What classes of human will we apply lower values to?

In the UK discrimination is rife.

Young people are worth but 42% of an adult.

For a young person on an apprenticeship, the NMW can be just 42% of the Real NMW for an adult, it is 78.9% of the Real NMW for 18-20 year olds. 58.3% for under 18s, and it is just 42% for YTS slaves (apprentices), in 2015.

Yet these figures were 83.0%, 61.4 and 42.2% in 2010. showing that the relative value of young people compared to 'adults' fell over the last parliament. Not to mention the fact that it fell dramatically in 2010, as the new lower apprentice NMW was brought in, in the first place.

Other forms of discrimination exist, but the discrimination facing the young is the most visible and common.

Perhaps we as a society will also apply 'lower value' to others.

E.g. People of specific race, religion, class, recent immigrants for a period of X months, etc.

What do you think?

You should be comparing Apprenticeships with collage or university and not with employment.

Apprenticeships are a route into work, they are an educational experience paid for by the employer and government, in which the apprentice gains a qualification and will receive a small wage.

Collage paid for by the government and sometimes the student in which the students gains a qualification.

University paid for by the students in which the students gain a qualification and usually ends up in debt.

Class has little to do with whether or not lower value is applied to a person. The annual income of a person determines their value. If you are on a low annual income you are automatically of low value. You can of course lie to yourself regarding your value but the numbers never lie and tell the true story. If you want to be of higher value, earn more.

I don't see how class comes into it, surely the basic work ethic for any young person should be to start at the bottom and work your way up. Yes you'll be earning a pittance as an apprentice but the skills and experience you gain will steer your entire future.

I did an apprenticeship and started off at £300 a month, which was just enough to cover board, bus fare and the odd night out. I was treated as an equal by my work colleagues because I was prepared to work hard and to me that was invaluable.

As for the other criteria, I personally don't know of anyone who would think any less of a person because of their gender, race or religion.

Although saying that, as a childfree adult I have been told my existence was pointless as I would never contribute anything to society

In the UK discrimination is rife.

 

Young people are worth but 42% of an adult.

 

For a young person on an apprenticeship, the NMW can be just 42% of the Real NMW for an adult, it is 78.9% of the Real NMW for 18-20 year olds. 58.3% for under 18s, and it is just 42% for YTS slaves (apprentices), in 2015.

 

Yet these figures were 83.0%, 61.4 and 42.2% in 2010. showing that the relative value of young people compared to 'adults' fell over the last parliament. Not to mention the fact that it fell dramatically in 2010, as the new lower apprentice NMW was brought in, in the first place.

 

Other forms of discrimination exist, but the discrimination facing the young is the most visible and common.

 

Perhaps we as a society will also apply 'lower value' to others.

 

E.g. People of specific race, religion, class, recent immigrants for a period of X months, etc.

 

What do you think?

Aren't apprentices also gaining from their experience? University students have to pay for the privilege..

Class has little to do with whether or not lower value is applied to a person. The annual income of a person determines their value. If you are on a low annual income you are automatically of low value. You can of course lie to yourself regarding your value but the numbers never lie and tell the true story. If you want to be of higher value, earn more.

So in your world nurses are low value?

Also apprentices are doing a job that in most cases would have been done by someone not in an apprenticeship, therefore saving money for the company. In some ways it's a win-win. The company saves some money so can expand, the apprentice gets decent training and some money and the government saves on jobseekers allowance, however, some companies do exploit the apprentice scheme as a way to get cheap labour and that should be stamped down. How to do it is difficult though...

Young people are worth but 42% of an adult.

An adult has experience and maturity when compared to the majority of young people.

What class? How about the Eloi?

So in your world nurses are low value?

Not in my world, just simple logic. The job title, role or description is irrelevant. If their annual income is low, they cannot be anything but low value otherwise their income would be high as they would be valued higher. I didn't make the rules.

Not in my world, just simple logic. The job title, role or description is irrelevant. If their annual income is low, they cannot be anything but low value otherwise their income would be high as they would be valued higher. I didn't make the rules.

And that's got to be one of the issues doesn't it? We value people who simply generate money far more highly than we do people who save our lives, whether that be police, fireman, nurses or doctors. All are hugely underpaid compared to investment bankers. We pay people based on their value to GDP not on their value to the community.

Not in my world, just simple logic. The job title, role or description is irrelevant. If their annual income is low, they cannot be anything but low value otherwise their income would be high as they would be valued higher. I didn't make the rules.

You may not have made the rules, but neither do have to internalise and follow the rules either.

Even David Cameron's former right hand man, Steve Hilton, spoke against this line of thinking only yesterday about a ‘insular ruling class’ threatening British democracy - or 'chumocracy', as he prefers to call it. Where who you know is more important than what you know.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3085342/Stop-listening-insular-ruling-elite-help-poor-Cameron-s-ex-guru-Steve-Hilton-warns-Tory-PM.html

Unfortunately the Labour Party (which I used to support) are as bad for this. For example in their post election analysis, many Labour grandees and spin doctors claim that Labour lost because it didn't appeal to 'aspiration' - assuming aspiration is something equated with wealth. I disagree. If you're a rounded, functioning and capable person then you're a success - imo

And that's got to be one of the issues doesn't it? We value people who simply generate money far more highly than we do people who save our lives, whether that be police, fireman, nurses or doctors. All are hugely underpaid compared to investment bankers. We pay people based on their value to GDP not on their value to the community.

You see it as an issue, personally I don't. They chose those jobs, probably because that's the best they could achieve for whatever reason. Nobody takes a low paid job through choice if they have an option to work a much higher paid job.

Nobody takes a low paid job through choice if they have an option to work a much higher paid job.

Actually they do. Some people choose to be carers and live on benefits. Others pack in one job to do another one on a lower salary or start a business just because they'd rather do something else.