Would unemployment have been ended if there had been no immigration ??

[Happ Hazzard 10]

We benefit because of all the "vibrancy" they bring. If you read the Guardian you would understand better.

[Xt500 10]

Do explain please lol

 

---------- Post added 27-01-2015 at 19:30 ----------

 

So no jobs,low pay,screwed services,for vibrancy? Lol

 

---------- Post added 27-01-2015 at 19:32 ----------

 

Go to London and ask them what they think of vibrancy.expect four letter words.

[tzijlstra 11]

Saying that is it nonsense does not change the fact that employing one foreign nurse instead of training one British person to be a nurse must ultimately lead to one British person not having a job. There can simply be no other outcome unless someone leaves the country, if someone left the country every time someone entered the country then my statement would not be true.

 

The person with enough qualification to become a doctor is not the person that does not get a job, they simply displace someone else, the person they displace displaces someone else, and so on and so on until ultimately there is no job for someone that otherwise would have had a job if the person that started the ball rolling had become a doctor.

 

Saying that nationality is a more prevalent factor in job-availability than ability is nonsense. What you are saying is that despite the qualifications required for jobs, there should be a preference for British workers, simply because they are British.

 

That, and I am repeating my self ad nauseum here, is xenophobe.

 

 

There would never be zero unemployment but if immigration were nil or very little, there would be a job for all British people that were not completely incapable. But the fat-cats would not be happy because wages would rise to levels that would eat into corporate profits.

 

You are contradicting yourself in the same paragraph, if wages rose to unsustainable levels the fat-cats would not provide jobs anymore, would they? They'd just move abroad. Just to remind you, this is what has happened for decades with manufacturing.

 

We benefit because of all the "vibrancy" they bring. If you read the Guardian you would understand better.

 

No, "We" benefit because the economy is able to expand without having to rely on the limited resources available on these shores. The vibrancy is just a massive bonus.

[Happ Hazzard 10]

How do "we" benefit if the jobs are low-paid and there are still millions of British people without a job at all? Plus a lot of money is sent overseas in remittances whereas British people would spend it here in British businesses. Doesn't make any sense. And how does the average working-class Briton benefit from "vibrancy"?

[tzijlstra 11]

How do "we" benefit if the jobs are low-paid and there are still millions of British people without a job at all? Plus a lot of money is sent overseas in remittances whereas British people would spend it here in British businesses. Doesn't make any sense. And how does the average working-class Briton benefit from "vibrancy"?

 

Let me give you a clue:

 

Average wage in China: 4755 $ (CNN, 2014)

Average wage in India: 1570$ (Wikipedia, 2013)

 

Average wage in UK: £26,500 (Mirror, 2014)

 

Knock yourself out thinking about what that actually means for the UK.

 

PS: Stop bringing vibrancy into it, that is just you being silly

[El Cid 220]

 

No, "We" benefit because the economy is able to expand without having to rely on the limited resources available on these shores. The vibrancy is just a massive bonus.

 

Our population is increasing because people are living longer and have more children than is neccessary to just replace the people already here; so the UKs population is increasing, even without foreigners.

If we just trained the people that already live here, we would all have a better life. Instead we allow as many people as posible to come here, to compete for jobs and that lowers wages.

The economy must expand if there are more people, that that does not mean that population will be living more fullfilled lives.

[tzijlstra 11]

Our population is increasing because people are living longer and have more children than is neccessary to just replace the people already here; so the UKs population is increasing, even without foreigners.

If we just trained the people that already live here, we would all have a better life. Instead we allow as many people as posible to come here, to compete for jobs and that lowers wages.

The economy must expand if there are more people, that that does not mean that population will be living more fullfilled lives.

 

And how would the country pay for training its people?

 

I would also like to see you demonstrate that the growth in the British population is large enough to sustain the increasing number of pensioners that need looking after and switch to taking from the state from contributing to it.

 

Good luck.

[anfisa 10]

Saying that nationality is a more prevalent factor in job-availability than ability is nonsense. What you are saying is that despite the qualifications required for jobs, there should be a preference for British workers, simply because they are British.

 

 

I said no such thing and you know it, I pointed out an indisputable fact and because you can not counter it with a sound argument you have simply decided to invent something and claim that it is something I said.

 

---------- Post added 27-01-2015 at 21:28 ----------

 

Our population is increasing because people are living longer and have more children than is neccessary to just replace the people already here; so the UKs population is increasing, even without foreigners.

If we just trained the people that already live here, we would all have a better life. Instead we allow as many people as posible to come here, to compete for jobs and that lowers wages.

The economy must expand if there are more people, that that does not mean that population will be living more fullfilled lives.

 

Actually that is not correct, without immigration and their higher than average fertility rate the UK population would be in decline.

 

---------- Post added 27-01-2015 at 21:30 ----------

 

And how would the country pay for training its people?

 

I would also like to see you demonstrate that the growth in the British population is large enough to sustain the increasing number of pensioners that need looking after and switch to taking from the state from contributing to it.

 

Good luck.

 

It would pay for the training by using the money that is currently used to sustain the millions of people that are out of work.

[tzijlstra 11]

I said no such thing and you know it, I pointed out an indisputable fact and because you can not counter it with a sound argument you have simply decided to invent something and claim that it is something I said.

 

No, I don't know that. In fact I will explain my reasoning: You said:

 

Saying that is it nonsense does not change the fact that employing one foreign nurse instead of training one British person to be a nurse must ultimately lead to one British person not having a job.

 

The implication here is that if the NHS needs new nurses there would be enough people in Britain who could be trained to become a nurse at any given time. I dispute that fact, and will explain that below, but the simple interpretation of your point is as follows:

 

You find it more important that British get trained to become a nurse if there is a vacancy for nurses than the actual filling of the vacancy.

 

It would pay for the training by using the money that is currently used to sustain the millions of people that are out of work.

 

You assume that there are millions of people out of work that could become nurses and that it would be a simple case of "paying for it", the problem is that the vast majority of unemployed in this country have already got a specialisation and are likely to find work in that specialisation in under a year. Those that are unemployed for the long term either lack a specialisation because they failed in the educational system or because of other reasons (unwillingness to move, age, inability/disability).

 

It is fine saying: We should train nurses, but if we haven't got the 'material' to train it isn't going to happen, throw too much money at it and you will create problems in other sectors.

[anfisa 10]

No, I don't know that. In fact I will explain my reasoning: You said:

 

 

 

The implication here is that if the NHS needs new nurses there would be enough people in Britain who could be trained to become a nurse at any given time. I dispute that fact, and will explain that below, but the simple interpretation of your point is as follows:

 

You find it more important that British get trained to become a nurse if there is a vacancy for nurses than the actual filling of the vacancy.

 

There are enough educated British people wanting to train as nurses but the places are not available and yes to me it is far more important to train and employ the British than it is to employ someone that was not born in Britain.

 

 

 

 

You assume that there are millions of people out of work that could become nurses and that it would be a simple case of "paying for it", the problem is that the vast majority of unemployed in this country have already got a specialisation and are likely to find work in that specialisation in under a year. Those that are unemployed for the long term either lack a specialisation because they failed in the educational system or because of other reasons (unwillingness to move, age, inability/disability).

 

What makes you think the people that would want to be nurses are unemployed?

 

 

 

It is fine saying: We should train nurses, but if we haven't got the 'material' to train it isn't going to happen, throw too much money at it and you will create problems in other sectors.

 

The people that want to train and become nurses are suitable for the role.

Edited January 27, 2015 by anfisa

[tzijlstra 11]

There are enough educated British people wanting to train as nurses but the places are not available and yes to me it is far more important to train and employ the British than it is to employ someone that was not born in Britain.

 

What makes you think the people that would want to be nurses are unemployed?

 

The people that want to train and become to be nurses are suitable for the role.

 

I'd like you to back some of this up with anything other than opinion.

[anfisa 10]

I'd like you to back some of this up with anything other than opinion.

 

No counter argument then and feel free to back up your claims.

 

 

Up to 80,000 British students each year cannot find places on nursing courses even though the NHS is hiring thousands from abroad.

 

 

 

But you will simply dismiss this and claim they were turned down because they are British, so must be thick and lazy.

Edited January 27, 2015 by anfisa