Editor's Blog1 min ago
Just When You Thought It Couldn't Get Worse?
36 Answers
Answers
"I rather think that teaching English to people who live here is a good use of funds. What would you rather do instead?" I'd rather we insisted that they learn to speak English at their own expense, rather like almost every other nation insists that people living there learn to speak the native tongue. We did the so-called tax-breaks bit afforded to private...
22:19 Sun 30th Nov 2014
A free market is not supposed to work like that. Any market has borders. When the rules are changed to allow labour to move in from outside the market you remove the ability of the existing workforce to negotiate. (This is particularly relevant as different parts of the world have different economies and we live in a higher pay higher cost area.) It is not longer supply and demand, but take it or leave it, we have others who will jump at the chance so I can force what i want on you lot. Although I agree it is the sort of working class/union oppression favoured by the Thatcher government.
There is nothing wrong with protectionism at a certain level to protect what you have and not allow outsiders to strip you of it. The global economy is NOT a level playing field.
Any removal of the ability to restrict labour movement between economies is in the favour of the employer not the worker. If the economy benefits then it is not likely to be the masses that benefit much, they are trying to live on whatever they can get when the jobs have gone to others. It is the shareholders and management with their golden goodbyes/handshakes/share options benefits that rub their hands in glee whilst the rest are told they have to look after themselves.
Any removal of the ability to restrict labour movement between economies is in the favour of the employer not the worker. If the economy benefits then it is not likely to be the masses that benefit much, they are trying to live on whatever they can get when the jobs have gone to others. It is the shareholders and management with their golden goodbyes/handshakes/share options benefits that rub their hands in glee whilst the rest are told they have to look after themselves.
Given they have displaced someone already here they contribute nothing anyway before sending stuff back home. Unless you count the jobs where the employer are not offering sufficient reward so it only becomes viable if you use underpaid labour from abroad; and such unviable situations ought not be allowed anyway. Folk running them should start up a viable commercial venture instead.
I support the idea of a free market. Just as others can come to work here, Britons are free to work abroad, taking advantage of the opportunities of economies which are growing faster than ours.
I work in IT and if I chose to, could earn considerably more than I do by working in Germany. I don't recall anyone trying complaining when thousands of British builders went out to Germany in the 80s...
I work in IT and if I chose to, could earn considerably more than I do by working in Germany. I don't recall anyone trying complaining when thousands of British builders went out to Germany in the 80s...
I don't think anybody objects to people who come here and pay their own way (in the same way as those who went to Germany in the 1980s did) sp.
What is objectionable is the fact that this country is importing labour to do unskilled low paid work and those who come to do it have their income supplemented by as much as 100% or more. They make no net contribution to the coffers - quite the opposite in fact - and on top of that their numbers place huge pressures on the health service, education and the housing stock.
The reciprocal arrangements you mention are not worth a light. Even if the vacancies were available UK people are not going to head off to Poland, Bulgaria, or even Spain, Greece or France because they will find that their income would be nothing like the levels they would enjoy here by doing low paid work and having their income topped up.
It is utter madness. If anyone can explain to me what benefit the country gains by supplementing migrant workers' incomes (much of which ends up being sent home and does not even benefit the UK by way of indirect taxation) whilst providing housing, education and health facilities for people who have not a hope in hell of being net contributors then I'd be willing to be swayed in my opinion.
What is objectionable is the fact that this country is importing labour to do unskilled low paid work and those who come to do it have their income supplemented by as much as 100% or more. They make no net contribution to the coffers - quite the opposite in fact - and on top of that their numbers place huge pressures on the health service, education and the housing stock.
The reciprocal arrangements you mention are not worth a light. Even if the vacancies were available UK people are not going to head off to Poland, Bulgaria, or even Spain, Greece or France because they will find that their income would be nothing like the levels they would enjoy here by doing low paid work and having their income topped up.
It is utter madness. If anyone can explain to me what benefit the country gains by supplementing migrant workers' incomes (much of which ends up being sent home and does not even benefit the UK by way of indirect taxation) whilst providing housing, education and health facilities for people who have not a hope in hell of being net contributors then I'd be willing to be swayed in my opinion.
Worse ? ...I'll tell you what is worse ! ! !
My niece came home from school a few weeks ago and said that her teacher was going to have to teach a foreign language ! We were appalled ! What on earth use is French going to be to her.
These ruddy French, coming over here and stealing our British jobs ! Its enough to make anybody want to vote UKIP !
My niece came home from school a few weeks ago and said that her teacher was going to have to teach a foreign language ! We were appalled ! What on earth use is French going to be to her.
These ruddy French, coming over here and stealing our British jobs ! Its enough to make anybody want to vote UKIP !
That being the case, sp, the government would be better off paying companies a small subsidy not to employ these people at all. The cost of in-work benefits and associated housing, health and education costs are enormous. It would be better if, in exchange for a small payment (say £100 per week per person not employed) the directors either wound up their companies entirely or reduced the size of their operation so that only people already here would be employed.
The strategy of importing labour is clearly not doing the nation any good. Apart from looking at the figures relating to the subsidies provided to individuals, the nation's indebtedness is still increasing at a an alarming rate despite record numbers of people being in employment. The biggest chunk of public spending goes on benefits and a large chunk of that goes on the sort of in-work benefits in question here. It is obviously costing vast sums to keep people in employment so best to find a way of reducing the nation's dependence on such a strategy.
The strategy of importing labour is clearly not doing the nation any good. Apart from looking at the figures relating to the subsidies provided to individuals, the nation's indebtedness is still increasing at a an alarming rate despite record numbers of people being in employment. The biggest chunk of public spending goes on benefits and a large chunk of that goes on the sort of in-work benefits in question here. It is obviously costing vast sums to keep people in employment so best to find a way of reducing the nation's dependence on such a strategy.
Exactly, svejk.
Of course had Milkey's niece arrived home to announce that her teacher said she was to begin teaching IN a foreign language (whilch would probably be far cheaper to achieve in some of the schools I've observed) it would have been a different matter entirely. But I don't think that's what he meant.
Of course had Milkey's niece arrived home to announce that her teacher said she was to begin teaching IN a foreign language (whilch would probably be far cheaper to achieve in some of the schools I've observed) it would have been a different matter entirely. But I don't think that's what he meant.
