Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
Would Cutting The Number Of Unskilled Migrants Coming To Britain, Boost The Economy?
38 Answers
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. 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.
// Decreasing wages leads to a decrease in the standard of living, British workers should not be expected to earn the same as workers in Eastern European countries. //
Business want a low wage economy, and it has been with us for a decade. We are on eastern European wages. Young people are supposed to work for £2.70 probably on a Zero hours contract hour.
Business want a low wage economy, and it has been with us for a decade. We are on eastern European wages. Young people are supposed to work for £2.70 probably on a Zero hours contract hour.
The bottom line I read from all threads like this is that those who are doing alright for themselves, thank you, resent the fact that other people are alive and need food, clothing and shelter. They resent paying to have others sit idle but they resent paying them enough to lead a life *independent of all government assistance*, yes, like them, even _more_.
There is no option under which you can have other people remain alive if you persist in denying them some kind of _dignified_ livelihood.
The Victorians were quite happy to let people starve to death in the streets or stick them in the workhouse. Stop mincing words and say straight-up that this is what you want, because that is how it comes across to me.
There is no option under which you can have other people remain alive if you persist in denying them some kind of _dignified_ livelihood.
The Victorians were quite happy to let people starve to death in the streets or stick them in the workhouse. Stop mincing words and say straight-up that this is what you want, because that is how it comes across to me.
Its none of your business Hypognosis, but I am quite happy to tell you anyway.
I work from home and i work Freelance, so I am at home when others are perhaps away at work.
Let me know if you require any other other personal details, but if its my blood group you are after, I may need some prior notice as I will have to give my Doctor a ring ! (tic)
I work from home and i work Freelance, so I am at home when others are perhaps away at work.
Let me know if you require any other other personal details, but if its my blood group you are after, I may need some prior notice as I will have to give my Doctor a ring ! (tic)
Well that was bizarre.
Why would anyone want to know your blood group?
Other than that, you are quite right that your private life is none of my business.
Applying that standard, why are your neighbours' lives any business of yours? Why not create a job for someone? Improve the efficiency of your business?
Or wouldn't it be cheaper to just leave them idle?
Unemployment is the cudgel with which we keep wage levels low amongst those who *do* work. Don't mess with it.
Why would anyone want to know your blood group?
Other than that, you are quite right that your private life is none of my business.
Applying that standard, why are your neighbours' lives any business of yours? Why not create a job for someone? Improve the efficiency of your business?
Or wouldn't it be cheaper to just leave them idle?
Unemployment is the cudgel with which we keep wage levels low amongst those who *do* work. Don't mess with it.
Hypognosis...your last post is confused and disjointed. People who have never worked and have no intention of so doing, are able to do so because my taxes, and yours, is allowing them to do so. I have worked all my life, apart from a few weeks unemployment in 2008.
Why should these layabouts be able to have the easy life, sitting in their front gardens, smoking cigarettes and drinking cans of lager all day, ( They are out there as I type) while most of us have to go to work ?
I have every sympathy for people who are out of work, and are finding it difficult to get a job. But there are jobs available in Britain, and a lot of them are unskilled....these immigrants who are here doing those jobs have proved that.
Why should these layabouts be able to have the easy life, sitting in their front gardens, smoking cigarettes and drinking cans of lager all day, ( They are out there as I type) while most of us have to go to work ?
I have every sympathy for people who are out of work, and are finding it difficult to get a job. But there are jobs available in Britain, and a lot of them are unskilled....these immigrants who are here doing those jobs have proved that.
AOG
"I would have thought you of all people would be against slave labour"
It surprises me when you make comments like that (which some may consider snide and deliberately confrontational), because what we have here is a discussion on macro-economics, rather than slave labour, which you have introduced because I am black.
Do you think it might make more sense to veer away from obvious personal digs, and remain on topic?
No problem if you feel that your comment is pertinent to the debate - I'm happy to leave this thread and wait for another...
...however, the point I am making is not in support or defence of low wages - it's a statement of market economics.
You asked if UKIP's proposals would lead to a boost to the economy. I don't think it would because the long term effect would be wage inflation which in turn would lead to a rise in the retail price index.
Note...I wasn't condemning or supporting the current state of the market, just commenting on the existence of these market forces.
I am disappointed that you would introduce the term 'slave labour' simply to scoff at my argument (because of my racial background). It's not very adult, and it's the kind of thing that initiates unwarranted slanging matches on the News section.
By the way, Poles working in the service industry or Lithuanians working as plumbers or brickies are certainly not working under 'slave labour' conditions.
No where near it.
I think it might be best to lose that reference, because it doesn't reflect the reality of the EU migrant workforce.
...in my opinion.
"I would have thought you of all people would be against slave labour"
It surprises me when you make comments like that (which some may consider snide and deliberately confrontational), because what we have here is a discussion on macro-economics, rather than slave labour, which you have introduced because I am black.
Do you think it might make more sense to veer away from obvious personal digs, and remain on topic?
No problem if you feel that your comment is pertinent to the debate - I'm happy to leave this thread and wait for another...
...however, the point I am making is not in support or defence of low wages - it's a statement of market economics.
You asked if UKIP's proposals would lead to a boost to the economy. I don't think it would because the long term effect would be wage inflation which in turn would lead to a rise in the retail price index.
Note...I wasn't condemning or supporting the current state of the market, just commenting on the existence of these market forces.
I am disappointed that you would introduce the term 'slave labour' simply to scoff at my argument (because of my racial background). It's not very adult, and it's the kind of thing that initiates unwarranted slanging matches on the News section.
By the way, Poles working in the service industry or Lithuanians working as plumbers or brickies are certainly not working under 'slave labour' conditions.
No where near it.
I think it might be best to lose that reference, because it doesn't reflect the reality of the EU migrant workforce.
...in my opinion.
// I really don’t know how the nation coped before mass immigration from the EU took place and we suddenly had people to dig up spuds and cut daffodils //
I remember those days NJ, and they were tough. I was in my late thirties before I had my first bag of chips. In fact the first time I saw a potato I actually thought it was a daffodil.
I remember those days NJ, and they were tough. I was in my late thirties before I had my first bag of chips. In fact the first time I saw a potato I actually thought it was a daffodil.
sp1814
My reference to slave labour was not meant to be a personal insult to you or your race but merely a figure of speech in reply to your seemed acceptance to ever increasing low wages.
If you were, (and it seems you obviously were) offended by my reference to 'slave labour' then I apologise, but I still maintain that this is a universal term of phraseology in describing 'working for nothing' as is 'working for peanuts'.
But once again apologies are in order if your sensitivities have been affected.
My reference to slave labour was not meant to be a personal insult to you or your race but merely a figure of speech in reply to your seemed acceptance to ever increasing low wages.
If you were, (and it seems you obviously were) offended by my reference to 'slave labour' then I apologise, but I still maintain that this is a universal term of phraseology in describing 'working for nothing' as is 'working for peanuts'.
But once again apologies are in order if your sensitivities have been affected.
AOG
It's not the reference to slave labour which I have an issues high.
It's this phrasing:
I would have thought you of all people would be against slave labour
(My italics).
I believe there's a subtext there.
However, you have been very gracious in your response, so let's put this one to bed and chalk it up to a misunderstanding and stop before I squeeze a third metaphor into this sentence.
It's not the reference to slave labour which I have an issues high.
It's this phrasing:
I would have thought you of all people would be against slave labour
(My italics).
I believe there's a subtext there.
However, you have been very gracious in your response, so let's put this one to bed and chalk it up to a misunderstanding and stop before I squeeze a third metaphor into this sentence.
@AOG
Since economic growth is usually predicated on population growth or, alternatively, at least a steady throughput of people who arrive without possessions and need to equip themselves for civilised living, I would say that the answer to your question is "no".
Furthermore, I believe it is not possible to hypothecate the automatic hiring of the likes of mikey's neighbours on the grounds of a hypothetical end to immigration. If the jobs are mainly in London or on farms in East Anglia (say), then you would need to reintroduce something like the Victorian-era Poor Law in order to force-move entire families from comfy council houses in south Wales to some garrett in London (at twice or thrice the rent as south Wales, at taxpayer's expense) or a matress-equipped farm shed in Norfolk (low rent but borderline mental cruelty).
Immigrants always stand to gain (as long as wages remain terrible in their home country) so they are happy to move 1000 miles and more to work.
Indigenous unemployed, by comparison, aren't willing to move 300 miles and would probably consider 60 an unreasonable separation from close/elderly family, who stay behind. Then again, they also stand to lose free time (try placing a £/hr on that, if you dare) in exchange for sustained mental or physical effort (increased appetite, higher food bills) for, in essence, exactly the same number of pounds as benefits until they reach a salary over £20-25,000.
It's no use going on about 'work ethic' where that situation exists. They regard hard-working types as 'mugs'. You would need to have some kind of punishment or 'reprogramming' setup to change that mindset and make them productive citizens.
I wouldn't accept such a system if there were not some mechanism in place to distinguish between the merely unfortunate ("between jobs") and the recalcitrant (turn down work offered despite being well qualified).
Since economic growth is usually predicated on population growth or, alternatively, at least a steady throughput of people who arrive without possessions and need to equip themselves for civilised living, I would say that the answer to your question is "no".
Furthermore, I believe it is not possible to hypothecate the automatic hiring of the likes of mikey's neighbours on the grounds of a hypothetical end to immigration. If the jobs are mainly in London or on farms in East Anglia (say), then you would need to reintroduce something like the Victorian-era Poor Law in order to force-move entire families from comfy council houses in south Wales to some garrett in London (at twice or thrice the rent as south Wales, at taxpayer's expense) or a matress-equipped farm shed in Norfolk (low rent but borderline mental cruelty).
Immigrants always stand to gain (as long as wages remain terrible in their home country) so they are happy to move 1000 miles and more to work.
Indigenous unemployed, by comparison, aren't willing to move 300 miles and would probably consider 60 an unreasonable separation from close/elderly family, who stay behind. Then again, they also stand to lose free time (try placing a £/hr on that, if you dare) in exchange for sustained mental or physical effort (increased appetite, higher food bills) for, in essence, exactly the same number of pounds as benefits until they reach a salary over £20-25,000.
It's no use going on about 'work ethic' where that situation exists. They regard hard-working types as 'mugs'. You would need to have some kind of punishment or 'reprogramming' setup to change that mindset and make them productive citizens.
I wouldn't accept such a system if there were not some mechanism in place to distinguish between the merely unfortunate ("between jobs") and the recalcitrant (turn down work offered despite being well qualified).
@mikey
I like the way you attacked my writing style instead of my points.
Sorry it was a bit 'stream of consciousness'. I often don't write down the thoughts that went in the gaps between what you can see, so the leaps of logic may be hard to follow.
Anyway, if unemployment was fixed overnight, I don't think your tax bill will drop by that much…
http://
(25% of your taxes may be welfare but 2/5 of that is not on working-age claimants)
You appear to personalise the money the taxman takes from your pocket and connect it to the layabouts you see from your front window. If the nation's workforce is, say, 40 million then you have a 1/40millionth share in any given layabout's handout and, per that link, you need to factor down to the 15% of your tax bill which is attributable to benefits to working-age persons.
Whereas, if you employed one person directly, you'd be shelling out £15k or more. Hence, I said it would be cheaper *for you* to leave them as they are.
My closing remark was that fear of unemployment is what curbs pay rise demands. Therefore, it is a useful tool for the economy. It does nothing for economic growth, the topic of this thread but that's the price we pay for wage restraint.
I like the way you attacked my writing style instead of my points.
Sorry it was a bit 'stream of consciousness'. I often don't write down the thoughts that went in the gaps between what you can see, so the leaps of logic may be hard to follow.
Anyway, if unemployment was fixed overnight, I don't think your tax bill will drop by that much…
http://
(25% of your taxes may be welfare but 2/5 of that is not on working-age claimants)
You appear to personalise the money the taxman takes from your pocket and connect it to the layabouts you see from your front window. If the nation's workforce is, say, 40 million then you have a 1/40millionth share in any given layabout's handout and, per that link, you need to factor down to the 15% of your tax bill which is attributable to benefits to working-age persons.
Whereas, if you employed one person directly, you'd be shelling out £15k or more. Hence, I said it would be cheaper *for you* to leave them as they are.
My closing remark was that fear of unemployment is what curbs pay rise demands. Therefore, it is a useful tool for the economy. It does nothing for economic growth, the topic of this thread but that's the price we pay for wage restraint.
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.