Friday, May 07, 2004
Knowledge wave? More of a ripple
The knowledge economy is much smaller than previously thought, according to a new book to be published later this year. The Mismanagement of Talent by political economists Phillip Brown and Anthony Hesketh, argues that the UK Government's prediction of a 70-80 percent growth in the knowledge economy over the next few years is over-exaggerated.
In their study of more than 28 million UK jobs it found that only 32 percent were in fact knowledge based, traditionally requiring a university graduate. The study also looked at 145 million jobs across the US economy and found only 1 in 5 roles were knowledge based. Read the full report and the press reactions and debate here.
The knowledge economy is much smaller than previously thought, according to a new book to be published later this year. The Mismanagement of Talent by political economists Phillip Brown and Anthony Hesketh, argues that the UK Government's prediction of a 70-80 percent growth in the knowledge economy over the next few years is over-exaggerated.
In their study of more than 28 million UK jobs it found that only 32 percent were in fact knowledge based, traditionally requiring a university graduate. The study also looked at 145 million jobs across the US economy and found only 1 in 5 roles were knowledge based. Read the full report and the press reactions and debate here.
Doubting the Doomsayers
Journalist and author Philip Yancey has been updating a book he co-authored in 1980 with Dr Paul Brand, called Fearfully and Wonderfully Made. In the process, he reviewed a passage spelling out the huge gap between developed countries and the developing world.
Says Yancey: “I had recently seen an anonymous email message floating around the Internet indicating that little has changed since 1980. It reported that 80 percent of the world's people still live in substandard housing, 70 percent are unable to read, and 50 percent suffer from malnutrition.
“My curiosity piqued, I spent several days tracking down statistics from authoritative sources, only to find that the email is downright wrong. In fact, the world has made major strides in the last few decades.
“According to best estimates, 25 percent—not 80—of the world's population live in substandard housing. Thirty years ago the global literacy rate was 53 percent; now only 20 percent of adults cannot read. The percentage of people suffering from malnutrition has dropped by more than half, to 20 percent. Three of four people used to have no access to clean water; now three of four people have it.�
The whole article can be read here.
Journalist and author Philip Yancey has been updating a book he co-authored in 1980 with Dr Paul Brand, called Fearfully and Wonderfully Made. In the process, he reviewed a passage spelling out the huge gap between developed countries and the developing world.
Says Yancey: “I had recently seen an anonymous email message floating around the Internet indicating that little has changed since 1980. It reported that 80 percent of the world's people still live in substandard housing, 70 percent are unable to read, and 50 percent suffer from malnutrition.
“My curiosity piqued, I spent several days tracking down statistics from authoritative sources, only to find that the email is downright wrong. In fact, the world has made major strides in the last few decades.
“According to best estimates, 25 percent—not 80—of the world's population live in substandard housing. Thirty years ago the global literacy rate was 53 percent; now only 20 percent of adults cannot read. The percentage of people suffering from malnutrition has dropped by more than half, to 20 percent. Three of four people used to have no access to clean water; now three of four people have it.�
The whole article can be read here.
Tuesday, May 04, 2004
The Dangers of Redefining Gay Marriage
The following is going the rounds (author, unfortunately, unknown):
(A scene at City Hall in San Francisco)
"Next."
“Good morning. We want to apply for a marriage license."
"Names?"
"Tim and Jim Jones."
"Jones? Are you related? I see a resemblance."
"Yes, we're brothers."
"Brothers? You can't get married."
"Why not? Aren't you giving marriage licenses to same gender couples?"
"Yes, thousands. But we haven't had any siblings. That's incest!"
"Incest? No, we are not gay."
"Not gay? Then why do you want to get married?"
"For the financial benefits, of course. And we do love each other. Besides, we don't have any other prospects."
"But we're issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples who've been denied equal protection under the law. If you are not gay, you can get married to a woman."
"Wait a minute. A gay man has the same right to marry a woman as I have. But just because I'm straight doesn't mean I want to marry a woman. I want to marry Jim."
"And I want to marry Tim. Are you going to discriminate against us just because we are not gay?"
"All right, all right. I'll give you your license. Next."
"Hi. We are here to get married."
"Names?"
"John Smith, Jane James, Robert Green, and June Johnson."
"Who wants to marry whom?"
"We all want to marry each other."
"But there are four of you!"
"That's right. You see, we're all bisexual. I love Jane and Robert, Jane loves me and June, June loves Robert and Jane, and Robert loves June and me. All of us getting married together is the only way that we can express our sexual preferences in a marital relationship."
"But we've only been granting licenses to gay and lesbian couples."
"So you're discriminating against bisexuals!"
"No, it's just that, well, the traditional idea of marriage is that it's just for couples."
"Since when are you standing on tradition?"
"Well, I mean, you have to draw the line somewhere."
"Who says? There's no logical reason to limit marriage to couples. The more the better. Besides, we demand our rights! The mayor says the constitution guarantees equal protection under the law. Give us a marriage license!"
"All right, all right. Next."
"Hello, I'd like a marriage license."
"In what names?"
"David Deets."
"And the other man?"
"That's all. I want to marry myself."
"Marry yourself? What do you mean?"
"Well, my psychiatrist says I have a dual personality, so I want to marry the two together. Maybe I can file a joint income-tax return."
"That does it! I quit!! You people are making a mockery of marriage!!"
The following is going the rounds (author, unfortunately, unknown):
(A scene at City Hall in San Francisco)
"Next."
“Good morning. We want to apply for a marriage license."
"Names?"
"Tim and Jim Jones."
"Jones? Are you related? I see a resemblance."
"Yes, we're brothers."
"Brothers? You can't get married."
"Why not? Aren't you giving marriage licenses to same gender couples?"
"Yes, thousands. But we haven't had any siblings. That's incest!"
"Incest? No, we are not gay."
"Not gay? Then why do you want to get married?"
"For the financial benefits, of course. And we do love each other. Besides, we don't have any other prospects."
"But we're issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples who've been denied equal protection under the law. If you are not gay, you can get married to a woman."
"Wait a minute. A gay man has the same right to marry a woman as I have. But just because I'm straight doesn't mean I want to marry a woman. I want to marry Jim."
"And I want to marry Tim. Are you going to discriminate against us just because we are not gay?"
"All right, all right. I'll give you your license. Next."
"Hi. We are here to get married."
"Names?"
"John Smith, Jane James, Robert Green, and June Johnson."
"Who wants to marry whom?"
"We all want to marry each other."
"But there are four of you!"
"That's right. You see, we're all bisexual. I love Jane and Robert, Jane loves me and June, June loves Robert and Jane, and Robert loves June and me. All of us getting married together is the only way that we can express our sexual preferences in a marital relationship."
"But we've only been granting licenses to gay and lesbian couples."
"So you're discriminating against bisexuals!"
"No, it's just that, well, the traditional idea of marriage is that it's just for couples."
"Since when are you standing on tradition?"
"Well, I mean, you have to draw the line somewhere."
"Who says? There's no logical reason to limit marriage to couples. The more the better. Besides, we demand our rights! The mayor says the constitution guarantees equal protection under the law. Give us a marriage license!"
"All right, all right. Next."
"Hello, I'd like a marriage license."
"In what names?"
"David Deets."
"And the other man?"
"That's all. I want to marry myself."
"Marry yourself? What do you mean?"
"Well, my psychiatrist says I have a dual personality, so I want to marry the two together. Maybe I can file a joint income-tax return."
"That does it! I quit!! You people are making a mockery of marriage!!"
Monday, May 03, 2004
Death of the single-income family?
A major article in the Sunday Star Times this week points out that two-parent families trying to survive on just one income (even an above-average income) are a dying breed. Fewer than a quarter of two-parent families now have mum at home and dad at work.
It's not surprising that things have got to this. Back in the 1960s in New Zealand, the average family paid negative tax. In other words, they received more in benefits and tax rebates than they paid. This was a mighty incentive for a family to stay together and have children.
All those benefits have now been stripped away from the traditional family, and handed over to solo parents or those on low incomes. Into the bargain, the government is stressing over and over that women should be out in the workforce, and developing policy and legislation every which way it can to make sure that mum doesn't stay home. Even if she (shock, horror!) wants to. Under the government's diktate, a woman should be "an autonomous economic unit", and that is official government policy.
(Incidentally, that is "should" as in "must", not should as in "may". The Ministry of Women's Affairs Policy for Women is riddled with this.)
There was a reason that the government back in the 1960s used to give all that support to the family. It's the same reason that the Australian government still understands by even now dispensing the family benefit that New Zealand discarded. The married two-parent family provides the foundation for a healthy society. When the family falls apart, so does society.
A major article in the Sunday Star Times this week points out that two-parent families trying to survive on just one income (even an above-average income) are a dying breed. Fewer than a quarter of two-parent families now have mum at home and dad at work.
It's not surprising that things have got to this. Back in the 1960s in New Zealand, the average family paid negative tax. In other words, they received more in benefits and tax rebates than they paid. This was a mighty incentive for a family to stay together and have children.
All those benefits have now been stripped away from the traditional family, and handed over to solo parents or those on low incomes. Into the bargain, the government is stressing over and over that women should be out in the workforce, and developing policy and legislation every which way it can to make sure that mum doesn't stay home. Even if she (shock, horror!) wants to. Under the government's diktate, a woman should be "an autonomous economic unit", and that is official government policy.
(Incidentally, that is "should" as in "must", not should as in "may". The Ministry of Women's Affairs Policy for Women is riddled with this.)
There was a reason that the government back in the 1960s used to give all that support to the family. It's the same reason that the Australian government still understands by even now dispensing the family benefit that New Zealand discarded. The married two-parent family provides the foundation for a healthy society. When the family falls apart, so does society.
