|
Post by oracle75 on Mar 19, 2023 8:04:37 GMT
On the contrary. It is quite possible that you will be squealing about the cost to the taxpayer of the growing benefits cost, including childcare and "wrap around" child support. Of the struggles of holiday companies, and lack of resources provided by the local council because taxpayers are paying less council tax since they lost their jobs. I dont think i have ever heard anyone say they dont mind massive layoffs and unemployment. Mass immigration has not led to any economic improvement for the average UK citizen - so what is the point of it? Reducing it has severely cut the staffing in the NHS, reduced the number of GP's, csused massive waiting for medical treatment in every conceivable way, helped to put up the cost of nationally grown crops, Reducing it has NOT affected national per capita average wages. So why does the UK insist that it does and cause a shortage of workers which, according to you, puts up wages and by economic logic, prices up? Do you actually want companies to absorb the rise in workers pay caused by shortage of labour and the subsequent drop in profits and causing investors to go elsewhere to find more profitable companies? Do you actually look forward to companies closing down with the resulting rise in unemployment benefits the taxpayer has to support? Really??
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Mar 19, 2023 8:08:05 GMT
It's hilarious to see lefties advocating anarcho capitalism keeping wages down.
And their kind called Brexiteers far right.
Pay people properly and they will work.
It's not that long ago people toiled down mines.
Didn't need EU freedom of movement to find people willing to do that unpleasant job. Wages were great. But the trade unions had power.
If poverty migration from Eastern Europe had been available in 1974 our government would have told our miners they were lazy and didn't want to work, and that they would be replaced.
Joe Gormely and Arthur Scargill would have been marginalised. The strikes broken by people willing to work for a lot less.
And so called lefties advocate this wage compressing insanity.
Anarcho capitalism is the way of the EU.
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Mar 19, 2023 8:33:17 GMT
You said we should leave it to the market forces. You meant we should have the government control the supply chain so as to push wages up. I understand you got it wrong and that you can't admit to it. So moving on, if the only result was " companies who have a business model predicated on paying poverty pay can no longer operate" then you might be right, but its the other effects I spoke of at the beginning of this latest farce. Unless you are advocating completely open borders with no restriction on entry you are talking bollocks - and you know it. Its very rude to take part of someone's post out of context in order to misrepresent what they said. I clearly stated. I am against further immigration I then clearly stated that the pleasant side effects you describe are only part of the picture. That you must consider the less pleasant side effects such as lack of growth, poorer investment and productivity. Now there maybe other ways of achieving these, but if you fail to even recognise the problems you ain't part of the solution.
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Mar 19, 2023 8:36:22 GMT
You havent even begun to reply tp my point. THE AVERAGE BRIT HAS NOT BEEN DETRIMENTALLY AFFECTED BY MIGRATION.
The pay of the average British worker has gone up. The average British worker does not work in the fields and at McDonalds in the evening and do a night shift to make ends meet. THE AVERAGE BRIT IS NOT AFFECTED BY MIGRATION. The average naturally xenophobic racist is not your average Brit. But they try to speak for someone else they call the average Brit in order to justify their dislike of dark skinned foreigners. I have never heard complaints that Ukranians and Chinese migrants have undercut wages. Apart from lower wages, higher housing costs, increased competition for schools, doctors and welfare services and increased congestion on the roads. No effect alt all...
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Mar 19, 2023 8:38:52 GMT
Dont give me this "average British" is being forced to earn less crap. Right now the country is crying out for more employees, to the point of begging women back to work by offering more childcare. And those already retired back to work by raising the tax threshold on pension pots. And loss of employees is one of the principal reasons for poor growth and lack of productivity. The UK should be welcoming migrants and stop blaming them for lying propaganda. oh we are not going through all this nonsense again are we? We have had mass immigration to fill these jobs for over 2 decades and it has not made a dent in the UK's poor productivity problem. Perhaps it's time to consider that it is the cause not the solution. Then what is the cause? Poor investment? Lazy Brits? An aging population? Hmm. An aging population raises an interesting question. If our own birth rate had remained stable but we hadn't had immigration, then what would our population be.
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Mar 19, 2023 8:39:33 GMT
Unless you are advocating completely open borders with no restriction on entry you are talking bollocks - and you know it. Its very rude to take part of someone's post out of context in order to misrepresent what they said. I clearly stated. I am against further immigration I then clearly stated that the pleasant side effects you describe are only part of the picture. That you must consider the less pleasant side effects such as lack of growth, poorer investment and productivity. Now there maybe other ways of achieving these, but if you fail to even recognise the problems you ain't part of the solution. Growth without a corresponding in growth per capita is of no use to the average man in the street. Immigration has had absolutely no effect on productivity rates - in fact it has made them worse by incentivising companies to employ more rather than invest more. Immigration also reduces the need for investment.
|
|
|
Post by oracle75 on Mar 19, 2023 8:54:18 GMT
You havent even begun to reply tp my point. THE AVERAGE BRIT HAS NOT BEEN DETRIMENTALLY AFFECTED BY MIGRATION.
The pay of the average British worker has gone up. The average British worker does not work in the fields and at McDonalds in the evening and do a night shift to make ends meet. THE AVERAGE BRIT IS NOT AFFECTED BY MIGRATION. The average naturally xenophobic racist is not your average Brit. But they try to speak for someone else they call the average Brit in order to justify their dislike of dark skinned foreigners. I have never heard complaints that Ukranians and Chinese migrants have undercut wages. Apart from lower wages, higher housing costs, increased competition for schools, doctors and welfare services and increased congestion on the roads. No effect alt all... I just showed you that the wages od the average brit were NOT affected by migration!! And you have not offered any proof of the rest of your claims. Housing costs have ALWAYS gone up even before the increase in migration. The went up massively when divorce was made acceptable and people lived longer. That the country has nor built and necessar number of schools since Blair is not thw fault of the migrant. I never took you for a 1930's German right wing thinker but this constant blaming of "the other" for everything you think is wrong with the country is surely getting close to it.
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Mar 19, 2023 9:01:49 GMT
Its very rude to take part of someone's post out of context in order to misrepresent what they said. I clearly stated. I am against further immigration I then clearly stated that the pleasant side effects you describe are only part of the picture. That you must consider the less pleasant side effects such as lack of growth, poorer investment and productivity. Now there maybe other ways of achieving these, but if you fail to even recognise the problems you ain't part of the solution. Growth without a corresponding in growth per capita is of no use to the average man in the street. Immigration has had absolutely no effect on productivity rates - in fact it has made them worse by incentivising companies to employ more rather than invest more. Immigration also reduces the need for investment. YES. You finally catch up. Immigration has been used to prop up a country that has very poor investment and a massive wealth gap. The downside of removing this (Immigration prop) is what I have been trying to get you to recognise. Now the question is how do we get that investment into companies so that they can modernise. Every Tory government we get and every Tory voter is obsessed with cutting back, less, smaller, tighter. Investors in the UK are the same. Minimum investment, shortest term in returns, tightest budgets. That's why so much of our innovation leaves. On the other side Labour is all about not wanting people to stand out and do well. The money flows into 'nice things' and bosses are greedy and evil. We seem stuck in these to extremes.
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Mar 19, 2023 9:04:36 GMT
Apart from lower wages, higher housing costs, increased competition for schools, doctors and welfare services and increased congestion on the roads. No effect alt all... I just showed you that the wages od the average brit were NOT affected by migration!! And you have not offered any proof of the rest of your claims. Housing costs have ALWAYS gone up even before the increase in migration. The went up massively when divorce was made acceptable and people lived longer. That the country has nor built and necessar number of schools since Blair is not thw fault of the migrant. I never took you for a 1930's German right wing thinker but this constant blaming of "the other" for everything you think is wrong with the country is surely getting close to it. Housing prices are about the lack and cost of building land. Immigration is part of that issue. Either kerb immigration or surrender agricultural land to building.
|
|
|
Post by oracle75 on Mar 19, 2023 9:04:59 GMT
Its very rude to take part of someone's post out of context in order to misrepresent what they said. I clearly stated. I am against further immigration I then clearly stated that the pleasant side effects you describe are only part of the picture. That you must consider the less pleasant side effects such as lack of growth, poorer investment and productivity. Now there maybe other ways of achieving these, but if you fail to even recognise the problems you ain't part of the solution. Growth without a corresponding in growth per capita is of no use to the average man in the street. Immigration has had absolutely no effect on productivity rates - in fact it has made them worse by incentivising companies to employ more rather than invest more. Immigration also reduces the need for investment. Of course growth without growth in per capita wages us of use! It provides jobs. And there HAS been a growth in per capita wages. Dont you read posts properly? Your last point is bollox. Companies try hard to reduce the coat of employment and have done so for years. Just imagine the cost of each Twix, tub of ice cream, packet of crisps loaf od bread or packet of biscuits without automation. Not to mention vehicles, wings for aircraft, construction and shipbuilding. Are you really saying that companies choose to employ people rather than invest in automation???
|
|
|
Post by oracle75 on Mar 19, 2023 9:12:40 GMT
I just showed you that the wages od the average brit were NOT affected by migration!! And you have not offered any proof of the rest of your claims. Housing costs have ALWAYS gone up even before the increase in migration. The went up massively when divorce was made acceptable and people lived longer. That the country has nor built and necessar number of schools since Blair is not thw fault of the migrant. I never took you for a 1930's German right wing thinker but this constant blaming of "the other" for everything you think is wrong with the country is surely getting close to it. Housing prices are about the lack and cost of building land. Immigration is part of that issue. Either kerb immigration or surrender agricultural land to building. Housing prices are all about politicians restraining building to support the value of current housing. No politician will win anything on a platform of " we are going to build new houses next to that strip of land you use for a park, and move in a thousand homeowners. That of course will make your 1970's pile worth far less." Immigrants tend massively to live in communal homes. They often club together to buy a single home instead of one for each family member. What really inflated homeownership was the splintering of families for various reasons. And of course, countless NIMBY court cases.
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Mar 19, 2023 9:14:57 GMT
Growth without a corresponding in growth per capita is of no use to the average man in the street. Immigration has had absolutely no effect on productivity rates - in fact it has made them worse by incentivising companies to employ more rather than invest more. Immigration also reduces the need for investment. Of course growth without growth in per capita wages us of use! It provides jobs. And there HAS been a growth in per capita wages. Dont you read posts properly? Your last point is bollox. Companies try hard to reduce the coat of employment and have done so for years. Just imagine the cost of each Twix, tub of ice cream, packet of crisps loaf od bread or packet of biscuits without automation. Not to mention vehicles, wings for aircraft, construction and shipbuilding. Are you really saying that companies choose to employ people rather than invest in automation? Growth through immigration provides jobs by creating more people needing jobs. Net zero. Its a short term solution. You provide more workers and more production and it works for a while as tax receipts rise and GDP rises, but then those new workers start to require more government help (Education, Health, pensions etc) so you have to bring in more workers again and again. This has worked for decades but we are reaching a population that feels crowded. Question is: If you kerb this method of filling the gap between production and need, then what replaces it?
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Mar 19, 2023 9:18:34 GMT
Housing prices are about the lack and cost of building land. Immigration is part of that issue. Either kerb immigration or surrender agricultural land to building. Housing prices are all about politicians restraining building to support the value of current housing. No politician will win anything on a platform of " we are going to build new houses next to that strip of land you use for a park, and move in a thousand homeowners. That of course will make your 1970's pile worth far less." Immigrants tend massively to live in communal homes. They often club together to buy a single home instead of one for each family member. What really inflated homeownership was the splintering of families for various reasons. And of course, countless NIMBY court cases. You don't need to build on a park. You can build on a sugar beet field. It just means you become more reliant on imported food. The reason politicians restrict building land is the rich and powerful in this country base their wealth on land. And they don't want their thousands of hectares of land reduced in value.
|
|
|
Post by oracle75 on Mar 19, 2023 9:56:50 GMT
Of course growth without growth in per capita wages us of use! It provides jobs. And there HAS been a growth in per capita wages. Dont you read posts properly? Your last point is bollox. Companies try hard to reduce the coat of employment and have done so for years. Just imagine the cost of each Twix, tub of ice cream, packet of crisps loaf od bread or packet of biscuits without automation. Not to mention vehicles, wings for aircraft, construction and shipbuilding. Are you really saying that companies choose to employ people rather than invest in automation? Growth through immigration provides jobs by creating more people needing jobs. Net zero. Its a short term solution. You provide more workers and more production and it works for a while as tax receipts rise and GDP rises, but then those new workers start to require more government help (Education, Health, pensions etc) so you have to bring in more workers again and again. This has worked for decades but we are reaching a population that feels crowded. Question is: If you kerb this method of filling the gap between production and need, then what replaces it? You know quite well that companies dont take on more employees than are necessary to maintain and improve productivity and profits. They arent charities. A very notable number of migrants start their own companies. We saw that during the last migration of Indian and Pakistani migrants who actually changed the national dish from fish and chips to curries. The help the migrants say they need is provided in part by the taxes they themselves have paid. But instead of building schools and (40?) hospitals, the government launches with great fanfare some impossibly longterm, hugely expensive levelling up election fraud. HS2 will never be built. But the money put into it would have been better spent buying up that land and offering it at good rates to industries suited to the workforce. Like it did in Derby in a deal with Toyota that used the engineering tradition of Rolls Royce. How better to encourage private investment and level up via private money than to modernise shipbuilding or development of industries that use vehicle and construction skills? And please dont mention freeports. They are a government joke. If the industries that did try to invest in the north are in trouble, why didnt the government support them via loans or grants at favourable terms? Instead it just lets someone abroad buy them and shrugs its shoulders, and rattles on about levelling up. It is just simple intelligence that is so badly lacking and too much political misleading sloganising that happens.
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Mar 19, 2023 9:58:20 GMT
I just showed you that the wages od the average brit were NOT affected by migration!! And you have not offered any proof of the rest of your claims. Housing costs have ALWAYS gone up even before the increase in migration. The went up massively when divorce was made acceptable and people lived longer. That the country has nor built and necessar number of schools since Blair is not thw fault of the migrant. I never took you for a 1930's German right wing thinker but this constant blaming of "the other" for everything you think is wrong with the country is surely getting close to it. Housing prices are about the lack and cost of building land. Immigration is part of that issue. Either kerb immigration or surrender agricultural land to building. There's plenty of land being used for coffee shops and other leisure pursuits, use that land for housing.
|
|