I'm Worried My Friend Might Fall Out...
Family & Relationships0 min ago
SO IN THE PAPER TODAY IMMIGRATION DOESNT AFFECT UNEMPLOYMENT
It seems the immigrants have a better work ethic. Meaning they want to work. And in general they are better educated than the unemployed here.
Bit of a blow to the racists.
http://www.independen...ployment-6287404.html
Bit of a blow to the racists.
http://www.independen...ployment-6287404.html
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Teddy_boy. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I'm unsure why you need to bring "racists" into the discussion from the off, or were you trying to stifle reasoned debate ?
Of course immigration affects employment. It is simple maths. There are a set number of job opportunities at any one time and if an immigrant sees an existing job opportunity as a good deal and enthusiastically takes it up then that is a job that the country failed to encourage a native born individual to take up. There is simply no argument that can be raised against that. Attractive the native born individual and the jobless total goes down one. Give the job to an immigrant and the jobless total remains the same.
Any claim that an immigrant taking a job offer creates a stimulus is patently false since there is no reason a native born individual can not do what an immigrant can. The difference is that the job offered may need to be more attractive to the immigrant since the expectations of those born here may well be higher than those coming from elsewhere. The free movement of labour allows national companies to hire those workers with lowest expectations and short circuits the national labour market where supply & demand is supposed to ensure agreed level of remuneration and working conditions is reached.
If any examination of the situation comes to a different view then common sense tells you that clearly the wrong conclusions were drawn. The problem is in offering native born folk a sufficient attractive deal to agree a contract with them.
Anyway the bigger threat to youth employment is the way the government is trying to ensure anyone employed has to work many more years before they are eligible for a pension. They'd rather pay younger folk to remain unemployed than pay a pension to those who have contributed already.
Meanwhile, don't believe all you read in the papers. Including institute papers it seems.
Of course immigration affects employment. It is simple maths. There are a set number of job opportunities at any one time and if an immigrant sees an existing job opportunity as a good deal and enthusiastically takes it up then that is a job that the country failed to encourage a native born individual to take up. There is simply no argument that can be raised against that. Attractive the native born individual and the jobless total goes down one. Give the job to an immigrant and the jobless total remains the same.
Any claim that an immigrant taking a job offer creates a stimulus is patently false since there is no reason a native born individual can not do what an immigrant can. The difference is that the job offered may need to be more attractive to the immigrant since the expectations of those born here may well be higher than those coming from elsewhere. The free movement of labour allows national companies to hire those workers with lowest expectations and short circuits the national labour market where supply & demand is supposed to ensure agreed level of remuneration and working conditions is reached.
If any examination of the situation comes to a different view then common sense tells you that clearly the wrong conclusions were drawn. The problem is in offering native born folk a sufficient attractive deal to agree a contract with them.
Anyway the bigger threat to youth employment is the way the government is trying to ensure anyone employed has to work many more years before they are eligible for a pension. They'd rather pay younger folk to remain unemployed than pay a pension to those who have contributed already.
Meanwhile, don't believe all you read in the papers. Including institute papers it seems.
There was an immigration act after the great fire of London , because even then , after the fire there was a shortage of craftsmen in London. So 300 odd years later it hasn't changed. Racism and immigration are intrinsically linked, unless youre a racist and are trying to divert from the fact.In my opinion.
Fine TB, that is one way of looking at it, but in that case they need to be raised with a less lazy attitude. However it is still an internal failing that increasing the population by bringing in others from outside doesn't really solve. Even if, for the sake of argument, the average immigrant was a super individual, able to leap tall buildings at a single bound. If they opt to stay, and most will, what are the odds that, that useful attitude would be passed on to their children ? Is it not more likely that the next generation would insist they were not going to accept less than the rest of their generation around them ? Maybe they will be slightly more willing to take on less attractive positions but the attitude is going to fade; and if you believe immigration is a good thing you are then forced to bring more immigrants in. And more next generation. And more and more and more. What you get is a growing (unemployed) population that the country finds difficult to cope with, and the same problems as you had at the start still unsolved.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.