ChatterBank19 mins ago
I Think That Is About Right, What About You?
21 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.
-- answer removed --
He's right but for the wrong reasons. Labour's open door policy did cause this but the real cause is not immigration but the government not having the bottle to allow market forces to level the field. There were millions of jobs but too lowly paid to tempt our own wsc off the rock n roll, so rather than letting circumstances force wages up, labour flung open the doors, leaving employers free to pay low wages to foriegners to do the jobs our own would not do at least at the wage offered. It's very simple, I have a sh1tty job that needs doing, I'm paying a groat a day, no takers, 2 groats, still no takers, 3 groats, starting to get some interest now.......... So as usual labour became the enemy of the worker by letting employers get away with low wages rather than let market forces dictate.
So I'd say Mr Daltrey has a point but partially it was caused by our own workers finding the wages a bit beneath them to get off the worlds most generous benefit system.
So I'd say Mr Daltrey has a point but partially it was caused by our own workers finding the wages a bit beneath them to get off the worlds most generous benefit system.
There are many immigrants here because employers have employed them. They must have a reason for employing someone with poor or no english skills over some of Mr Daltry's mates. They may be prepared to work for the minimum wage or night shifts or be hard working where as Mr Daltry's chums might not be as accommodating.
Interesting point AOG, but I don't agree with Daltry's conclusion. I think ToraToraTora is nearer to the truth with his post from 16:46 (although I don't know what 'wsc' means).
And I question the phrase 'Labour's open door policy'. As I understand it, the free trade and movement of labour within the EU was already in place in 1997, when Labour came to power - but it was the expansion of the EU to include countries who had lower wage levels that saw the rise in the numbers of Eastern Europeans on building sites, or working in canteens and the catering industries.
And the additional problem was...these new workers were not rubbish. They did the same job as well as their British counterparts, but undercut the market (this is how capitalism works).
And let's all look around our homes to see how much we support British workers...we watch our South Korean televisions, whilst sitting on our Swedish sofas and later we jump into our German cars to watch an American film whilst wearing our Spanish jeans and French jumpers.
It's not Labour who did this.
It's us.
And I question the phrase 'Labour's open door policy'. As I understand it, the free trade and movement of labour within the EU was already in place in 1997, when Labour came to power - but it was the expansion of the EU to include countries who had lower wage levels that saw the rise in the numbers of Eastern Europeans on building sites, or working in canteens and the catering industries.
And the additional problem was...these new workers were not rubbish. They did the same job as well as their British counterparts, but undercut the market (this is how capitalism works).
And let's all look around our homes to see how much we support British workers...we watch our South Korean televisions, whilst sitting on our Swedish sofas and later we jump into our German cars to watch an American film whilst wearing our Spanish jeans and French jumpers.
It's not Labour who did this.
It's us.
No, I would not agree with what Mr. Daltrey says. Being something of a rock and roll legend is not necessarily a good grounding to make accurate judgements about the labour market and immigration.
and this from 3T puzzled me.
"so rather than letting circumstances force wages up, labour flung open the doors, leaving employers free to pay low wages to foriegners to do the jobs our own would not do at least at the wage offered".
This just seems nonsense to me. The reason that the CBI and business in general were particularly welcoming of the immigration of hard working migrants was precisely because of market forces - those immigrants acting to negatively impact upon wages, undercutting the minimum wage in some instances. The idea that somehow the free market will act to force up wages is just farcical for low skilled manual labour. Might work for highly skilled, highly technical jobs, but thats not what we are talking about here.
and this from 3T puzzled me.
"so rather than letting circumstances force wages up, labour flung open the doors, leaving employers free to pay low wages to foriegners to do the jobs our own would not do at least at the wage offered".
This just seems nonsense to me. The reason that the CBI and business in general were particularly welcoming of the immigration of hard working migrants was precisely because of market forces - those immigrants acting to negatively impact upon wages, undercutting the minimum wage in some instances. The idea that somehow the free market will act to force up wages is just farcical for low skilled manual labour. Might work for highly skilled, highly technical jobs, but thats not what we are talking about here.
simple logic LG, if you cannot get anyone to do a necessary job, the pay will rise until you do. We often hear that the immigrants will do low paid jobs because our own will not. What if their was no one to do those jobs? Employers would have to pay more eventually our own would do it. Surely you can see that.
-- answer removed --
Gromit
There are many immigrants here because employers have employed them. They must have a reason for employing someone with poor or no english skills over some of Mr Daltry's mates. They may be prepared to work for the minimum wage or night shifts or be hard working where as Mr Daltry's chums might not be as accommodating.
Maybe to keep wages down !.
svejk // Greed// Simplistic emotional word !
Greed is the greatest driving force in world to improve ones status.
Whether its going on strke during the Olympics and peak holiday periods and demanding higher wages from a company which is losing money, or companies going abroad where they can stay in business.
The ambition , desire or need or, yes greed, to improve ones status is universal.
Greed is the greatest driving force in world to improve ones status.
Whether its going on strke during the Olympics and peak holiday periods and demanding higher wages from a company which is losing money, or companies going abroad where they can stay in business.
The ambition , desire or need or, yes greed, to improve ones status is universal.
Wouldn't disagree with you, modeller. But let's not
dress it up as some kind of philanthropy.
I'm heartily fed up of this unholy alliance between the CBI
and AB's Champagne Socialists defending mass immigration
by denigrating British workers.
I know Tone,Gordon and the Guardian kept telling them that anyone
who criticised immigration was a racist and a bigot. Now, despite the
fact that Labour have admitted their mistake and apologised, it would
seem our resident muesli-munchers can't do the same.
dress it up as some kind of philanthropy.
I'm heartily fed up of this unholy alliance between the CBI
and AB's Champagne Socialists defending mass immigration
by denigrating British workers.
I know Tone,Gordon and the Guardian kept telling them that anyone
who criticised immigration was a racist and a bigot. Now, despite the
fact that Labour have admitted their mistake and apologised, it would
seem our resident muesli-munchers can't do the same.
Svejk, there are pros and cons with immigration. Labour and the Conservatives were swayed by the pros and oblivious to the cons.
Greed or rather "self-interest" is what distinguishes capitalism from communism. Communism appeals to some self-sacrifice for the common good. Capitalism appeals to self-interest. Given human nature, it is no surprise that one failed and the other succeeded. We can't call self-interest philanthropic, unless the individual sees a personal benefit, by living in a happier and more peaceful community, in it.
Greed or rather "self-interest" is what distinguishes capitalism from communism. Communism appeals to some self-sacrifice for the common good. Capitalism appeals to self-interest. Given human nature, it is no surprise that one failed and the other succeeded. We can't call self-interest philanthropic, unless the individual sees a personal benefit, by living in a happier and more peaceful community, in it.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles67 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles81 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles88 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles107 mins ago
 |
 |
|
|
 |
 |
|
|