Monday 1 August 2005

The cost of living

Here's some good news for students in Dundee:
DUNDEE has been named the most cost-effective city in Scotland for students - but nearby St Andrews comes bottom of the pile, according to a survey.
At first glance this may seem surprising:
Nationally, Dundee was the only Scottish city to make it into the UK top ten for cost-effective living, finishing in ninth place. London was the highest-scoring student destination, and St Andrews was the least cost-effective of the 24 British cities included in the survey
London is at number one. Given the very high cost of living in London the explanation must be that the capital offers proportionately higher earning opportunities for students than do other locations. I wonder if this applies to London's non-student working population as well - I don't see why not. That in turn makes me wonder whether it's fair for workers in London to be paid a "weighting" to compensate for their higher cost of living. Perhaps the weighting is too high.

1 comment:

David Farrer said...

Comments made on previous template:

Hector Maclean
You are right Andrew, the free market dictates that people employed in London get paid more. They (employers)must pay the price for working in an economic zone with high levels of productivity.  
However in Scotland the public sector is squeezing out profit creating business. Who wants to to a job that you might get fired from if you do it badly when you can have a nice cushy little number in the public sector where the strong unions and the lack of any cost/benefit analysis means that you will get pretty much a job for life, good hours, lots of holidays, an inflation proof pension and retirement at a reasonable age? :lol: 
All the suckers who work in the private sector will just have to go to the workhouse when they are old. State run of course, we couldn't have 'profit' contaminating it could we?

4 August 2005, 20:51:48 GMT+01:00
– Like – Reply

Last I checked there was nothing compulsory about paying 'London weighting' - so, in a free market, if employers feel it necessary to pay extra to secure and retain the services of staff, who or what has the right to stop them? Perhaps the market is working!

3 August 2005, 19:57:10 GMT+01:00