[Puffer Fish]

The lack of investment cuts the GDP of an area, cutting the money that is spent, thereby reducing the number of jobs.

Socialist-minded governments don't have a good track record of investment.

They put money in areas calling it an "investment" but that spent money never pays off.

[BeesKnee5]

Who's going to pay for all these skills?

And as we've already seen in the US, just encouraging blanket education without regard to actual specific skills that were truly in demand, led to an education bubble, with a huge section of the productivity in the economy wasted on higher education.

Look at the German system of technical colleges connected to business so their kids are trained to do the jobs.

Education for education's sake doesn't work and that's not what I'm arguing for, but putting trainee nurses through years of university and leaving them with £60,000 debt in order to be able to fulfill an essential job is madness

[Puffer Fish]

There are plenty of vacancies in these poorer areas but they are for skilled jobs.

Probably because the going rates of pay for these jobs do not justify the personal investment in them.
We're talking about money, effort, time, and indeed a lot of personal risk, to try to pursue the qualifications for these jobs.

Example: If I'm earning 20 000 a year, and there's some other job that's paying 30 000 a year but to get into it, it will require 40 000 from me, 4 years of my time going to school, lots of studying and work, and even some risk that something could go wrong and my entire investment might not pay off, maybe I will decide that it makes more sense just to stay in the lower paying 20 000 a year job.
That would be an entirely rational economic decision.

[BeesKnee5]

Socialist-minded governments don't have a good track record of investment.

They put money in areas calling it an "investment" but that spent money never pays off.

I disagree, Norway in particular springs to mind with their national investment fund.

[Puffer Fish]

I disagree, Norway in particular springs to mind with their national investment fund.

They hire private hedge managers to invest those funds in private companies.
I've yet to see many examples of the government directly spending that money, and economic studies indicating that those investments paid off.

[BeesKnee5]

They hire private hedge managers to invest those funds in private companies.
I've yet to see many examples of the government directly spending that money, and economic studies indicating that those investments paid off.

What's that, they hire well paid individuals to manage the fund?
$30bn a year spent on investment by the he Norwegian government.
Depends what you mean by paid off. Does it help maintain a high level of support for it's citizens? Definitely.

[BeesKnee5]

Probably because the going rates of pay for these jobs do not justify the personal investment in them.
We're talking about money, effort, time, and indeed a lot of personal risk, to try to pursue the qualifications for these jobs.

Example: If I'm earning 20 000 a year, and there's some other job that's paying 30 000 a year but to get into it, it will require 40 000 from me, 4 years of my time going to school, lots of studying and work, and even some risk that something could go wrong and my entire investment might not pay off, maybe I will decide that it makes more sense just to stay in the lower paying 20 000 a year job.
That would be an entirely rational economic decision.

Aren't you arguing my case for me here?

Support that person to gain those qualifications/skills, they will be better off for the rest of their lives, they will spend more which supports the local economy, require less welfare and the government will get a higher tax return because they supported that person's training.

Perhaps we should start with English and maths.

[Puffer Fish]

Support that person to gain those qualifications/skills, they will be better off for the rest of their lives, they will spend more which supports the local economy, require less welfare and the government will get a higher tax return because they supported that person's training.

If that was really the case, that is something the private sector could handle with student loans.

But the fact is, the private sector won't make those loans. I guess they don't believe the borrowers can be trusted to pay back the loans, which assumes many of those students aren't going to have the money to pay back what it cost for their education.

[BeesKnee5]

If that was really the case, that is something the private sector could handle with student loans.

But the fact is, the private sector won't make those loans. I guess they don't believe the borrowers can be trusted to pay back the loans, which assumes many of those students aren't going to have the money to pay back what it cost for their education.

The private sector should be looking to invest in employees and spend capital on training staff.
At the top graduate level this happens, lower down it tends to be that the company is looking more short term than the benefits to the person over their entire working career and won't fund the cost. Usually the employer is looking to fill a vacancy today and not pay and wait however long it would be to train a person.

[Puffer Fish]

At the top graduate level this happens, lower down it tends to be that the company is looking more short term than the benefits to the person over their entire working career and won't fund the cost.

Maybe because in many cases this "training" at the lower level isn't really a value-adding process.
However, it is a great screening process that makes it more easily convenient for corporations to help automatically weed out the riff-raff. Especially since these days, other forms of discrimination are prohibited.

Yes, a very cynical view, I'm aware.

[Rich]

There is not a fixed lump of labour. There is a fixed lump of land. By 10,000 years BP humans had colonised the vast majority of the habitable land within a radius of 25 trillion miles.

When the very poorest people get richer they buy more food. When the almost as poor people get richer they buy more clothes. When everyone else gets richer they spend a large proportion of that extra income /wealth on property. Aspirations of civilised people haven't really changed in the last 5000 years. What did the 18th century Aristocrat want? A bigger house and a bigger garden. What did the late 80's "loads of money" (for younger and non British posters, this was a Harry Enfield character) Brickie want? A bigger house and a big Garden. What did Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg and Jeff Bezos want? A bigger house and a bigger Garden? What does the average Hippy want? A bigger Field and a bigger Yurt. Actually the aspiring Hippy often wants two Yurts or a Yurt and a Teepee. But you get my point, Its the same thing.

More people makes the country poorer, on average. The Math is relentless and inescapable. But here's the kicker, it not only makes us poorer on average, but it makes us less equal. This is why the Black Death so improved the quality of life for the survivors. Back then the critical resource limitation was agricultural land, whereas now its residential property, non agricultural commercial property and land for leisure, countryside, nature, parks, wilderness.

But the essential problem remains, the amount of usable land is at a first order of approximation, fixed.