They realise immigrants taking all the menial jobs, so our youngsters ought to stay at school to get better education as there will be no low grade jobs for them?
2007-01-16 00:15:13 · 12 answers · asked by Jaffa1700 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Well that's a good thing isn't it? Being educated is better than having a rubbish job for life. I don't like the fact that migrants take work from people who are uneducated and unable to get a better job. But some factories are employing migrants way below minimum wage, that is not legal. Alot of factories get away with it. I checked up on this and everybody is entitled to minimum wage no matter where they come from. These factories need to be reported. I think raising the leaving age is a good thing. Being well educated will get you a better job and a better life. Plus alot of 16 year olds will get into a bad job because they want to move out and start earning money. My husband went straight into a factory because he wanted freedom from his parents and his own home. But now he has rubbish wages and can't get a job doing anything else. If they stay until 18, they become adults and will make better choices. It may raise taxes, but in the long term everybody will be better off.
2007-01-16 00:23:58 · answer #1 · answered by gemwi 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Truthfully speaking, there is no real need to force someone to stay in school until the age of 18. I dropped out at 16, had my GED by 17 and was enrolled in college before any of my friends graduated High school. Let's face it, a high school diploma is not much different than a GED and in today's job market neither will get you far anyway. Some people will go on to college. Many others wont. I started college and did not finish. So I work. Would a mere 2 year degree really have helped me that much? Not really since I work with more than a few people who have them already. This is a joke. They want kids to stay in school so that when they bring back the draft they will have a pool of semi-educated kids to train to be killers. Come on, if they are really concerned about education than why not spend more money on vocational schools so kids can at least learn a trade? Why should it be either 4 years of college or poverty for life? This is why there will be no middle class in the future.
2007-01-16 01:08:20 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Where I come from, children start attending school at the age of six and are obliged to stay there until the age of 19. After that they either chose to go to the university or get a job. I agree with this, because I believe that a child is far too young to start learning at 4 and still far too young to be able to provide for itself at the age of 16. Leaving school this early is I think too soon.
So, if the goverment is thinking about doing this it might be a good thing.
2007-01-16 00:33:12 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No I dont think its a hidden agenda but common sense. If a child has to be 18 to get out of school then most of them will graduate. Because by 18 most are already graduating that year so will finish thier basic education. Allowing children to "drop out" at 16 is in a way child abuse because it allows them to decide instead of their parents decision being the deciding factor as it is in any other thing they do.It has a huge impact on the rest of the childs life and they do not need parents permission to do it.
2007-01-16 00:22:31 · answer #4 · answered by elaeblue 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
as an ex teacher from the UK now living in the USA here's a news flash pretty much EVERY child here stays in school until they are 18,,,,,,IMO it would just be YET another thing of the UK following in the USA footsteps...................and to be honest an awful lot of kids here leave school at 18 and go into menial jobs as college is out of their reach...............
IF the government [any of them.] said that school till was mandatory and then actually RAISED the standard of the eduction then I would be all for it but sadly I think it would just be a dumbing down for the masses and yet more testing that means nothing for the kids but boy does the government love those figures..............
2007-01-16 00:32:55 · answer #5 · answered by candy g 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
"No child left behind" can be translated, as "No child's behind left", when our schools are run by the Federal government!!!
A few days ago, I was sitting in a coffeeshop, discussing the cutbacks in education, by this administration, and, I ask a Bush supporter, what they had against education. "Nothing," he said, "As long as it doesn't change the way a person thinks!"
Where do they go to school, to learn this crap??? Are they home schooled, or Church schooled???
Doc
2007-01-16 00:51:49 · answer #6 · answered by Arbuckle Doc 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No! it's another tax raising con trick - you watch the taxes will rise to keep them at school longer and the money raised will go to Labours most stupid idea at the time!
2007-01-16 00:19:14 · answer #7 · answered by jamand 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Its a possibility, definitely wouldn't put it past them. I agree with the other guy too, taxes will go up again to pay for it.
2007-01-16 00:20:52 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Alright Mr. Wise guy explain this question a little better.
2007-01-16 00:20:39 · answer #9 · answered by GJfromfla 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Its a just another way of massaging the unemployment statistics.
2007-01-16 08:14:05 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋