Autumn Statement

[ursaminortaur]

The trend for decades had been computerisation of office tasks, automation of factory floors in heavy industries and car plants, and replacement of those heavy industries by newer industries involving computers. The old manual jobs were disappearing hence there was a need for a more highly educated workforce. Unfortunately just allowing more people to go to University without also boosting their pre-university educational attainments combined with leaving which courses the Universities offered to the market led to many students applying for humanity courses rather than STEM courses as they were seen to be easier (and even to the Universities creating new doddy courses). I worked for a polytechnic which became a University which whilst it was a polytechnic had a large engineering department within a few years of its becoming a University that had gone as it was cheaper to provide other courses.

As a humanities graduate myself, I am not sure I would agree that such degrees are "easier". Nor that they are necessarily more useless.

Part of the problem is that you now need a degree for jobs that historically never needed one. For example one younger couple I know both have degrees. He is a nurse and she is a teacher. 40 years ago neither job required a degree. Now both do. But the job is the same.

And with 2 small kids they are really struggling financially. A degree used to be a passport to a well-paid job. Now it is not, although not having a degree just means you are seen as a bit of a thickie with prospects that are not good.

Yes, unfortunately that was another foreseeable consequence of expanding education. With so many people having degrees their value was diluted and employers increasingly used having a degree as a shortlisting criteria for jobs which traditionally hadn't required degrees.

[CliffEdge]

As a humanities graduate myself, I am not sure I would agree that such degrees are "easier". Nor that they are necessarily more useless.

Part of the problem is that you now need a degree for jobs that historically never needed one. For example one younger couple I know both have degrees. He is a nurse and she is a teacher. 40 years ago neither job required a degree. Now both do. But the job is the same.

And with 2 small kids they are really struggling financially. A degree used to be a passport to a well-paid job. Now it is not, although not having a degree just means you are seen as a bit of a thickie with prospects that are not good.

Yes, unfortunately that was another foreseeable consequence of expanding education. With so many people having degrees their value was diluted and employers increasingly used having a degree as a shortlisting criteria for jobs which traditionally hadn't required degrees.

NHS degrees and teaching degrees or PGCEs are vocational and not common as a dog poo on your shoe.

[Nimrod103]

As a humanities graduate myself, I am not sure I would agree that such degrees are "easier". Nor that they are necessarily more useless.

Part of the problem is that you now need a degree for jobs that historically never needed one. For example one younger couple I know both have degrees. He is a nurse and she is a teacher. 40 years ago neither job required a degree. Now both do. But the job is the same.

And with 2 small kids they are really struggling financially. A degree used to be a passport to a well-paid job. Now it is not, although not having a degree just means you are seen as a bit of a thickie with prospects that are not good.

Yes, unfortunately that was another foreseeable consequence of expanding education. With so many people having degrees their value was diluted and employers increasingly used having a degree as a shortlisting criteria for jobs which traditionally hadn't required degrees.

More to the point it means they have effectively wasted 3 years of their lives learning stuff which either should have been taught at school or later on the job. And they have run up large debts to boot.

[spasmodicus]

Yes, unfortunately that was another foreseeable consequence of expanding education. With so many people having degrees their value was diluted and employers increasingly used having a degree as a shortlisting criteria for jobs which traditionally hadn't required degrees.

More to the point it means they have effectively wasted 3 years of their lives learning stuff which either should have been taught at school or later on the job. And they have run up large debts to boot.

Yes, average (under)graduate student debt in UK 2023 is reportedly around £45k. Furthermore, this debt is built up over three years or so, so there is a also a considerable lost opportunity cost for the wages not earned and the skills which would be acquired while doing a "proper job". The list on this website shows the kind of wages expected in various trades that allegedly are in demand, but for which a university education is not required
https://uk.indeed.com/career-advice/finding-a-job/skilled-trade-jobs-in-demand
Interestingly, at the lower end of the scale the wages are apparently below the national minimum wage. At the higher end, you may earn a salary comparable to that of a qualified teacher.

I have grandchildren currently going through the education system (in years 4 to 11). The problem seems to be that most(all?) of their teachers have never done a "proper" job and all have degrees themselves and are probably not very well equipped to explain the dynamics of the labour market to their little charges.

S

[Oggy]

The basic lesson for any investor - big or small - is not to invest in the UK. Low cost global trackers are my preferred choice of funds - E.g. Fidelity Index World fund and such like. The only exception to this dictum in my portfolio is Fundsmith Equity. However this may change when Terry Smith takes retirement. All of my funds are with HL or AJ Bell and I have to say that so far, all is not too bad. Of course, I cannot wholly escape paying the legalised theft that is income tax once I drawdown on them, but I do feel that a visit to a tax advisor will be money well spent.

The UK has had it in my book. Not enough folk giving, far too many taking and no sign of it improving. A recipe for economic disaster which no government wants to tackle, primarily as it would lose them a shed load of votes.

[Lootman]

The basic lesson for any investor - big or small - is not to invest in the UK. Low cost global trackers are my preferred choice of funds - E.g. Fidelity Index World fund and such like. The only exception to this dictum in my portfolio is Fundsmith Equity. However this may change when Terry Smith takes retirement. All of my funds are with HL or AJ Bell and I have to say that so far, all is not too bad. Of course, I cannot wholly escape paying the legalised theft that is income tax once I drawdown on them, but I do feel that a visit to a tax advisor will be money well spent.

The UK has had it in my book. Not enough folk giving, far too many taking and no sign of it improving. A recipe for economic disaster which no government wants to tackle, primarily as it would lose them a shed load of votes.

I am pretty much out of the UK with my investments. I only have one UK holding, which is a UK smaller companies IT that has done well. I have held off selling as it will trigger a big CGT bill. But it will go in April.

Then my only UK exposure will be in global funds and trackers, so probably about 4% in the UK, consistent with the UK weighting in the global index.

I just do not see what the UK uniquely offers. Nor sterling.

[Oggy]

Lootman

Much as I would like to invest in the UK, I cannot afford to donate all of my hard-earned to charity. Economically, the UK is on a clear path to basket-case status. For sure there is still a huge amount of capital remaining to fritter away and hence the UK remains reasonably intact financially, but the corrosion mechanism is now well established and will continue to gradually eat away at the foundations until the whole edifice comes crashing down. The sad thing is I really cannot see anyone attempting to arrest the corrosion, and even if they could, I fear they would not get anyway near the reins of power to do so.

[CliffEdge]

The UK as I know it and knew it will cease to exist within a few years. This always happens with administrative centres of former large empires. We had a chance but Brexit threw it away. The EU may yet step in to save us when things get dangerous for them.

[MuddyBoots]

The UK as I know it and knew it will cease to exist within a few years. This always happens with administrative centres of former large empires. We had a chance but Brexit threw it away. The EU may yet step in to save us when things get dangerous for them.

At the moment it's probably fair to say that southeast England is carrying the rest of the UK to some extent, more so Scotland, Wales & N Ireland through the Barnett formula. The breakup of the Union with independence for the nations might at least give England another chance without having to subsidise the other countries, which could apply to join the EU instead.

[SalvorHardin]

I am pretty much out of the UK with my investments. I only have one UK holding, which is a UK smaller companies IT that has done well. I have held off selling as it will trigger a big CGT bill. But it will go in April.

Then my only UK exposure will be in global funds and trackers, so probably about 4% in the UK, consistent with the UK weighting in the global index.

I just do not see what the UK uniquely offers. Nor sterling.

The UK has a few companies than are of interest to people like us, whose preferred stockmarket nowadays is America (also Canada for me). Most of these are multinationals who don't do much business in the UK. Games Workshop is one that springs to mind; its most recent annual report showed that UK sales were just over 21% of the total, with North America leading with 43%. I recently bought some Smith & Nephew shares as a recovery play following some serious mismanagement in recent years (its North American sales are 53% of its total sales. I wouldn’t be surprised if Smith & Nephew company emigrated to America in the next few years.

Some companies will benefit from the rent seeking opportunities that the state and various quangos create, using the law to reduce (or even eliminate) competition. Housebuilders like to complain about planning restrictions driving up costs, but in turn these raise the price of new housing. The sheer volume of subsidies being thrown at net zero is something to look at – it’s often far easier to make money off the state than by running a business.

Then there is the creeping effect of the energy regulations which make it far more expensive to let out older commercial properties (because of the need to make them more energy efficient). This should take a fair bit of property off the market. It’s much harder to pay for upgrades if you’re charging regional rents rather than the vastly higher Central London rents.

Of course there's always the risk that a future government will cut back the red tape and take on the NIMBYs and the environmental lobby (realistically this isn’t going to happen beyond a few small changes).

[Oggy]

At the moment it's probably fair to say that southeast England is carrying the rest of the UK to some extent, more so Scotland, Wales & N Ireland through the Barnett formula. The breakup of the Union with independence for the nations might at least give England another chance without having to subsidise the other countries, which could apply to join the EU instead.

I fear SE England would have to declare UDI from the rest of England for that to work. Proud Lancastrian that I am, The North and much of the Midlands/SW are far too economically gone for even England alone to be viable. For sure it would last longer before the inevitable implosion though....