Jump to content
The Christmas Logo Competition is back. See thread in Sheffield Discussions for details ×

Consequences of Brexit [part 7] Read first post before posting

mort

 Let me make this perfectly clear - any personal attacks will get you a suspension. The moderating team is not going to continually issue warnings. If you cannot remain civil and post within forum rules then do not bother to contribute. 

Message added by mort

Recommended Posts

Just now, L00b said:

How's that been working for business, lately? Say, over the last 3 years? ;)

Not very well, mainly because Britain hasn't had a functioning government in the last 3 years!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Bob Arctor said:

Not very well, mainly because Britain hasn't had a functioning government in the last 3 years!

Well, that was a tongue-firmly-in-cheek post earlier.

 

But allow me to disagree with you: Britain has had a government functioning perfectly well at all times, thanks to your (still-) world-class civil service.

 

The issue has been one of political guidance to those civil servants. Or rather, the lack thereof, to be precise. Which goes to the heart of my earlier quip: if enough leaders in charge ignore business lobbyists, whether through ideological myopia or short-term political expediency, business gets no traction for their interests, and their bidding doesn't get done indeed.

 

It's great for business- and bank-bashing populists à la Corbyn, Hannan & so many others...but eventually not so great for the public purse and all those who depend on it, be they Brexit-voting pensioners and long term unemployed or Remain-voting public workers regardless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Britain has a pro-business government that fails to ensure the workforce and future workforce is adequately educated and trained, can't keep the workforce healthy and is taking woefully little action on climate change and technological innovation. They are so incompetent from a capitalist perspective that some in business would now prefer the "dangerous Marxist". I can't remember anything like this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Car Boot said:

Anti-working class EU rhetoric. You are not comparing like with like. Nomadic EU workers (who are not prepared to join a union but are prepared to put up with low pay and poor conditions) view a seasonal, low paid job as as a temporary activity - concentrating as much labour into a short period as they can. 

 

Why? Because the financial rewards are so much greater for them than they would be for a UK worker. Simply because they can spend their UK earnings in their lower cost of living EU member state.

 

Wonderful for the bosses. Not so good for people in the towns and cities with infrastructure problems. 

LOL; what rubbish. I am working class and have known some of these workers. I don't see what unions have to do with anything. I have been in work for thirty six years and have seen the decline of unions over the decades for all types of employment. The work is seasonal, people don't pick and choose how much to cram in to a short period of time. They often come over to harvest crops when the summer tourist season finishes in their home country. The cost of living relatively is often more expensive in their home country. I have been going to Bulgaria for fifteen years. Their cost of goods is a little less than over here but on average they get paid a quarter of the rate we do. I know people and have in depth chats with them over the years. Some of them have started going to other EU countries for seasonal work now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Bob Arctor said:

Britain has a pro-business government that fails to ensure the workforce and future workforce is adequately educated and trained, can't keep the workforce healthy and is taking woefully little action on climate change and technological innovation. They are so incompetent from a capitalist perspective that some in business would now prefer the "dangerous Marxist". I can't remember anything like this.

Topically on that front, it looks like the Conservatives are heading from bad to worse. 

 

James Kanagasooriam, who was instrumental in leading the data-driven approach of the Scottish Conservatives in 2017, was commissioned to investigate why the Tories are unpopular with the youth.

 

From the Independent:
 

Quote:
And his conclusion was that, unfortunately, thanks to Tony Blair, too many young people have been to university, and so have got nothing in common with the Conservative Party anymore. Kanagasooriam singles out particular problems, like the party’s proud history of consistently being on the wrong side of every social issue there’s ever been – gay rights, assisted dying, that kind of thing. Oh, and these vexatious young people also absolutely hate Brexit, what with it taking their rights away, limiting their life opportunities and making them poorer, with absolutely zero upside whatsoever for anyone.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Car Boot said:

But they are certainly made worse by the bosses free movement of labour, which has a negative impact upon low-skilled British workers and especially non-EU British immigrant communities.

Non unionised low skilled EU immigration can depress wages, place pressure on services and infrastructure and create community tension.

 

It is very lazy and simply wrong to pretend otherwise. 

 

If big business didn't benefit from immigration, there would be no immigration. But this benefit is at the expense of the working class and the exploited immigrants themselves.

Obviously this is rubbish.

Let me repeat, European immigrants overwhelmingly take jobs British people don`t want. They then pay taxes to support the British state for the privilege. As an employer I can state unequivocally that, all other things being equal, I`d probably employ a native Britain over an immigrant of whatever nationality, not because I`m racist but purely because I`d think the Britisher would be more likely to stick around after I`d trained him/her up. So, the fact immigrants get jobs that some British people might also apply for proves the immigrants must be better qualified for that job, and therefore more efficient for the UK economy. And it`s the latter which provides the tax dollars for the NHS etc.

What is it you don`t understand about the above ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Justin Smith said:

Obviously this is rubbish.

Let me repeat, European immigrants overwhelmingly take jobs British people don`t want. They then pay taxes to support the British state for the privilege. As an employer I can state unequivocally that, all other things being equal, I`d probably employ a native Britain over an immigrant of whatever nationality, not because I`m racist but purely because I`d think the Britisher would be more likely to stick around after I`d trained him/her up. So, the fact immigrants get jobs that some British people might also apply for proves the immigrants must be better qualified for that job, and therefore more efficient for the UK economy. And it`s the latter which provides the tax dollars for the NHS etc.

What is it you don`t understand about the above ?

Spot on.

 

There is a reason many careworkers and nurses are Philipinnos, builders are poles, and casual labourers are Romanian.  They are prepared to do the work, unlike the feckless and entitled British workers who somehow feel it's all beneath them, and they would rather be sitting at home stuffing their faces with Monster Munch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue of foreign workers being net contributors or net takers is quite complex and depends on which figures you read. It seems that when they first arrive, they contribute more in taxes than they take in benefits but over time, that trend reverses and they start taking out more than they pay in. Another factor which you rarely hear about is the amount of money they send back to their own countries, bleeding the British economy of its lifeblood. I know this is from the Daily Express which will have some forum users claiming it's made up, but here it is anyway.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/585860/Foreign-aid-British-Migrants-11bn-other-countries-year

 

The figures about net contributions also ignore other costs such as translators, keeping foreign prisoners in UK jails, the burden on schools, housing etc. and many more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, bendix said:

Spot on.

 

There is a reason many careworkers and nurses are Philipinnos, builders are poles, and casual labourers are Romanian.  They are prepared to do the work, unlike the feckless and entitled British workers who somehow feel it's all beneath them, and they would rather be sitting at home stuffing their faces with Monster Munch.

Stereotyping British workers as being lazy and feckless in comparison to international workers is simply racist. A simplistic capitalist divide and rule strategy for maximising profit for the few at the expense of the many.

 

The reason many foreign nationals from poorer, weaker states come to richer, more powerful states is because they are prepared to work for lower pay and worse conditions than many richer nations workers.  Studies have shown that once wages are raised British workers are more than willing to do the jobs you mention.

 

It's not that British workers don't want to do the jobs, just that they want to be adequately compensated for doing them. Something many migrant workers are less concerned about.

Edited by Car Boot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

British isn't a race.

 

So what you're saying is that some foreign workers are prepared to work for minimum wage doing a job whereas local workers aren't.  But you don't like it if anyone points out that local workers aren't prepared to do that work for that pay?

46 minutes ago, despritdan said:

The issue of foreign workers being net contributors or net takers is quite complex and depends on which figures you read. It seems that when they first arrive, they contribute more in taxes than they take in benefits but over time, that trend reverses and they start taking out more than they pay in. Another factor which you rarely hear about is the amount of money they send back to their own countries, bleeding the British economy of its lifeblood. I know this is from the Daily Express which will have some forum users claiming it's made up, but here it is anyway.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/585860/Foreign-aid-British-Migrants-11bn-other-countries-year

 

The figures about net contributions also ignore other costs such as translators, keeping foreign prisoners in UK jails, the burden on schools, housing etc. and many more.

The figures certainly don't ignore costs such as schooling and housing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, bendix said:

Spot on.

 

There is a reason many careworkers and nurses are Philipinnos, builders are poles, and casual labourers are Romanian.  They are prepared to do the work, unlike the feckless and entitled British workers who somehow feel it's all beneath them, and they would rather be sitting at home stuffing their faces with Monster Munch.

Is it because unskilled and semi-skilled foreign nationals from poorer economies are prepared to work for lower pay and poorer conditions than many British workers?

 

Could this be the reason big business wants them?

Edited by Car Boot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a joke about schrodinger's immigrant I think.

 

Lazy foreigners coming over here just to claim benefits, whilst simultaneously taking our jobs because they'll work hard for low pay.

 

Something like that anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.