petemcewan

The production of electrical energy is essential for civilisation. The cost of electrical energy to the consumer is set to keep on rising. After listening to a radio programme recently. The commentators seemed to have had a revelatory experience by discovering Pumped Storage as a means of generating electricity. A prime example of pumped storage is Dinorwic in North Wales. Such a system is not new. Pumped storage has been around for a long time and is a clean and efficient way of generating-much cleaner than nuclear . Sheffield has a number of rivers that could provide the means of developing Micro Hydro Systems for the production of electrical energy for the consumers of energy in Sheffield .Of course, any such programme could fall within a publically financed civil engineering programme. Such projects could generate local engineering enterprises and also local employment. Is there the will within Yorkshire politics to embark on such a project ?

ECC, It's getting off topic. However, Goodwin was the CEO . He carried responsibility. The buck stops with him. He wasn't selected as some fall guy. He cocked it up. He may not have "brought the country down". But he contributed royally to the banking disaster. I don't care about his background. What I do care about is that he was in a class of overpaid CEOs who have been handsomely paid over the years for messing up . He messed up so well that he was stripped of his knighthood. He only lost half of his pension. He got off pretty lightly IMO. He should have been banged up . The CEO carries the "can". The CEO makes policy decisions and oversees their implementation. Fred Goodwin was to blame. "It was Fred that done it"-not the gnomes of Zurich , Wall Street or whatever. As far as night cleaners and labourers seeking out retraining in anticipation of being too knackered in old age to carry on- you're having a laugh. You can't be serious . They just slip seamlessly into alternative employment . I don't think so.

Taxman Spot on . Today, on World At One , a pundit was predicting a world in which retirement is a thing of the past for most working people -because we are "all living longer". There are many people working long hours and getting in return a low wage . It's unbelievable that anyone can defend Fred Godwin. In today's society the gap between rich and poor has grown enormously.Now the plan is to make people work into their decrepitude .

The truth of the matter is that we are not really living much longer. We hear the propaganda repeated endlessly: "The average American can today expect to live an extra dozen or more years in retirement than did the previous generation, and many retirees today will receive benefits for decades longer than those who entered the Social Security system in the 1930's." But this assertion is simply wrong, and it is a dangerous mistake to make. Whether it's your mutual fund appealing for greater individual retirement savings, or it's a misguided evaluation of Social Security benefits, the specious argument always goes something like this: Americans born in the year 1900 could expect to live about 49 years. Post-war baby boomers of the late 1940's will live on average to their late 60's, and babies born today have a life expectancy of about 79 years. Therefore, we now need to delay retirements in order to be fair to the next generation and be true to the original aims of the Social Security system. Wrong. There may be good reasons to reform social security, work longer, and save more, but increased longevity isn't one of them. And there may be good reasons to plan for your golden years, but an extra dozen years on the golf course is not very likely at all. The reality is that the average 1946-born baby boomer retiring this year can expect to live about 18 years. Compare that to his or her grandparents who retired at age 65 in the 1960's and could expect to live 15 years, and you see the proper comparison. The correct evaluation involves life expectancy at age 65, not at birth! The truth, surprising to many, is that the average increase in life expectancy for a 65-year-old is only about three or so years. The increase is even smaller for retirements at ages beyond 65. And the social security retirement age is already being raised by two years (to 67). The fallacy arises from the fact that life expectancy is measured from birth, but years in retirement is measured from about age 65. Reductions in infant and child mortality have been dramatic during the 20th century, but 65-year-olds today are not strikingly healthier or longer-living than 65-year-olds of the previous generation or two. If life were being extended for decades there would be lots of 115-year-old Americans running around, but there aren't any at all. These errors about life expectancy in retirement are so seductive that I have seen them not only in politics but in economics, in sociology, and even in a speech by an Ivy League president. It is true there will be many more people in the very, very tiny minority who live to 100, a "striking" but irrelevant increase. It is wonderful that many fewer Americans have heart attacks in their 50's (due to blood pressure and cholesterol meds), but this is not producing a large extension of adult lifespan in old age. Importantly, the great benefit to society -- the dramatic drop in infant and child morbidity and mortality -- has been due mostly to low-cost vaccines and to public health improvements like better sanitation and nutrition. There are many excellent reasons for able older Americans to keep working beyond age 65 -- health reasons, economic reasons, and national security reasons, and I document some of these in my recent book on The Longevity Project. My own scientific research on aging and longevity -- with an 8-decade monitoring of pathways to long life -- confirms that staying productive is a key element of long-term health and happiness. But the hard truth is that most 65-year-olds today will not be collecting those extra Social Security checks and enjoying an additional dozen or more of the golden years. On average, they'll live only a bit longer than their parents. Increased longevity is not a valid argument for changing social security payouts; it's phony. The irony is that it probably doesn't have to be this way. There are documented ways to live a longer and healthier life. There's the rub. For half a century now, since the days when President John Kennedy invigorated the President's Council on Physical Fitness and led the way with 50-mile hikes, we have known that major lifestyle changes could reduce medical costs while increasing adult life expectancy significantly. We know what needs to be done but we're very confused about how to make it happen. Our educational interventions are generally ineffective. With an obese, sedentary, junk-food population -- and millions of smokers, alcoholics, drug abusers, reckless drivers, and neglected children -- we don't have to worry that the average American will live an extra dozen or more years in retirement. The costs to everyone's pocketbooks and the serious threats to our aging population are not coming from increasing longevity. With a clearer view of the facts, we can better debate the solutions. HUffINGTON POST. (Source ) Howard S. Friedman is Distinguished Professor at the University of California in Riverside. His latest book is The Longevity Project: Surprising Discoveries for Health and Long Life from the Landmark Eight-Decade Study. NY: Hudson Street Press. Follow Howard S. Friedman, Ph.D. on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/DrHSFriedman MORE: Health, Health Care Reform, Aging Gracefully, Social Security, The Longevity Project This Blogger's Books and Other Items from... Personality: Classic Theories and Modern Research (4th Edition) Personality: Classic Theories and Modern Research (4th Edition) by Howard S. Friedman, Miriam W. Schustack The Longevity Project: Surprising Discoveries for Health and Long Life from the Landmark Eight-Decade Study The Longevity Project: Surprising Discoveries for Health and Long Life from the Landmark Eight-Decade Study by Howard S. Friedman, Leslie R. Martin We are all living longer is propaganda . It's an excuse to get working people to work till they drop dead. Neo liberal economics is the bedrock upon which all attack a launched against working people's improved social circumstances. "We are all living longer" as an explanation for why people should work until 70 is puerile and beggars belief . Now some people-if they choose- may want to work until they drop dead .However, as general policy applied to all working people, it is merely a means of prolonger a life of exploitation. There is more to life than just work. If future governments remain wedded to neo-liberalism , I will not be surprised to see the retirement age creep ever upwards.

The film "Bitter Lake" (Adam Curtis) also gives some interesting insights to this whole affair.

No it's not fair. The Sutton Trust Report is evidence enough. Read Newstatesman ,6hh August 2015,"The Power Of The Old School Tie Lives On".

As Loob as pointed out, the majority of us have a NI (Known in some circles as a, "Personal Account Number") by which we can be identified. The usual political argument put up against such measures, is that personal privacy and personal details have to be protected from an intrusive -and authoritarian- State. That kind of argument is maintained by some; even in spite of the fact that today's society is replete with people's personals details ,that are harvested by all kinds of government and non government agencies. I'm personally against having to display in public, my NI number -or any other badge showing personal details.

JS, I drove on it just recently. The impression I got is that there's a pile up just waiting to happen-particularly when driving conditions are poor. I will avoid driving on it in the future.

Bang on ! Pretty funny.

I agree with you.It's a pity that all that skill goes to waste . To watch a Keller die sinking is something to behold, I was 17 yrs old when -as part of my apprenticeship- I was a marker out and gauge fitter in the die shop at English Steel. I still have my Newnes Engineer's Reference Book (1946 Ed)-choc-a-block with tables for speeds and feed rates for millers and centre lathes . Anyway, this is a bit off topic so I'll leave it there. NB, I was given the 1946 Ed when I was 16yrs old . I wasn't 16yrs old in 1946-just for clarity. ---------- Post added 11-02-2016 at 00:50 ---------- Ms FL, Fab video -thanks. I get your point.

Rootboster, I thought you would like the following, "The skills that are required to operate conventional machines are really not needed on an NC machine and the experienced conventional machinists are too old and set in their ways with respect to speeds and feeds to be able to exploit all advantages available on NC machines. The young take to it like "a duck to water" and I believe this is because of their limited experience on conventional machines and also they do as they are told". A CEO at an international conference."Electronic Illusions. Ian Reineck . A Penguin Original .p 189. ISBN 0 14 00 7103 2. The young will inherit the earth.

Good one-it made me laugh. The level is probably held in place by an "Invisible Hand" . One must ensure that the bubble has been accurately calibrated against a "standard" bubble. (LOL). ---------- Post added 09-02-2016 at 23:57 ---------- Rootboster, Interesting note about CNC Machine Tools. When I was an apprentice at English Steel in Openshaw ,Manchester. I worked on Hydrotel Vertical Milling Machines. As part of my apprenticeship I made the gauges for Keller Milling Machines. The Kellers milled the dies for the Drop Forging Hammers. Pretty clever machines designed by clever people- and operated by very skilled individuals.A period now long gone.

Orzel, What's a "self leveling cycle" ? Is it like Adam Smith's ,"Invisible hand" ?

Ash , All of what you write is of course true. That is why Capitalism is illogical in its practice. It works towards its own demise. The logically absurd end point is, that every manufacturing job is automated-robots proliferate. Human beings are unemployed and don't have the means to purchase commodities. You describe, quite accurately ,the day to day operations of capitalist enterprises-and I do not disagree with you about that. My original post was to contribute to the discussion-widen it out a little ;push it a little wider than "technological innovation ". The "the fundamental impulse that sets the capitalist engine in motion comes from the new consumer goods,the new methods of production or transportation, and new markets,and the new forms of industrial organisations the capitalist enterprise creates"(Joseph Schumpeter- 50 Economic Ideas, Edmund Conway ,p 175 ). The operative words in Schumpeter's description is "new consumer goods". The consumer has to have money with which to buy goods. So wage labour is integral to the enterprise. Now ,the share holders and the CEO's of enterprises may not see this,and rush head long into robotics and reduce their productions cost -and all are happy ,expect the workforce. In essence capitalism is, each against all, and to hell with the future and what ever the consequences. Ash, I do not disagree with what you have written. What I've attempted to do is a little more to the debate and point out the internal mechanism of a totally illogical economic system. Of course, I've not tackled how the system function in all its complexity-for instance:Money,Micro and Macro, Gross domestic product,Central banks and interest rules,Inflation, Debt and deflation,Taxes,Currencies and exchange rates,Balance of payments,and Supply side economics. But at root -as you agree.Capitalism needs wage labourers. So it goes. PS, I'm not a Marxist and thanks for the in depth replies.

It might prove difficult as a lot of the kit is classed as " Personal Safety Equipment".

OK Ash. I'll come back to it and read with interest your next contribution.

Ash, Real life economics does require that people have the means to make purchases, of the commodities that enter the market. I entirely agree with you, as to the aggressive nature of certain capitalist enterprises , and their total disregard for employees. The enterprise that "replaces the entire workforce with non-striking robots", still has to have purchasers with purchasing power in the market, to buy its commodities. Enterprises may well wish to divest themselves completely of human employees. But the internal logic of capitalist economics, demands that there be workers with wages who are able to buy things -that is not fanciful theory, it's how it works in simple terms.

There's another mechanism at work. In order for capitalism/market economies to work people must have purchasing power by means of their wages. Commodity production produces "things" that enter the market for the consumer to purchase.Throw people into mass unemployment with little or no purchasing power, and commodity production experiences a crisis. The "Market " must have people who are able to purchase by spending their wages -or even their benefits. Consequently, automation /robotics can only go so far. A world in which machines do every possible manufacturing job ,having displaced large swathes of employees ,can never happen under Capitalism. There has to be a population earning wages and buying commodities for it to work. So what's the point of destroying potential customers purchasing powers , by replacing them with machines and making them all unemployed? I appreciate that the above is a bit crude. But it's a factor -wages labour and automation -and consumers purchasing powers.

Teachers are strictly monitored. They are subject to continuous staff development,continuous professional development. They are observed regularly in house and by Ofsted . They are graded and held to account for poor examination outcomes. They are subjected to a lengthy probationary period before they are taken onto a full time contract. They are all graduates with a University Degree. FE and HE teachers are required to hold a teaching qualification. In today's education system you cannot get away with being a bad teacher. If you are you will be sacked -and the teacher's unions will not defend a bad teacher. No matter what educational methodology is current, you are required to be an expert .

Halibut, What have I done ? The post is my own composition. Is it similar to another ? I can assure you it's not nicked from another source.

Teachers are regularly appraised by their employer. In addition, they are observed regularly and graded. They are subject to a lengthy probationary period and must comply with continuous profession development requirements. Unsatisfactory teachers are rigorously weeded out at every level in the education system. You just cannot get away with unsatisfactory teaching .

You know what would be a useful experiment. Go to your local school and make an appointment with the Principal. See if you can persuade her or him to let you shadow a teacher for a week. You'd have to get CRB clearance first. Explain what it is you want to do. Ask to check the: schemes of work, lesson plans, registers and tutorial record, for your chosen class. The Principal may chose a class for you.You could also check the Inspection Records -it's a public document . It's a worthy experiment. It might lead you, to some valuable insights as to the nature of teaching, and to how learning outcomes are achieved .After all ,a large proportion of schooling is in the public domain;and schools have nothing to hide. I don't see why a Principal or Board of Governors wouldn't agree to such an experiment. You might be able to feed back some of your discoveries to the Head Teacher and Governors. I'd certainly would want to read what you had discovered, from such an experience. You never know, you might set a trend.

How perfectly generous of you. It's a lot more than we gave you (LOL ).

I agree with RJ . But being a dick head doesn't make you a facists. Fascism is a distinct political phenomena . There are different kinds: German, Italian and Spanish. Fascism is opposed to democracy of any political complexion .Authoritarianism is not the same as Fascism. They are commonly conflated and seen as being the same . Trump as a long way to go yet, before he can join the ranks of the fascists. ---------- Post added 04-02-2016 at 14:02 ---------- Quick (out of curiosity). As you are clearly interested in Logic ,can you please-very briefly- write a definition of the , "Fallacy Of The Undistributed Middle" ? If it's too much trouble ,that's ok. Thank you.

Facebook is described as one of the UK's leading online sites for sex grooming-according to Peter Davies, CEO of the, "Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre" (Online Telegraph,Wednesday,3rd Feb 2016). "British children are being "harvested" by foreign abusers" (Peter Davies). Are there measures ,through the technology-that can be brought to bear ,and prevent such online activities ? Or is it hopeless , because the abusers will always find a way to defeat any safeguards ? Facebook is not the only social media where such grooming takes place.If it isn't hopeless. Do parents, teachers, young people, and children, need instruction in spotting and shutting out, such intrusions into their social media ? Davies go on to say ,that it is not the medium that's the problem, but the people who abuse it. But there's a lot of them about(Peter McEwan).