The R Word

[jimbob1234]

Jimbob will you get over it please. Yes public sector workers recieve incremental credit and no, there is absolutly no chance that any public sector worker in their right mind is going to say they should be halted. You really need to get off the mindless public sector bashing, and move on to something else in relation to the cause of the recession.

The last round of benchmarking gave no increase to the vast majority of Public Sector workers.

so television its not a pay freeze at all really. when you said in your earlier posts you favoured a pay freeze you meant the opposite really. you still expect your increments , when reality in the private sector is that a pay freeze is exactly as it says - a pay freeze

 

[television]

so television its not a pay freeze at all really. when you said in your earlier posts you favoured a pay freeze you meant the opposite really. you still expect your increments , when reality in the private sector is that a pay freeze is exactly as it says - a pay freeze

These increments are part of the basic salary structure

 

[Purple]

What happens when all the irish multinationals get up and move to places like India etc. This rethoric about Irish workers needing to be smarter and cleverer and innovative in order to compete is a complete load of rubbish. The indians are producing cleverer more innovate and smarter young people then we ever will and they have a cost base a fraction of ours. I just dont see how we can all be winners in this one. At least not in the short to medium term and that transition is going to cause a lot of pain for billions of people.

What will happen is that India and China will get richer, their citizens will get more power due to the increasing importance of education and skills within the workforce and they will, eventually have the same standard of living we have. Just like Europe this may take a few generations but they will get there as long as the market is allowed to function. This is the up side of capitalism; it flows to where it can get the best return and so enriches the poor. The protectionism desired by the unions in this country is fundamentally unjust as it attempts to stifle economic development and opportunity in developing countries. This does not suit Ireland, but if you are really committed to the betterment of “workers” around the world you will afford them the same opportunities that we had to develop their economy.
If the unions had their way South Korea would still be a poverty stricken backwater.

 

[television]

What will happen is that India and China will get richer, their citizens will get more power due to the increasing importance of education and skills within the workforce and they will, eventually have the same standard of living we have. Just like Europe this may take a few generations but they will get there as long as the market is allowed to function. This is the up side of capitalism; it flows to where it can get the best return and so enriches the poor. The protectionism desired by the unions in this country is fundamentally unjust as it attempts to stifle economic development and opportunity in developing countries. This does not suit Ireland, but if you are really committed to the betterment of “workers” around the world you will afford them the same opportunities that we had to develop their economy.
If the unions had their way South Korea would still be a poverty stricken backwater.

You have great faith in the power of the markets to make people happy.And lets say you are right, along the way to this eutopia dont people in the mean time deserve decent pay and fair terms of conditions of employment? yes economic development is the only way for people to get out of poverty. But it must be regulated by government so that people are not exploited. However we increasingly see governments unwilling to do anything to upset multinationals for fear that they will up sticks. This is particularly true in developing nations. This allows greater room for exploitation of workers. And workers can lessen the impact of this through organisation.

 

[ubiquitous]

One man's regulation is another man's protectionism. And vice versa. Governments' main motivation in these scenarios is normally to maximise its own tax take, not to prevent the exploitation of workers. The unwillingness of governments to upset multinationals is not always a bad thing. Ireland's prosperity over the past 15 years would never had happened had successive governments not done everything in their power to make Ireland a decent place for the multinationals to do business. From 1922 until the early 1960s we shunned the multinationals in favour of protectionist self-sufficiency and look how far that got us.

 

[television]

One man's regulation is another man's protectionism. And vice versa. Governments' main motivation in these scenarios is normally to maximise its own tax take, not to prevent the exploitation of workers. The unwillingness of governments to upset multinationals is not always a bad thing. Ireland's prosperity over the past 15 years would never had happened had successive governments not done everything in their power to make Ireland a decent place to do business.

But these companies came into an enviroment where there was well established employee protection law. They had to behave themselves so to speak. I disagree with you that governments do not have a role in helping to prevent exploitation, and in fairness to the European Union to date it has implimented very progressive employment laws which protect workers from exploitation

 

[ubiquitous]

There was damn all employee protection law in this country until the early-to-mid 1990s. For example The Safety Health and Welfare at Work Act was only enacted in 1989. We have been attracting multinationals since the 1960s.

I never said that governments do not have a role in helping to prevent exploitation. Of course they do. My point was that this is rarely (or never) their main motivation.

 

[jimbob1234]

These increments are part of the basic salary structure

well that structure shudnt be in place. a person should get taken on and reviewed as in the private sector and get paid according to performance. if anyone joined a company and was told that whether they worked hard or not etc they would still get their increments and never ever ever have to suffer a real pay freeze then why should they work hard?????

 

[television]

There was damn all employee protection law in this country until the early-to-mid 1990s. We have been attracting multinationals since the 1960s.

I never said that governments do not have a role in helping to prevent exploitation. Of course they do. My point was that this is rarely (or never) their main motivation.[/quote]

I think you will find that there was a significant amount of leglislation since the foundation of the state re employment law. Irish entry into the EEC accelerated this. Althought the 1990 did bring significant leglislative change. But to say there was dam all employment law in ireland before the 1990 is factually incorrect. See this paper regarding the facts.

[broken link removed]

 

[ubiquitous]

That's a very useful and informative document. Thanks for the link.

As for the state of Irish employee protection law pre-1990, as always this is a matter of interpretation. Interestingly, from my count, the document cites 14 pieces of employee protection legislation enacted between 1922 and 1989, and 15 in the period 1989-2003.

Of the entire 29, it is worth noting that only 4 (the Conditions of Employment Act 1936, the Shops (Conditions of Employment) Act 1938 ,the Trade Union Act 1941, and the Industrial Relations Act 1946) pre-date the era of multinationals-based industrial policy which started in the 1960s.

This would seem to support the argument that industrial expansion leads to improvements in workers conditions at the expense of the contrary view. In our 49 years of industrial development since De Valera stepped down in 1959, we have enacted approx 80% of our employee protection legislation, dwarfing what was achieved in this area during the previous 37 years of protectionism.

 

[ubiquitous]

... sitting on their arses in some air conditioned government office somewhere pretending to work from 10am to 3.30 pm with a 2 hour lunch break in between.

Several interesting points in your post (most of which I agree with) but imho the above line does no justice whatsoever to your argument. What's wrong with air conditioning? Do you expect civil servants to stand up all day? Or to sit on their elbows? And sorry, the notion of civil servants having a 3.5 hour working day does not stand up to any scrutiny.

 

[television]

That's a very useful and informative document. Thanks for the link.

As for the state of Irish employee protection law pre-1990, as always this is a matter of interpretation. Interestingly, from my count, the document cites 14 pieces of employee protection legislation enacted between 1922 and 1989, and 15 in the period 1989-2003.

Of the entire 29, it is worth noting that only 4 (the Conditions of Employment Act 1936, the Shops (Conditions of Employment) Act 1938 ,the Trade Union Act 1941, and the Industrial Relations Act 1946) pre-date the era of multinationals-based industrial policy which started in the 1960s.

This would seem to support the argument that industrial expansion leads to improvements in workers conditions at the expense of the contrary view. In our 49 years of industrial development since De Valera stepped down in 1959, we have enacted approx 80% of our employee protection legislation, dwarfing what was achieved in this area during the previous 37 years of protectionism.

Nice use of the article to defend your position. However I think you will aggree that you were wrong in your statement that there was "dam all employmen leglislation before the 1990.

 

[Purple]

You have great faith in the power of the markets to make people happy.

I never suggested that money makes people happy. Money is a tool, a means to an end. People make people happy.

And lets say you are right, along the way to this eutopia dont people in the mean time deserve decent pay and fair terms of conditions of employment?

I don’t think utopia is achievable due to the imperfect world we live in and the imperfection of human nature. I do agree that they deserve decent pay and fair terms of conditions of employment but in the real world this cannot be achieved overnight. It requires economic, political and social development all happening in tandem.

yes economic development is the only way for people to get out of poverty. But it must be regulated by government so that people are not exploited.

Yes, but see my last point.

However we increasingly see governments unwilling to do anything to upset multinationals for fear that they will up sticks. This is particularly true in developing nations.

The great era of multinational exploitation was between 1880 and 1914. No multinational in the world today is anywhere near as powerful than the British East India Company. 100 years ago King Leopold II of Belgium owned the Congo. It was his personal property. His had a railway line build between Leopoldville and the top of the rapids of the Congo River, during construction over 30’000 people died.(Read up on E.D. Moral and Rodger Casement for details) The East India Company raised armies and levied taxes. These were not states; they were people and corporate entities. While exploitation still happens, much of the time state sponsored in order to facilitate big business (Shell Oil and Ogoniland in Nigeria being a good example) it is not on anything like the same scale as it was 100-150 years ago.

 

[room305]

But the complete irony of what you are sayingg is that it was the PAYE smucks in the public/private sector that were paying 60% tax at the time while the fat cat bosses were sifting away the cash in off shore accounts.

How is this irony?

That would mean overcrowded and delapadated schools, more old people on trollies, those on medical cardson huge waiting lists to see consultants, mental health services cut etc etc. You are happy with that?

Don't we already have these things? I said that non-essential services could be cut but the choice was there to lay-off poorly performing staff either. Therefore, if senior civil servants decided it was better to cut essential services instead of non-productive staff it reflects poorly on their own ability and their own positions should be reviewed.

Thats what mindless speculation does.

If "mindless speculation" empowers good managers to bring companies through turbulent economic times then yay for mindless speculation I say!

So let business mindlessly exploit workers at the drop of a hat. Thats your solution? if you dont like being exploited and treated like dirt you know where the door is. That is the type of community you want your children living in?? Scary

I'd like my children to grow up in a country with jobs. I'd like my children to grow up in a country with low taxes and a government that spends within its means.

Aggreed but people on here are falling for the IBEC spin. I hope I am talking to proper business people here and not just poor brainwashed smucks working for soemone else. I can handle business owners advocating exploitation and crap conditions, but ordinary workers, it saddens me.

I pay about as much attention to "IBEC spin" as you do to the economic theories of Ludwig Von Mises. What saddens me is that it is 2008 and someone still feels the need to pepper their arguments with socialist paranoia about "fat cat bosses" and "ordinary workers". Also I don't think anyone - not even business owners - advocate "exploitation and crap conditions". Most businesses want to get the best from their employees, exploitation generally isn't the best method to do this.

Same kind of arguments were made during the industrial revolution as a means of exploiting workers. It required unity but eventually workers accross europe rallied and forced governments to improve workers conditions. You are not looking at this in a global context. Further exploitation will continue unless workers unite globally. I am not talking about a socialist Eutopia, just decent pay and condtions for people of all sectors

If European socialist workers want to improve conditions for workers in developing countries then they should change positions and advocate an immediate end to all EU subsidies and tariffs.

Where they get the oppurtunity multinationsals have and will contimue to exploit workers in the developing world. This is a fact. And you think otherwise your being nieve. Yes development is important but development that takes into account some basic decency and standards of social justice ... If someone does not fight for these rights for emerging countries they are not going to be given them.

As workers in the developing world save money, improve their education and standard of living they will demand better conditions and pay. As their productivity improves they will be rewarded with greater pay. Western trade unions dictating what is and isn't acceptable for this workers is neither appreciated nor productive. Think it through for a minute. Would Fruit of the Loom workers in Donegal in the late eighties have appreciated American trade unions opposing these factories on the basis they were being "exploited"? About as much as Moroccan workers would appreciate former Irish Fruit of the Loom workers intervening on their behalf now.

You may have some nieve view that unchecked global capitialism will solve the worlds problems. The reality over the last hundred years it that it has made winners out of a few nations while plunging the rest (billions of people) into poverty and misery.

This is not backed up by the facts. Global capitalism has greatly improved the lives of workers in all countries that have embraced it and disproportionately the poorest in those countries. I refer you to "In defence of global capitalism" by Swedish economist Johan Norberg, by way of reference. Look at how Hong Kong, Taiwan, South Korea and Ireland have developed by embracing globalisation.

Jimbob will you get over it please. Yes public sector workers recieve incremental credit and no, there is absolutly no chance that any public sector worker in their right mind is going to say they should be halted. You really need to get off the mindless public sector bashing, and move on to something else in relation to the cause of the recession.

I think incremental credits should be halted (and I work in the public sector) but I agree with you that they are not the cause of the recession nor the solution. However, it is symbolic as much as anything else. We all have to show a willingness to accept some pain.

It would appear I am not the only public sector worker who thinks so either.

It wouldn't be the end of the world for me if a "real" pay freeze was introduced but there isn't the remotest chance of this happening.

Substantial overtime payments, outdated working practices, top-heavy organisations and dubious agencies should be the target in terms of reducing the public sector pay bill - not the incremental pay of individuals.

Very true.

The problem with this is that you do not see the relationships that exist between government and business. Business influences government in a varity of ways, sometimes quite reasonably and other times to allow curruption and exploitation. This relationship is becoming more pronounced in every level, for example drug companies have a huge influence on the health policy and multinational IT companies in education. Now these companies do not have the health or education of ordinary people as thier primary motivation. So goverments can not be seen outside the context of the business community, they are interlinked.

It's funny you talk about the undue influence businesses can bring to governments when in this country the right of unions to dictate economic policy is put on a statutory footing.

If the workers in China had decent working conditions and were payed a fair wage according to thier own economy and had decent terms and conditions of employment then I have no problem buying the chineese produce.

You must accept then that Irish factories cannot compete with these wages and certainly cannot offer increased pay and jobs for life to their workers if they are to remain viable.

But frequently this is not the case. Of course people in the developing world will work for next to nothing and put up with conditions people in the west would not. Frequently multinationals set up in the developing world do not allow unions and do expolit workers and if these people do not like it they will just employ one of a hundred people waiting at the factory gate. A suituation like this makes it easy for these people suffer terrible exploitation by any standard. This is wrong.

Actually most frequently this is the case. Think about it. You set up a factory in a country where the average daily wage is €1. Offering €2 will ensure you get the absolute pick of the best workers in this country but make little impact on your bottom line (allowing you to expand, foster goodwill, have productive employees etc.). Yet you would probably still insist these workers are being exploited. While trade unions in the West are shouting loudly about shutting down factories in South-East Asia, workers in those factories are hoping they will continue to expand so their friends and families can get jobs there.

Short working day comment not withdrawn. Since when do public servants ever do unpaid unofficial overtime for example ?

I can vouch that I most assuredly do and so do many others. However, I agree with the thrust of your argument that the public sector should be reducing their conditions/pay to meet those of the private sector rather than blithely assuming it can work the other way around.

 

[ubiquitous]

Nice use of the article to defend your position. However I think you will aggree that you were wrong in your statement that there was "dam all employmen leglislation before the 1990.

If you're talking about the totality of employment legislation, ie recognition of trade unions, redundancy compensation, equality between men and women, etc, yes my statement was wrong. My point was somewhat badly made. What I meant that much or most of the employee protection legislation that we take for granted today has been enacted since the early 1990s, or more particularly 1989 when the workplace Safety legislation was brought in. The remainder of my point stands regardless.

 

[ubiquitous]

Nice use of the article to defend your position. However I think you will aggree that you were wrong in your statement that there was "dam all employmen leglislation before the 1990.

If you're talking about the totality of employment legislation, ie recognition of trade unions, redundancy compensation, equality between men and women, etc, yes my statement was wrong. My point was somewhat badly made. What I meant that much or most of the employee protection legislation that we take for granted today has been enacted since the early 1990s, or more particularly 1989 when the workplace Safety legislation was brought in. The remainder of my point stands regardless, ie we had damn all legislation to protect workers before we became and industrial economy by attracting multinationals.

 

[television]

The notion that we can tax "fat cat bosses" and continue to trundle along our merry way without any pain highlights the kind of trouble we're in. During the high taxation era of Haugheynomics we witnessed large scale tax evasion, high unemployment, mass emmigration and near bankruptcy. The last thing we want now is extra taxes. .

How is this irony?
It is ironic because you talk about the danger of taxing fat cat bosses today, yet they were the very ones who in the 80s were doing the tax evasion. Even today the very wealthies people in Ireland can avoid paying any tax. You might counter this by saying they create wealth, however if your earning millions you should pay your taxes.

Don't we already have these things? I said that non-essential services could be cut but the choice was there to lay-off poorly performing staff either. Therefore, if senior civil servants decided it was better to cut essential services instead of non-productive staff it reflects poorly on their own ability and their own positions should be reviewed.

Yes but a 15% cut will make it worse. Let me just quote what you actually said rather the what you are quoting above.

When it comes to government spending, the government should mandate a 15% cut in spending for each department. Let the top brass in each department decide how they want to do it - cut pay, lay off staff, cut non-essential services

If you seriously think that cutting 15% of the health budget will not impact on front line staff and patient care you are being naive. The demands of 21st century quality health care and global health inflation mean that funding needs to increase concurrently.

I'd like my children to grow up in a country with jobs. I'd like my children to grow up in a country with low taxes and a government that spends within its means.

I agree with you here, but its quality jobs also. Jobs where people feel fulfilled and not constantly in fear of being laid off and so are easily brainwashed into accepting poor conditions and exploitation. I hope you realise that the reality of globalisation will mean that the liklyhood is that jobs will be leaked out of this country pretty rapidly and its not just low skilled jobs either. This idea that we can complete globally if we up skill and become a “knowledge economy” ignores the fact that India and chineese are both cheaper and smarter than we are.

I pay about as much attention to "IBEC spin" as you do to the economic theories of Ludwig Von Mises. .

A significant amount of global business leaders consider that guy their secular business God.

What saddens me is that it is 2008 and someone still feels the need to pepper their arguments with socialist paranoia about "fat cat bosses" and "ordinary workers".

Okay I was engaging in a little bit of left wing rhetoric to upset the neo-liberal folks that dominate this site.

Also I don't think anyone - not even business owners - advocate "exploitation and crap conditions". Most businesses want to get the best from their employees; exploitation generally isn't the best method to do this. "

No, they may not advocate it but many would allow it. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that where regulation does not exist business will exploit workers. You have been programmed into thinking that the cosy “Google working condition utopia” exists for most workers. This is not the reality of low paid workers in Ireland. Hundreds of thousands of cleaners, security guards, shop workers, unskilled factory operatives etc etc, (having worked in all of the above jobs in my time I can tell you that there is far from the “businesses wanting to get the best out of these people world” you are suggesting. Where rubbish pay, no respect and exploitation are rampant even today, and that’s despite the myriad of employment rights legislation. That is the real world for hundreds of thousands of people. Bury your head in the sand and believe in the cosy business loves its worker hyperbole if you like. It is not the world inhabited by low paid workers.

If European socialist workers want to improve conditions for workers in developing countries then they should change positions and advocate an immediate end to all EU subsidies and tariffs.

Agreed, but where have I advocated protectionism.

As workers in the developing world save money, improve their education and standard of living they will demand better conditions and pay. As their productivity improves they will be rewarded with greater pay. .

The victory’s won for workers in Europe in the 19 and early 20 century were won by people who organised because they had a common bond based on collective need for better conditions. They were not won because people got progressively richer and then demanded rights based on becoming richer. You are making the same mistake as your quoted economist Johan Norberg makes, in assuming that because globalisation gradually increases the wealth of people there is no casualties along the way. The reality is there is. And my argument is that we cannot ignore this ongoing suffering in the name of the great saviour of humanity; globalisation.

Western trade unions dictating what is and isn't acceptable for this workers is neither appreciated nor productive.

The nature of a trade union is that it is a representative body. It is mandates to speak on behalf of those who it represents. It is not about dictating it is about listening and reflecting the common voice of all members. It is a form of democracy. This point is perhaps you’re weakest.

Think it through for a minute. Would Fruit of the Loom workers in Donegal in the late eighties have appreciated American trade unions opposing these factories on the basis they were being "exploited"? About as much as Moroccan workers would appreciate former Irish Fruit of the Loom workers intervening on their behalf now.

I have never argued against the free movement of capital or people. I am advocating fair treatment of workers based on their own cultural and economic situation

This is not backed up by the facts. Global capitalism has greatly improved the lives of workers in all countries that have embraced it and disproportionately the poorest in those countries. I refer you to "In defence of global capitalism" by Swedish economist Johan Norberg, by way of reference. Look at how Hong Kong, Taiwan, South Korea and Ireland have developed by embracing globalisation.

See my critique above of Norberg.

I think incremental credits should be halted (and I work in the public sector) but I agree with you that they are not the cause of the recession nor the solution. However, it is symbolic as much as anything else. We all have to show a willingness to accept some pain.

I have said that I am willing to accept a pay freeze. But no one is touching my incrementJ. Call me selfish but I have 2 kids a mortgage etc. What do you expect, and despite what the private sector drones say, I work dam hard, I could get a job in the private sector and earn more, but I choose to work in the public sector because I believe in the value of public service. It is not about money for me. It is about vocation and caring about my community.

It's funny you talk about the undue influence businesses can bring to governments when in this country the right of unions to dictate economic policy is put on a statutory footing.

See my above point about unions.

You must accept then that Irish factories cannot compete with these wages and certainly cannot offer increased pay and jobs for life to their workers if they are to remain viable.

Look jobs in the public sector are needed for the public good to one degree or another. They cannot be simplistically equated to workers in the private sector. This may not be a popular analysis but it is a fair one. For example if a ambulance driver is doing a competent job, regularly up skills etc why does he not deserve a permanent job. If he makes repeated errors sack him. But this is the case today.

Actually most frequently this is the case. Think about it. You set up a factory in a country where the average daily wage is €1. Offering €2 will ensure you get the absolute pick of the best workers in this country but make little impact on your bottom line (allowing you to expand, foster goodwill, have productive employees etc.). Yet you would probably still insist these workers are being exploited.

Absolutely misinterpreting my views. I would not think they are being exploited if they are getting double the average wage. There is more to my argument here but it would take too long to explainJ

 

[Complainer]

Unfortunately (unlike many of the super-efficient, super-effective, super-competitive private sector workers), I've been far too busy with work to keep up on this thread and counter the mix of fiction, fantasy and verging-on-racist bile and invective posted on this thread and a few others here on AAM. Let's catch up on a few facts first.

Increments are not guaranteed in the civil service and much of the broader public service. Increments are dependent on satisfactory performance measured via the PDMS performance management system. Pay-for-performance exists today.

Purple tells us that the class war has been won. This is pure fiction, and does not stand up to any kind of scrutiny. Have a quick look at [broken link removed] by the Institute of Public Health to see how your lifespan is directly related to economic wealth. Poor people die younger.

Fergus Finlay points out that a recent ESRI paper (one that surprisingly enough, didn't get front page headlines for several days) notes that

if you live in a household that has someone with a long-term illness or disability, your are twice as likely to be at risk of poverty. As the ESRI says, “these households are twice as likely to be deprived of basic items such as clothes, food or heat”.

Ireland is a long, long way from becoming an equal society. It might suit some people to gloss over the huge economic inequalities that persist and have indeed been worsened in recent years. Don't fall for the spin.

It is almost amusing to see the blinkered focus on public sector issues. If you want to hold down inflation, why not start with the direct factor of private sector salaries, rather than the indirect factor of public sector salaries. If you want to talk about a pay freeze, let's talk about a national pay freeze for everyone.

If (on the other hand) you want to divert attention from the real issues (a tactic that has been used by many, many governments in the past) and find a scapegoat, then keep on bashing the public sector.

 

[ubiquitous]

If you want to hold down inflation, why not start with the direct factor of private sector salaries, rather than the indirect factor of public sector salaries.

in fairness, that has been the thrust of much of this week's media debate between the unions and business interests. Despite only being able to listen to radio for an hour or two yesterday, I heard several times that we have the second highest minimum wage in the EU. According to some, this is badly needed. According to others it damages our competitiveness.

If you want to talk about a pay freeze, let's talk about a national pay freeze for everyone.

I think the main obstacles to a national pay freeze are (i) the unions as typified by David Begg's statements this week; (2) the obstinacy of the Government in awarding big pay hikes to themselves and senior civil servants only a few months ago, when it was painfully obvious that a recession was on the way.

 

[Purple]

Unfortunately (unlike many of the super-efficient, super-effective, super-competitive private sector workers), I've been far too busy with work to keep up on this thread and counter the mix of fiction, fantasy and verging-on-racist bile and invective posted on this thread and a few others here on AAM. Let's catch up on a few facts first.

Please point out where comments “verging-on-racist bile and invective” have been posted.

Purple tells us that the class war has been won. This is pure fiction, and does not stand up to any kind of scrutiny. Have a quick look at [broken link removed] by the Institute of Public Health to see how your lifespan is directly related to economic wealth. Poor people die younger.

Fergus Finlay points out that a recent ESRI paper (one that surprisingly enough, didn't get front page headlines for several days) notes that

Ireland is a long, long way from becoming an equal society. It might suit some people to gloss over the huge economic inequalities that persist and have indeed been worsened in recent years. Don't fall for the spin.

Society should not strive for communist style equality; rather it should strive for equality of opportunity. I agree that more can be done in this area but was the socialists in the Labour party that abolished third level fees for everyone instead of increasing funding for those who really need it. I do not believe that high earners (like me) should get children’s allowance or free third level education for their children. That money would be much better spent on those who really need it. But these and other factors that lead to and perpetuate social inequality are political issues and have little to do with economics. The fact is that there are fewer economic barriers than social ones.