|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 12, 2022 18:27:21 GMT
I'm afraid that is a fallacy that has been disproven many times. Developers did not take on cheap labour from the EU to undermine skilled labour in the UK. They took them on because no one in the UK wanted to work in the construction industry. Indeed the whole point of FoM was that Polish builders could earn the same as French, German, Dutch, Irish, Italian of British builders.
So if British builders were offering less than the going rate then the Polish builders would have gone to any of the other 27 countries they could choose from. The particular issue the UK suffered from was low skilled work which attracted more less educated Poles to the UK than other EU countries because they spoke English as their second language.
As far as what the government did to alleviate this issue. David Cameron took it to the EU who in their usual pragmatic way offered us a 4 year moratorium on FoM to allow us time to propose a solution that worked for us. This is something Cameron never announced on his return and I can only speculate why.
My favourite, is that Cameron never thought for a second Brexit would win. He was very happy having loads of cheap labour in the country doing all those low paid jobs that are becoming the norm here (As I described earlier) He liked to squeeze on housing that drove up prices and made more money for the rich. So he did nothing.
The rest is history.
Anyway going forward. What do we do when the only jobs available are low paid and if you artificially raise that pay through a minimum wage structure many of those jobs will simply disappear, and unfortunately take many better paid jobs with them.
One suggestion which might buy us some time would be to take allow lower wages (Less than £14 per hour) to be claimed against VAT
for businesses.
This could be run alongside raising the minimum wage without putting small companies out of business.
One of the big problems the leisure industry has is that it pays VAT on all its sales, but cannot claim back against its main purchase which is labour. For clarity it is the leisure industry which in the main pays low wages.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2022 18:56:29 GMT
I'm actually in favour of a basic income but the Liberal Left will never accept it as too many people will lose out. Actually, most of us on the left support the idea of some form of universal basic income and believe that something like it will become a necessity at some point if economic collapse is to be avoided. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 12, 2022 20:40:33 GMT
I'm afraid that is a fallacy that has been disproven many times. Developers did not take on cheap labour from the EU to undermine skilled labour in the UK. They took them on because no one in the UK wanted to work in the construction industry. Indeed the whole point of FoM was that Polish builders could earn the same as French, German, Dutch, Irish, Italian of British builders. So if British builders were offering less than the going rate then the Polish builders would have gone to any of the other 27 countries they could choose from. The particular issue the UK suffered from was low skilled work which attracted more less educated Poles to the UK than other EU countries because they spoke English as their second language. As far as what the government did to alleviate this issue. David Cameron took it to the EU who in their usual pragmatic way offered us a 4 year moratorium on FoM to allow us time to propose a solution that worked for us. This is something Cameron never announced on his return and I can only speculate why. My favourite, is that Cameron never thought for a second Brexit would win. He was very happy having loads of cheap labour in the country doing all those low paid jobs that are becoming the norm here (As I described earlier) He liked to squeeze on housing that drove up prices and made more money for the rich. So he did nothing. The rest is history. Anyway going forward. What do we do when the only jobs available are low paid and if you artificially raise that pay through a minimum wage structure many of those jobs will simply disappear, and unfortunately take many better paid jobs with them. One suggestion which might buy us some time would be to take allow lower wages (Less than £14 per hour) to be claimed against VAT for businesses. This could be run alongside raising the minimum wage without putting small companies out of business. One of the big problems the leisure industry has is that it pays VAT on all its sales, but cannot claim back against its main purchase which is labour. For clarity it is the leisure industry which in the main pays low wages. d I am afraid you are wrong. I worked in construction for 27 years and towards the end of my time there gangs of Eastern Europeans were readily used to undercut the shortage of labour in any one area by paying the 'going rate' which totally removes market forces from the man who is selling his labour. If you cannot easily get a plumber you have to pay a lot to get one ( I know I have becasue of my rural location). There is then no going rate. Once you extend that market to a much bigger catchment area then the poor areas will have no plumbers but the richer areas will have plenty all vying for trade and depressing the price to the 'going rate'. In the nineties there were oodles of Civil Engineering graduates seeking positions, by the end of the nineties Construction was in the doldrums and 'the going rate' plummeted. The minimum wage was brought in precisely to counteract the flooding with labour that occurred in some work areas and if it had not been there rates would have tumbled from the EU migrants involvement. As a final thought the willingness of UK nationals to work long hours in piss poor conditions I observed, and frequently engaged in, often and cheaper labour was almost wholly the reason foreign workers were engaged. |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Nov 12, 2022 22:12:27 GMT
I'm afraid that is a fallacy that has been disproven many times. Developers did not take on cheap labour from the EU to undermine skilled labour in the UK. They took them on because no one in the UK wanted to work in the construction industry. Indeed the whole point of FoM was that Polish builders could earn the same as French, German, Dutch, Irish, Italian of British builders. So if British builders were offering less than the going rate then the Polish builders would have gone to any of the other 27 countries they could choose from. The particular issue the UK suffered from was low skilled work which attracted more less educated Poles to the UK than other EU countries because they spoke English as their second language. As far as what the government did to alleviate this issue. David Cameron took it to the EU who in their usual pragmatic way offered us a 4 year moratorium on FoM to allow us time to propose a solution that worked for us. This is something Cameron never announced on his return and I can only speculate why. My favourite, is that Cameron never thought for a second Brexit would win. He was very happy having loads of cheap labour in the country doing all those low paid jobs that are becoming the norm here (As I described earlier) He liked to squeeze on housing that drove up prices and made more money for the rich. So he did nothing. The rest is history. Anyway going forward. What do we do when the only jobs available are low paid and if you artificially raise that pay through a minimum wage structure many of those jobs will simply disappear, and unfortunately take many better paid jobs with them. One suggestion which might buy us some time would be to take allow lower wages (Less than £14 per hour) to be claimed against VAT for businesses. This could be run alongside raising the minimum wage without putting small companies out of business. One of the big problems the leisure industry has is that it pays VAT on all its sales, but cannot claim back against its main purchase which is labour. For clarity it is the leisure industry which in the main pays low wages. d I am afraid you are wrong. I worked in construction for 27 years and towards the end of my time there gangs of Eastern Europeans were readily used to undercut the shortage of labour in any one area by paying the 'going rate' which totally removes market forces from the man who is selling his labour. If you cannot easily get a plumber you have to pay a lot to get one ( I know I have becasue of my rural location). There is then no going rate. Once you extend that market to a much bigger catchment area then the poor areas will have no plumbers but the richer areas will have plenty all vying for trade and depressing the price to the 'going rate'. In the nineties there were oodles of Civil Engineering graduates seeking positions, by the end of the nineties Construction was in the doldrums and 'the going rate' plummeted. The minimum wage was brought in precisely to counteract the flooding with labour that occurred in some work areas and if it had not been there rates would have tumbled from the EU migrants involvement. As a final thought the willingness of UK nationals to work long hours in piss poor conditions I observed, and frequently engaged in, often and cheaper labour was almost wholly the reason foreign workers were engaged. Sadly you are right, Sandy and it's something that has endured ever since I set foot in construction in 1960. At that time I wasn't in a physical role but as an organiser in the road surfacing industry. It was 6 or 7 years later that I started labouring on a building site (I earned 50% more and was self-employed); my brother and dad were both bricklayers so I joined them. From the time I left in 1976 I worked selling construction materials of all sorts. The building industry has always suffered problems associated with the economy and of course the weather. As a result, when things turn bad tradesmen leave and it's often the older more experienced ones who take a more comfortable job that leaves the industry unable to cope when the circumstances change. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Nov 12, 2022 22:19:21 GMT
I'm actually in favour of a basic income but the Liberal Left will never accept it as too many people will lose out. Actually, most of us on the left support the idea of some form of universal basic income and believe that something like it will become a necessity at some point if economic collapse is to be avoided. It's unaffordable - the liberal left see it just as an extra handout on top of welfare payments, whereas the original idea behind it was as a replacement for welfare handouts. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2022 7:34:42 GMT
Actually, most of us on the left support the idea of some form of universal basic income and believe that something like it will become a necessity at some point if economic collapse is to be avoided. It's unaffordable - the liberal left see it just as an extra handout on top of welfare payments, whereas the original idea behind it was as a replacement for welfare handouts. We might well be facing economic collapse down the road for all the reasons I previously set out without something like it. It could only work by everyone receiving a UBI but then paying higher rates of tax on their earnings as a quid pro quo. Those out of work can still be required to look for work as a condition of receiving it. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Nov 13, 2022 7:54:00 GMT
It's unaffordable - the liberal left see it just as an extra handout on top of welfare payments, whereas the original idea behind it was as a replacement for welfare handouts. We might well be facing economic collapse down the road for all the reasons I previously set out without something like it. It could only work by everyone receiving a UBI but then paying higher rates of tax on their earnings as a quid pro quo. Those out of work can still be required to look for work as a condition of receiving it. I know that 'tax the rich' is the usual mantra but there are simply not enough rich people in the country to afford a UBI and Welfare handouts. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2022 7:56:32 GMT
I'm afraid that is a fallacy that has been disproven many times. Developers did not take on cheap labour from the EU to undermine skilled labour in the UK. They took them on because no one in the UK wanted to work in the construction industry. Indeed the whole point of FoM was that Polish builders could earn the same as French, German, Dutch, Irish, Italian of British builders. So if British builders were offering less than the going rate then the Polish builders would have gone to any of the other 27 countries they could choose from. The particular issue the UK suffered from was low skilled work which attracted more less educated Poles to the UK than other EU countries because they spoke English as their second language. As far as what the government did to alleviate this issue. David Cameron took it to the EU who in their usual pragmatic way offered us a 4 year moratorium on FoM to allow us time to propose a solution that worked for us. This is something Cameron never announced on his return and I can only speculate why. My favourite, is that Cameron never thought for a second Brexit would win. He was very happy having loads of cheap labour in the country doing all those low paid jobs that are becoming the norm here (As I described earlier) He liked to squeeze on housing that drove up prices and made more money for the rich. So he did nothing. The rest is history. Anyway going forward. What do we do when the only jobs available are low paid and if you artificially raise that pay through a minimum wage structure many of those jobs will simply disappear, and unfortunately take many better paid jobs with them. One suggestion which might buy us some time would be to take allow lower wages (Less than £14 per hour) to be claimed against VAT for businesses. This could be run alongside raising the minimum wage without putting small companies out of business. One of the big problems the leisure industry has is that it pays VAT on all its sales, but cannot claim back against its main purchase which is labour. For clarity it is the leisure industry which in the main pays low wages. I'm afraid you are just plain wrong on that. Many of us working at the coalface have seen floods of east Europeans accepting lower rates of pay, driving pay down. One glaring example I will give. I could give many. My local housing association hired five local contractors to fit new bathrooms and kitchens. Four of them hired directly from Eastern Europe and had few local workers. One of them in fact had just laid off its workforce of mostly locals and replaced them with temps hired directly from Romania on minimum wage. Local building sites had work sites swarming with East Europeans, all on not much more than minimum wage. As for this canard about British workers not wanting to do it, what do you think formerly well paid workers only being offered half as much pay are going to do? They are going to think sod that and retire or seek out a more lucrative job elsewhere. And it didn't actually work by greedy bosses rocking up one day and announcing pay cuts. All construction work is by definition temporary until the construction is complete, and those working in the industry were forever seeking out new construction jobs. But people started to find that with a mass availability of cheap labour, new jobs were offering less and less. Many of us have seen this happening all around yet also noticed those proclaiming from their ivory towers, stats in hand, that we are all imagining it As for the problem of low pay in general, the minimum wage has been increased substantially in recent years without leading to overall job losses. Unemployment is at a record low. So it is not invariably the case that increases in the minimum wage lead to job losses. Obviously though there comes a point where this is a risk. If the minimum wage were increased to £20 an hour next week the impact would be devastating. Real terms increases need to be gradual, and need to be made affordable for businesses who might struggle. Your suggestion of allowing smaller businesses to claim VAT against lower pay is a possibility. Though there is a risk of this incentivising low pay if it is linked explicitly to pay below a certain level. Business size is I think a better measure in terms of overall turnover perhaps? Moves to reduce business rates or employers NI contributions for small businesses are also suggestions I have made. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2022 8:19:49 GMT
We might well be facing economic collapse down the road for all the reasons I previously set out without something like it. It could only work by everyone receiving a UBI but then paying higher rates of tax on their earnings as a quid pro quo. Those out of work can still be required to look for work as a condition of receiving it. I know that 'tax the rich' is the usual mantra but there are simply not enough rich people in the country to afford a UBI and Welfare handouts. Who said tax the rich? Taxes for everybody would have to go up to pay for the universal basic income. Nothing comes for free. But lower earners would gain more from a UBI than they lost in extra tax whilst it would be the other way around for higher earners. So everyone might get say 200 quid a week whilst paying a higher rate of tax on their earnings. The tax increases to pay for this need not be excessive, since the UBI would replace the state pension and most basic welfare benefits, excluding rents. It would be a tough sell I know but economic collapse at some point is the likely alternative.. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 13, 2022 8:22:55 GMT
I am afraid you are wrong. I worked in construction for 27 years and towards the end of my time there gangs of Eastern Europeans were readily used to undercut the shortage of labour in any one area by paying the 'going rate' which totally removes market forces from the man who is selling his labour. If you cannot easily get a plumber you have to pay a lot to get one ( I know I have becasue of my rural location). There is then no going rate. Once you extend that market to a much bigger catchment area then the poor areas will have no plumbers but the richer areas will have plenty all vying for trade and depressing the price to the 'going rate'. In the nineties there were oodles of Civil Engineering graduates seeking positions, by the end of the nineties Construction was in the doldrums and 'the going rate' plummeted. The minimum wage was brought in precisely to counteract the flooding with labour that occurred in some work areas and if it had not been there rates would have tumbled from the EU migrants involvement. As a final thought the willingness of UK nationals to work long hours in piss poor conditions I observed, and frequently engaged in, often and cheaper labour was almost wholly the reason foreign workers were engaged. I also worked in the construction industry and this sentence is correct. gangs of Eastern Europeans were readily used to undercut the shortage of labour in any one area but this was not about paying less, this was about not being able to get workers. Everyone who's ever employed a carpenter, bricklayer or plumber will know the rates are incredible. Certainly on a level where the minimum wage would be laughable. In the nineties after the ERM debacle (When I was fighting to stop the repossession of my home) there was simply no work for anyone and that's why I went from making 2k a kitchen down to £350 a kitchen. It had nothing to do with Poles. Also in the 1990's I was working long hours in piss poor conditions just to survive. But between 2001 and 2007 (When I set up my present company) I made a great deal of money (Despite FoM still being around) So you cherry picking a time of economic crises does not prove the point at all. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 13, 2022 8:25:24 GMT
Lets stop calling it "Tax the rich" and call it "Tax the money". That would be fair wouldn't it?
|
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 13, 2022 8:29:34 GMT
I know that 'tax the rich' is the usual mantra but there are simply not enough rich people in the country to afford a UBI and Welfare handouts. Who said tax the rich? Taxes for everybody would have to go up to pay for the universal basic income. Nothing comes for free. But lower earners would gain more from a UBI than they lost in extra tax whilst it would be the other way around for higher earners. So everyone might get say 200 quid a week whilst paying a higher rate of tax on their earnings. The tax increases to pay for this need not be excessive, since the UBI would replace the state pension and most basic welfare benefits, excluding rents. It would be a tough sell I know but economic collapse at some point is the likely alternative.. This works in principle but it does not address the issue of a shrinking GDP. All those people who choose life over possessions who work less hours and don't buy big cars and 54" TV's. The idea is laudable, it saves the planet, its to be admired, but it don't bring in the taxes we need for the public services we want. |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Nov 13, 2022 9:17:38 GMT
Who said tax the rich? Taxes for everybody would have to go up to pay for the universal basic income. Nothing comes for free. But lower earners would gain more from a UBI than they lost in extra tax whilst it would be the other way around for higher earners. So everyone might get say 200 quid a week whilst paying a higher rate of tax on their earnings. The tax increases to pay for this need not be excessive, since the UBI would replace the state pension and most basic welfare benefits, excluding rents. It would be a tough sell I know but economic collapse at some point is the likely alternative.. This works in principle but it does not address the issue of a shrinking GDP. All those people who choose life over possessions who work less hours and don't buy big cars and 54" TV's. The idea is laudable, it saves the planet, its to be admired, but it don't bring in the taxes we need for the public services we want. Just one thing, if you don't have the spending power to keep the corporations growing and technology being fed cash, how long before you are surplus to requirements? |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 13, 2022 9:28:24 GMT
I am afraid you are wrong. I worked in construction for 27 years and towards the end of my time there gangs of Eastern Europeans were readily used to undercut the shortage of labour in any one area by paying the 'going rate' which totally removes market forces from the man who is selling his labour. If you cannot easily get a plumber you have to pay a lot to get one ( I know I have becasue of my rural location). There is then no going rate. Once you extend that market to a much bigger catchment area then the poor areas will have no plumbers but the richer areas will have plenty all vying for trade and depressing the price to the 'going rate'. In the nineties there were oodles of Civil Engineering graduates seeking positions, by the end of the nineties Construction was in the doldrums and 'the going rate' plummeted. The minimum wage was brought in precisely to counteract the flooding with labour that occurred in some work areas and if it had not been there rates would have tumbled from the EU migrants involvement. As a final thought the willingness of UK nationals to work long hours in piss poor conditions I observed, and frequently engaged in, often and cheaper labour was almost wholly the reason foreign workers were engaged. I also worked in the construction industry and this sentence is correct. gangs of Eastern Europeans were readily used to undercut the shortage of labour in any one area but this was not about paying less, this was about not being able to get workers. Everyone who's ever employed a carpenter, bricklayer or plumber will know the rates are incredible. Certainly on a level where the minimum wage would be laughable. In the nineties after the ERM debacle (When I was fighting to stop the repossession of my home) there was simply no work for anyone and that's why I went from making 2k a kitchen down to £350 a kitchen. It had nothing to do with Poles. Also in the 1990's I was working long hours in piss poor conditions just to survive. But between 2001 and 2007 (When I set up my present company) I made a great deal of money (Despite FoM still being around) So you cherry picking a time of economic crises does not prove the point at all. You are still not getting it, when there is a shortage of any labour then the rate rises until the positions are filled. Once you decide a 'going rate' then shortages are difficult to fill unless you spread the catchment to poorer areas which is exactly what happened with the EU. It is the reason British Brickies went to work in Germany and why Eastern Europeans have been coming here off and on for 100 years. Check out the Baltic states' people that arrived in the early 20th century into Scotland. They were actively sought out by mine owners to work in the Scottish pits to cover shortages that occurred because the wages were too low and other work paid better. There is no going rate for a job there is what you offer as a remuneration and if you cannot fill the post then you offer more or if what you get cannot do the job you raise the rate to get the best for the job. The funny thing is in 97 we could not get enough staff at the beginning of the year largely due to pay and conditions and took on some unsuitable staff in desperation. By the end of 97 most of us were made redundant as the moratorium on new road projects bit hard the greens had their way. I voted Labour and voted myself out of work and did not learn my lesson as I voted Labour again and voted myself into a business downturn. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 13, 2022 9:43:47 GMT
This works in principle but it does not address the issue of a shrinking GDP. All those people who choose life over possessions who work less hours and don't buy big cars and 54" TV's. The idea is laudable, it saves the planet, its to be admired, but it don't bring in the taxes we need for the public services we want. Just one thing, if you don't have the spending power to keep the corporations growing and technology being fed cash, how long before you are surplus to requirements? A bit dystopian for me. Many times in the past society has tried to accept an underclass who are surplus to requirement. Thing is they don't sit quiet, they turn to crime which leads to calls for harsher sentencing, forced labour and all the other nasties that have been tried and failed. In the end the rich always work out that their own lives are more unpleasant with an underclass that if they put their hands in their pockets and help. Balance is once more achieved, but then we re-start the record, with the rich arguing they should be allowed to be rich and that the wealth gap doesn't matter, round and round we go, seemingly never able to learn. |
|
