and everything. This got me thinking how far we can take a joke. People love to be able to have some way to actually rebel against things. Look at Rage Against the Machine a couple of years ago, they managed to get to number one, beating the X Factor. We love showing that we can fight back, we just need a way to do it. We also love being able to laugh at all of the people we've managed to beat. Even if you didn't give a damn who was top of the charts, you might still have bought Killing in the Name of, because why the hell not? When something fills Twitter, or Facebook, you might finally decide to listen, and that kind of messes with our generation. How far would we let something go just because it was funny? Just because it was new and outrageous and finally put those people in their place. Look at Boris Johnson. I love him, he is brilliant, but only because he's... Well, kind of a joke. People like Frankie Boyle, do you think you'd vote for him because he was funny, because it was a chance to rise up and just have a laugh at all the others? I think we would, but maybe that's me. It's just sort of scary, how powerful it can be if we just don't care. I'm not saying Frankie Boyle's going to rule the world like Waldo basically did. But why not, if enough people stop caring and just try and do things for a joke, it's not impossible?
We've all got a bit too loud and a bit too powerful for our own good, and we could mess everything up. I know I sound boring, but we need some sensible people or some sort of line of where enough is enough, else we're all buggered.
Leo Thorncroft - Idle Scribe
With the Samsung Galaxy SIII winning the smartphone of the year award, now is a perfect time to raise the question as to whether Apple is finally going to lose the dominance it has held in the mobile industry for years.
This question was first raised after the release of the iPad mini, saying that Apple was giving in to the competition. I am currently writing this post on said device and I'm adamant that it's one of the best products the company has produced. Despite this, I can't deny that the release of the iPad mini is somewhat 'un-apple like' and really goes to show how competition from Samsung and other mobile companies may finally be considered a threat to the almighty Apple.
So the short answer to the above question is yes, I think Apple is starting to lose it's dominance in this fiercely competitive market, but I think I can do a little better than just leaving it there, so now let's move onto why this has happened.
I think the main cause of this problem is that Apple have been desperately clinging on to the brand loyalty of consumers and in turn failing to create some sort of sustainable demand for the products. After all, each new iPhone is only marginally better than the one before, and people are starting to get a bit annoyed about it.
There has also been a rise in the purchasing of older generation iPhones, due to the reason mentioned above. If the performance of the iPhone 5 is only a bit better than the 4, many people will buy a second hand iPhone 4 instead. You would think this could benefit apple as more people are using iPhones, but the problem is that sales of the newest generation device will be challenged by competitors.
This scenario directly relates to me. I have an iPhone 3GS. It was £90 and is basically as fast as the iPhone 4 and much better value for money, see my point?
The second reason that Apple may be starting to go downhill is design. The IOS software is very nice, but it's fundamentally very similar to the original version we were introduced to back in 2007. I'm not saying the software isn't brilliantly designed, but when it comes to a mobile interface, consumers want to see change. We want to feel like we have the latest bit of technology at our fingertips, and Apple just aren't delivering.
The final and most important reason is that whilst Apple have kept the same design, their competitors have been doing the exact opposite. We've seen an almost constant stream of Android updates, as well as voice recognition that can easily compete with Siri, and not to mention a maps application that actually works.
Just before I end this article I think it's necessary to mention what will likely happen now the Apple bubble is bursting.
If Apple have any sense (which I'm sure they do), we'll see a fall in prices for their devices and hopefully some genuine changes to iOS. Hopefully Apple start to realise that they actually have to put some effort into developing their products, and the benefit of them doing so will benefit us consumers.
We will have to wait and see, although knowing the frequency of Apple products release, we won't be waiting long.
This is my second 'blogging tips' post, and considering the success of the last one I might make it a full series. If you missed my first tip, don't feel left out, watch it
here.
So assuming you've now read the first tip, you will have heard me go on about how content is the most important thing to focus on when blogging, and I'm basically going to expand on that now.
Many people consider successful blogs to be full of comments and opinions from the readers. This leads to the common misconception that blog posts have to be controversial in order to spark a reaction.
Despite there being some truth in that, I by no means consider it a necessity, and here's why.
I realise I am stating the obvious here, but you want your readers to actually like you, and there is a chance that being controversial can effectively halve you following as it drives away those readers you disagree strongly with what you are saying.
But surely then I'll just get no comments and my blog will fail? Well no. People will still comment if your posts are useful and informative (like this one?), and even if they don't, it's doesn't mean your blog isn't successful.
Of course I understand the satisfaction that comes with knowing readers care enough to respond to your posts, but a compromise needs to be made.
There's only so long that you can 'sit on the fence' before it starts to get uncomfortable, so you will need to spark some sort of reaction, but you need to make sure that it's not extreme enough to make your audience hate you.
It's a difficult balance to achieve, but if you keep it in mind when writing your posts, you should soon be able to work out the correct level of controversy.
So that's it for part 2 of my blogging tips series, check back next time for
'Blogging Tips: The design you need'
At that speed I can imagine that would hurt a bit?
Another brand new Idle Scribe writer! Read on!
Drug smugglers over the years have had many ingenious/stupid/innovative ways to smuggle narcotics across borders. These are 5 of the craziest.
5: Hollowing out anything and everything.
In 2011 a woman, subtly brought 3 bags of kidney beans and pistachios from Colombia to America. Obviously this aroused suspicion, inside these three bags were over 6 kilograms of cocaine, estimated to worth over $250,000. This woman had painstakingly cut open kidney beans individually hollowed them out and filled it with cocaine. She was apparently paid $15,000 for this audacious attempt.It doesn't stop there either, over $1,000,000 worth of cocaine was intercepted at Heathrow Airport, UK, which was stuffed inside Bananas that were then sown back up. Surely it would arise suspicion to any border agent when any comes to the country with a suitcase full of bananas? Apparently not, as orange, coconuts, watermelons, pineapples, apples, and even a hollowed out tree has been used.
 |
| There seems to be a bit of a 'crack' in that one. |
4: Wearing the Cocaine.
You read that right. In 2005 a 66 year old man, had his leg broken by cartels, they then used a cast made from solid cocaine fitted to his leg. Weighing over 5 Kilos and being completely ineffectual the man was in agony in the airport. The five Kilos would be worth about $200,000. To eke out even more money cocaine was also smuggled inside empty cans inside the man’s bag.At JFK airport a fake leg was filled with over 20 pounds of cocaine, worth over a quarter of a million of dollars, the man was a real amputee, although wasn't a result of the smuggling. Drugs are often found in faked teeth, and even ingested in plastic bags.
 |
| He has no leg to stand on in court |
3: Driving any way they can over and under the border.
The most notorious of any border is the American/Mexican border, the most frequently crossed border in the world, and with the largest trafficking of drugs
Tunnels are the holy grail of smuggling routes. The first drug tunnel was discovered in 1990, since then over 100 have been found crossing the border. The tunnel was hidden under a pool table moved by pneumatic lifts. Most tunnels are only 100 metres long and a foot high. One of the largest ever found to be over 800 metres long and 3 feet high. The tunnels had a rail system, heating, air, and a lighting system. A super tunnel like this can make 100 million dollars a year.
Ultra light aero planes have been used for many years; planes weighing less than 200 kilograms will carry 40 kilograms of cannabis will fly at the dead of night with no lights to drop of these packages worth $25,000. It is estimated that this technique is $50 million business.
Both of these techniques are high-tech and very clever, but some of the smuggling techniques are beautifully simple. Cars with ramps will drive up to American border fence and then up to 40 cars will drive over the ramps into America each of them smuggling up a million dollars worth of narcotics. Cranes have also been used, to simply lift the cars over then fence.
 |
| I guess drug cartels can't be high all the time |
2: Naval smuggling.
Easily the most ingenious method though, are the naval routes taken. The cartels use semi-submerged submarines that can carry up to 8 tonnes of cocaine, over 500 million dollars worth. The submarines are only partly visible at the surface allowing them to be super sneaky when getting across the naval border as they have a very low heat signature and are basically invisible. The government estimate to only catch 1 in 10 of all cargos. Entire home made full functioning submarines have also been found.
Another ingenious method are torpedo like storages that can be dragged behind by any boat, carrying up to 400 kilograms of cocaine. If they are approached by law enforcement the line is cut, so the boat has no incriminating evidence. Then radio beacons allow the torpedo to be picked back up. Sometimes large boxes are attached to the hull of a ship by divers. These can carry hundred of kilos of cocaine, often without the crew knowing, these are then retrieved once the shipment arrives in America.
 |
| With $500m I reckon you could buy a better submarine |
1: A fucking catapult
Drug smuggling was finally brought into the 21st century when in 2011, a Cannabis catapult was found. Incredibly this ingenious solution had not been thought of before. The catapult could sling 40 pounds a minute or $36,000 worth of cannabis. They are estimated to make 15 million dollars a year each and incredibly multiple catapults have been found.
 |
| "The old ones are the best" |
Hopefully this article has been intriguing and given you some insightful tips in how to smuggle drugs across the border next time. Considering the ingenuity of the drug cartels in creating functioning submarines, I wonder how many methods have not been discovered. Please do not mistake this article though as me supporting the drug cartels , I have not included the far more shameful methods of smuggling, including human drug mules swallowing hundred of cocaine pills, sewing the pills into dogs, and even attaching them to carrier pigeons.
Think you can do better? Prove it!
This post might seem a bit random actually, but as I was about to get into the shower a couple of days ago, I thought of this beautiful little analogy, and how it really can relate to the business world. My next thought was obviously "LET ME TELL THE WORLD" So here I am.
The problem I'm addressing here is how to know when to give up on a business venture and try something else, an ability that separates the men from the boys in the business world.
So the analogy goes as follows:
Your the captain of a pretty big ship, when all of a sudden it starts sinking. (I'm hoping you're picking up on the parallels with business already) Now there are a lot of people on your ship and you're in charge. As it sinks you have two options.
1. Try to fix the problem
2. ABANDON SHIP!
It was here I realised that the more of the other people that abandon the ship, the less worthwhile it is for you to try and fix it.
So how does it relate to business? Well, if everyone has given up on the business, there's no point trying to save it, so you should give up. However if you can fix things before everyone starts jumping, keep it going.
Simple?
 |
| Despite what I have just said, I don't think 'fixing' this is an option... |
The first post from a brand new Idle Scribe writer! Don't be shy, it's definitely worth the read.
So here goes:
I can only apologise for the somewhat 'deep' title for my first article, but don't worry, I shan't bore everyone with the philosophy that everybody seems to detest so very bitterly. Instead, I'm delving into the wonderful realms of science! (cheering, applause, etc.)
I've always been interested in this question, and imagined I'd spend years striving for the answer, tearing apart theory after theory and spending hours just sitting, staring out of windows with a glazed look and a determined mind. Unfortunately, somebody else had already done all that for me, and I was unlucky enough to stumble across a theory in a completely unrelated footnote of a completely unrelated book. To my irritation, I also quite liked said theory and bitterly accepted it with a reluctant "Hm. Okay. Fair enough."
The theory, as I understand it, seems to go something like this:
To survive longer, you have to predict certain things, to prepare and react to them. Every lovely gift your genes have given you, they have given you in an attempt to keep you alive. Once they've dealt with the problems of you not being struck down by a particularly vicious cold, and have prepared you by predicting every physical condition, they also need to work on you not being stabbed and struck down by a particularly vicious drunk. If you'd like a nicer example, think of the genes having to make sure you could pass them on, and letting you be able to comfort a distraught female (or male, for that matter), inevitably leading to a great opportunity for this to happen. My own genes have decided this to be obviously too simple, and seem to be much happier just being friends with the more successful ones (which we're all totally okay with), but that's besides the point. You're going to need a way to make sure you don't get stabbed and to make sure you can get off with as many girls as possible, in your genes' opinion. So, they decide to let you discover yourself, and let you be able to think in order to understand how other people are going to behave, because you can just imagine how you'd behave yourself. And, bam, empathy was born, as were many more little baby genes.
Although it effectively hit my inner philosopher over the head with a rather large spade, it's pretty clever, huh?
Think you can do better? Prove it!
The fact I can relate to this makes me slightly sad.
When a photo about playing cards makes it into the technology section of the website. Things are changing.
The wonderful internet. A gigantic step in the way we live our lives, full of benefits for businesses, individuals, and hey it enabled people like me to start websites like this!
However I can't help but think the internet is creating this mask for people to hide behind, which can't be a good thing.
Just before I start rambling on, I would like to point out that despite my recent posts, I'm not the most cynical person on the planet, I just don't think anybody would be particularly interested in me talking about what makes the internet amazing.
So, what I'm going to focus on is how peoples behaviour can completely change when online. A nice, friendly person could be an internet 'troll' in their spare time, and for some reason we all just seem to put up with it.
This may just seem like common sense but I think it's an important thing to think about. It's also quite interesting to understand the sense of security one can gain from knowing that they can do whatever they want on the internet, and nobody will know who they are.
When you start to think of it like that, it actually comes across a bit creepy. Imagine if this sense of security was present in real life. It would be like everybody wore a hoody and a mask and could go around doing whatever they wanted with no fear of being caught. I can't be alone in thinking that would be a horrible place to live.
Let me give you a nice example of this, (you should know by now how keen I am on examples).
There is a movie called Catfish. A movie so successful it became a TV show. So what's it about?
It follows a story of internet dating, and people who pretend to be somebody else online. So '19 year old model called Ruby' turns out to be '47 year old builder named Jeff'. As you can imagine it's entertaining TV, but it really does make you think about people online.
I'm not entirely sure what my concluding point will be for this post. I can't possible tell people you to use the internet, I'd be out of a job, but I think that if I've opened your eyes to this 'mask' the internet creates, I've succeeded.
But to assure you I am not just a pessimist, I'm pretty confident the majority of people are who they say they are, like me for example,
A 21 year old glamour model called Precious.
It may be somewhat early days for The Idle Scribe, but I reckon I'm still in a pretty good position to help out aspiring bloggers.
If there is a golden rule for blogging then in my opinion it would be this:
Focus on the CONTENT not the STATS.
This may seem a bit stupid at first but I can assure you there will be moments where it just makes perfect sense.
The logic behind the rule goes as follows:
If you check your stats every hour, you're going to start posting things that you think other people will care about as opposed to what you care about. People will not enjoy your posts if they can tell you don't actually care about the chosen subject, makes sense right?
The main reason people check stats all the time is for motivation and expectation. New bloggers assume that success will happen overnight and suddenly the whole world will be talking about your blog. This isn't impossible, but unlikely.
The thing is that most bloggers give up early into their blogging career, which means they will never see the incredible results they're expecting.
So what keeps bloggers going in the early stages?
Well for many, the answer is stats.
After all, what's the point in blogging if nobody is reading what you have to say? It really can get frustrating at times, which is why a compromise is necessary for blogging success.
So here's my nice little step by step guide into becoming a successful blogger:
1. Post frequently about things you actually care about
2. Only check stats once a day (best time is the end of the day)
3. Ignore current views and focus on the future (as cliché as that sounds)
4. Sit back and enjoy blogging fame
Simple as that.
I have literally no idea of what my opinions of this photo are.
I remember back when Chrome OS was announced and then released. I was excited, I wanted this incredible product that seemed so revolutionary and necessary. However, as quickly as the hype started, it finished. The whole concept seemed to disappear from our minds and we just moved on.
So what has changed?
Well, there's a new kid on the block for chrome books, known as the Pixel. It's premium price tag may deter some prospective buyers, but for others, it's the 'Apple' effect (buying something at a high price because you're sure it is of exceptionally high quality).
So what's so good about the Pixel? Simply the fact that there is so many of them per inch.
The new Pixel has the best resolution of any laptop in the world, which is definitely something worth bragging about. Of course it doesn't just stop there, the Pixel has the specs to match, providing users with an ultra fast, ultra smooth experience.
So what's the catch?
To be perfectly honest, it seems like its just the price, and as I've explained I guess you will get what you pay for?
The only other possibility is that the chrome book is really only going to be as good as your Internet connection, and some people just like knowing that even when there Internet stops working for some unknown reason, there $1600 laptop isn't instantly made redundant.
So what do you think? Worth buying?
There is absolutely no doubt that the world is slowly starting to revolve around social networks. The question however is whether or not we need such a social revolution?
I could go on about Facebook as well but to keep things short I'll just focus on twitter for now.
The good:
Putting aside the fact that twitter helps kill a lot of time and is even considered 'fun' to many people throughout the world, there is actually a way in which it can be beneficial to individuals. The first of which is actually quite surprising. Some organisations are starting to recruit by looking at and assessing an applicants tweets. Why? Well, many believe that a persons tweets will actually tell a company a lot more about a person than any prepared resumé. This does make sense if you think about it. Unless every single one of your tweets is politically correct and innocent, future employers could find out what you're really like.
You should be able to work out whether the above point is good news for you or not, but with unemployment on the rise, it may be a good idea to start thinking about your tweets.
Another good use of twitter is for businesses. Social networking is and easy way to spread the word about what you have to offer. It's effectively free marketing.
I guess another benefit is the ability to interact with your favourite celebrities or better still, become twitter famous yourself. This isn't easily done but I can't exactly criticise because its basically a form of blogging.
The bad:
Productivity. Assuming you've got a job, spending half of your working life tweeting isn't the best way to go about keeping it.
So for obvious reasons productivity is going to decrease due to twitter, but that's not the only negative.
Laziness. A shocking 46% of people have admitted to using social networks to contact somebody in the next room. So basically twitter is slowly turning the world into a lazy, unproductive place to live, not looking too good is it?
A final point has to be the amount of bullshit that manages to find its way to twitter. Hacking often occurs and convinces people that the most outrageous of stories are true. From Obama assassinations to Burger King being sold to McDonald's, it's just a bit ridiculous.
So what's the verdict? Should we use twitter? Well I'm in no position to tell anybody what to do but I'd say use it in moderation, or the world will spiral into despair. (possible exaggeration)
Can't help but read all of these in an incredibly strong Scottish accent. It just works.
I have to be honest and say when my friend first sent me this gif, I thought it was just a still photo and was quite frankly a little disappointed. But when the gif started 'playing', oh how my opinions changed....
In a desperate attempt to relate with my readers, I'm wondering if I'm the only person to be annoyed by the clearly edited laughter in so called 'funny' programs.
You've been framed is the classic example, displaying ridiculously loud bursts of laughter at the slightest humorous events.
Even more annoying is that it's like Tv program's only have one recording of laughter, so they all use the same one.
You'll know the one I mean. The annoying sound of an over enthusiastic crowd and what appears to be this one woman that laughs more than anybody else is what sounds like the laughing alternative to the 'last clap game'
So wherever this woman is, whoever she is, please just stop laughing.
So what is a tick box culture? Well what I mean is this emerging necessity for targets and objectives to be completed. Doesn't sound all that bad does it? Well unfortunately it's not about what things get done, it's about what is compromised in order to complete them.
Of course you educated folk reading this will be demanding examples and statistics, which is no problem considering the amount of times this increasingly popular culture has been to blame for failures in fundamental organisations.
The first example is the shocking treatment if patients within the Stafford hospital, responsible for a numerous amount of unnecessary deaths. I'm pretty sure that the staff were under such pressure to complete goals and targets that people's welfare is considered lower down on their list of priorities. I'm not in any way condoning the staff, but could it be said they were just following orders?
Despite that being the most recent and shocking example of tick box culture, it's not the best to explain what really goes on, so bring on example number two.
It's all about education. For the past few years the main statistic that every secondary school is being forced to care about is the 5 A - C grades at GCSE. So what does that mean for quality of teaching? Who do the teachers start to care about?
Well think about it from a schools point of view. There is no point concentrating on the best students because they already satisfy the targets, the average students may also be neglected as they are pretty safe within the A - C bracket. The only students that would see and increase in teaching quality is the students currently achieving a D, as they are the easiest to move up to a C.
Overall a school will look better statistically, but has quality of teaching actually improved? I'm skeptical to say the least.
So who's to blame? That's what really matters right?
Well this is the controversial part, some would say the staff are to blame for following the orders of senior management. I would disagree. We seem to live in a time where labour is very replaceable, and managers are looking for reasons to get rid of you, so if meeting targets is what keeps you in a job then it's logical to see why such commands are obeyed regardless of consequences.
I believe the management is to blame and ultimately the government. Although my frequent rants at the government may appear to show some sort of bias, I genuinely think they are to blame for this. They need to realise that the country will be better off if we focus on the quality of our services rather than the quantities and targets.
It really is as simple as that.
Any comments? Post 'em below
I may be a bit slow to post this, but here are 3 of the best Harlem Shake videos I've found.
1) Washing Machine
2) University of Texas
I have nothing but respect for this guy.
Like many countries around the world, the UK is facing some problems with inflation. Despite being within the governments target for inflation (anywhere between 1% and 3%) the general public still aren't entirely happy, and it's not too difficult to work out why.
When inflation occurs, the prices of goods and services rise, that's all that really happens. The positive side of this is that you can generally expect to see a rise in wages as well, to try and maintain some sort of balance. What this really means is that although prices are higher, you have more money to spend, so it's not really an issue as such.
However, in the UK, wages have only increased by 1.4%, which falls a bit short of inflation (currently at 2.7%) so what's happening here is that goods and services are getting more expensive, and consumers aren't seeing a sufficient pay rise in order to counteract it.
So people aren't all that happy at the moment, which will have only got worse considering the Bank of England have announced they plan to increase the amount of quantitative easing. To keep things simple quantitative easing is effectively printing money. It's a way to pump more money into the economy.
"What a brilliant idea, we're all rich!"
Unfortunately it's not quite as simple as that, an increase in money means the value of it decreases, and therefore we need much more money to buy goods or services. To cut a long story short, printing more money causes inflation.
"But if inflation increases, we're doomed!"
Not necessarily. Inflation only occurs if people were to spend all this extra money that goes into the economy, if we were to save it then the inflationary effects are very small. This idea is known as the velocity of money. It's basically how often transactions are made. When a country is in a recession, the majority of people save there money and so the velocity of money is low and inflation won't occur as much, if at all.
In case you haven't noticed, the UK is in a recession, so maybe printing more money isn't too bad an idea?
Your Turn
Do you agree? Should we be printing more money? Post your comments below!
