|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 24, 2023 18:30:32 GMT
You are not following, it effectively pays for itself as you have saved a greater cost down the road. How one organises it is of course detail but it is a saving in the long run and avoids the immigration ponzi scheme. Even if that's true that's in the long run. So in the short to medium term, which public services would you like to cut to pay for it. What do you say when people in other professions start demanding the state raise their salaries? None as the costs will be borne in the first instance by the employers and the only increase will be to care services which each taxpayer will pay for separately or bill the Council for. Why would people start claiming more in other professions for a comparison to those being paid for a job the other professions will not do? They could always leave their own profession and go into care. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 24, 2023 18:35:00 GMT
It is the market that will decide as the employer can only employ from the UK Labour market and must increases wages to fill positions. This will increase costs for services but will avoid costs of bringing in an immigrant and dependants a little further down the road, So whichever way it goes the taxpayer will pay, I estimate a lot less in the long run by paying more for the services the cost of which will go up but will avoid all sorts of costs down the road. I think I explained it twice there in a slightly different way. But it's not the market that's deciding, it's state intervention inflating wages at the tax payers expense. I ask again what happens when people in other professions start demanding that the state raise their wages too? No it is not, it is merely saying that an employer can only select staff from the current British Labour market. There is no direct cost to the exchequer in fact there may be an initial direct saving as people come off benefits into employment. It is nothing to do with the state saying what should be paid all it is is a limitation on where employers can choose their staff? Are you following or making erroneous assumptions? |
|
|
|
Post by happyhornet on Nov 24, 2023 18:36:00 GMT
Even if that's true that's in the long run. So in the short to medium term, which public services would you like to cut to pay for it. What do you say when people in other professions start demanding the state raise their salaries? None as the costs will be borne in the first instance by the employers and the only increase will be to care services which each taxpayer will pay for separately or bill the Council for. Why would people start claiming more in other professions for a comparison to those being paid for a job the other professions will not do? They could always leave their own profession and go into care. And what if the employers can't afford the pay raises? "Why would people start claiming more in other professions for a comparison to those being paid for a job the other professions will not do?" Because they've seen the government intervene to raise wages in one profession why not others? "They could always leave their own profession and go into care." And what about the labour shortages in the professions they leave? |
|
|
|
Post by happyhornet on Nov 24, 2023 18:37:32 GMT
But it's not the market that's deciding, it's state intervention inflating wages at the tax payers expense. I ask again what happens when people in other professions start demanding that the state raise their wages too? No it is not, it is merely saying that an employer can only select staff from the current British Labour market. There is no direct cost to the exchequer in fact there may be an initial direct saving as people come off benefits into employment. It is nothing to do with the state saying what should be paid all it is is a limitation on where employers can choose their staff? Are you following or making erroneous assumptions? "No it is not, it is merely saying that an employer can only select staff from the current British Labour market." Which is state intervention. "It is nothing to do with the state saying what should be paid all it is is a limitation on where employers can choose their staff?" So who is going to pay for the pay rises? |
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Nov 24, 2023 18:41:09 GMT
Yep - there are currently 5.5 million working-age people receiving out-of-work benefits, as well as 1.7 million economically inactive people – those who are out of work and either not looking for or available to start work – who say they want a job. Anyone who claims that we need immigration is gaslighting you. So the state forces people into specific professions? ‘The State’ has done that since empowering the forced removal of peasant smallholders from subsistence smallholdings in the 1800’s to provide a ready supply of starving city dwellers for the satanic mill owners and similar industrialists to exploit, maim and kill to provide the fortunes they amassed. Now my stance is it wasn’t right then either but this is hardly a new thing is it. And in general one’s profession, vocation, calling, or job is going to be driven by the demand for it. Aa a young man fresh out of school at 14 my maternal grandfather tended pit ponies. My grandmother enticed him out of that hell hole and to a job as a brewery drayman tending the shire horses. Technology both below and above ground eradicated animal effort and he became a lorry driver, a profession then and now. But who would find work as a canal bargee, or jeeper of pit ponies today ? My elder daughter was so good at dealing with the pensioners who passed out or injured themselves near the school she worked at the paramedics were trying to persuade her to join their ranks. She told me she didn’t like the idea. F*** me i said i wish i had the ability to pick and choose. I effing hate programming computers but Maggie effing Thatcher stopped me becoming Chris effing Whitty so it was a choice between coding shit and starving to death and hey ho helping kill a few Argies, Croats, Arabs and the like was an acceptable upside to a job i effing hate but have to do to keep a roof over my head. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 24, 2023 18:44:02 GMT
None as the costs will be borne in the first instance by the employers and the only increase will be to care services which each taxpayer will pay for separately or bill the Council for. Why would people start claiming more in other professions for a comparison to those being paid for a job the other professions will not do? They could always leave their own profession and go into care. And what if the employers can't afford the pay raises? "Why would people start claiming more in other professions for a comparison to those being paid for a job the other professions will not do?" Because they've seen the government intervene to raise wages in one profession why not others? "They could always leave their own profession and go into care." And what about the labour shortages in the professions they leave? They will have to increase service costs as I have already outlined with all its consequences. The government have not intervened in any way different to that which applies to all professions ie limiting the job market to the UK. If Labour shortages occur in other professions the same applies until the jobs are filled, at some point the useless jobs will go and teh needed jobs will stay. Which is which is of course opinion, I can think of a few useless jobs but that may be another thread. |
|
|
|
Post by happyhornet on Nov 24, 2023 18:47:15 GMT
And what if the employers can't afford the pay raises? "Why would people start claiming more in other professions for a comparison to those being paid for a job the other professions will not do?" Because they've seen the government intervene to raise wages in one profession why not others? "They could always leave their own profession and go into care." And what about the labour shortages in the professions they leave? They will have to increase service costs as I have already outlined with all its consequences. The government have not intervened in any way different to that which applies to all professions ie limiting the job market to the UK. If Labour shortages occur in other professions the same applies until the jobs are filled, at some point the useless jobs will go and teh needed jobs will stay. Which is which is of course opinion, I can think of a few useless jobs but that may be another thread. And what if their customers can't afford the increased service costs? Who pays for the upkeep of people who have lost their "useless jobs"? |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 24, 2023 18:48:00 GMT
No it is not, it is merely saying that an employer can only select staff from the current British Labour market. There is no direct cost to the exchequer in fact there may be an initial direct saving as people come off benefits into employment. It is nothing to do with the state saying what should be paid all it is is a limitation on where employers can choose their staff? Are you following or making erroneous assumptions? "No it is not, it is merely saying that an employer can only select staff from the current British Labour market." Which is state intervention. "It is nothing to do with the state saying what should be paid all it is is a limitation on where employers can choose their staff?" So who is going to pay for the pay rises? Most of you seem happy to say one can only select from an EU job market, all that is happening is the restrictive band is narrower otheriwse what you are saying is any employer can select from any Labour market he likes, that way lies madness. I've answered your second question four times, or maybe five. We all pay in one way or another for that which we receive or that others receive. Try and follow it through logically. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 24, 2023 18:50:35 GMT
They will have to increase service costs as I have already outlined with all its consequences. The government have not intervened in any way different to that which applies to all professions ie limiting the job market to the UK. If Labour shortages occur in other professions the same applies until the jobs are filled, at some point the useless jobs will go and teh needed jobs will stay. Which is which is of course opinion, I can think of a few useless jobs but that may be another thread. And what if their customers can't afford the increased service costs? Who pays for the upkeep of people who have lost their "useless jobs"? The taxpayer is the customer and what he is saving is all the costs associated with keeping that service cost low but for which he pays even more in the long run, balance it up. Useless jobs will disappear because those in them have gone to do useful jobs. |
|
|
|
Post by happyhornet on Nov 24, 2023 18:51:31 GMT
"No it is not, it is merely saying that an employer can only select staff from the current British Labour market." Which is state intervention. "It is nothing to do with the state saying what should be paid all it is is a limitation on where employers can choose their staff?" So who is going to pay for the pay rises? Most of you seem happy to say one can only select from an EU job market, all that is happening is the restrictive band is narrower otheriwse what you are saying is any employer can select from any Labour market he likes, that way lies madness. I've answered your second question four times, or maybe five. We all pay in one way or another for that which we receive or that others receive. Try and follow it through logically. The wider talent pool one has to recruit from the better overall quality of personnel you're going to bring on board thus increasing the overall effectiveness of the organisation. You seem to keep changing your mind about who is going to pay for it all. |
|
|
|
Post by happyhornet on Nov 24, 2023 18:56:20 GMT
And what if their customers can't afford the increased service costs? Who pays for the upkeep of people who have lost their "useless jobs"? The taxpayer is the customer and what he is saving is all the costs associated with keeping that service cost low but for which he pays even more in the long run, balance it up. Useless jobs will disappear because those in them have gone to do useful jobs. Hang on, we're back to the tax payer paying for increased costs? Break it down for me: the care home Mr Smith's elderly mother lives in raises their costs to pay for your pay rises. Mr Smith and his mother cannot afford the increased costs. Vague reassurances about long term gains aren't going to help them in the here and now. What do they do? "Useless jobs will disappear because those in them have gone to do useful jobs" Have they? All of them? How will you ensure this? |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 24, 2023 19:04:33 GMT
Most of you seem happy to say one can only select from an EU job market, all that is happening is the restrictive band is narrower otheriwse what you are saying is any employer can select from any Labour market he likes, that way lies madness. I've answered your second question four times, or maybe five. We all pay in one way or another for that which we receive or that others receive. Try and follow it through logically. The wider talent pool one has to recruit from the better overall quality of personnel you're going to bring on board thus increasing the overall effectiveness of the organisation. You seem to keep changing your mind about who is going to pay for it all. We are not talking about rocket scientists we are talking about a job in the care profession that many people do not wish to do at 'the going rate', so employers either have to increase the going rate or, if they are allowed to, bring in an immigrant. Both have costs to the taxpayer as I have outlined. It is for the employer to decide the suitability of any candidate and lets be honest here bringing in an immigrant rarely depends fully on quality but usually relies on cost to the employer. I have not changed my mind about anything I have explained what actually happens several times with some consistency. |
|
|
|
Post by happyhornet on Nov 24, 2023 19:11:19 GMT
The wider talent pool one has to recruit from the better overall quality of personnel you're going to bring on board thus increasing the overall effectiveness of the organisation. You seem to keep changing your mind about who is going to pay for it all. We are not talking about rocket scientists we are talking about a job in the care profession that many people do not wish to do at 'the going rate', so employers either have to increase the going rate or, if they are allowed to, bring in an immigrant. Both have costs to the taxpayer as I have outlined. It is for the employer to decide the suitability of any candidate and lets be honest here bringing in an immigrant rarely depends fully on quality but usually relies on cost to the employer. I have not changed my mind about anything I have explained what actually happens several times with some consistency. And what if residents at care homes can't afford the increased service costs? How many will you personally house and care for? |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Nov 24, 2023 19:19:04 GMT
We are not talking about rocket scientists we are talking about a job in the care profession that many people do not wish to do at 'the going rate', so employers either have to increase the going rate or, if they are allowed to, bring in an immigrant. Both have costs to the taxpayer as I have outlined. It is for the employer to decide the suitability of any candidate and lets be honest here bringing in an immigrant rarely depends fully on quality but usually relies on cost to the employer. I have not changed my mind about anything I have explained what actually happens several times with some consistency. And what if residents at care homes can't afford the increased service costs? How many will you personally house and care for? I take it that you did not support the NHS workers fight for wage rises. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 24, 2023 19:20:46 GMT
The taxpayer is the customer and what he is saving is all the costs associated with keeping that service cost low but for which he pays even more in the long run, balance it up. Useless jobs will disappear because those in them have gone to do useful jobs. Hang on, we're back to the tax payer paying for increased costs? Break it down for me: the care home Mr Smith's elderly mother lives in raises their costs to pay for your pay rises. Mr Smith and his mother cannot afford the increased costs. Vague reassurances about long term gains aren't going to help them in the here and now. What do they do? "Useless jobs will disappear because those in them have gone to do useful jobs" Have they? All of them? How will you ensure this? We are not back to anything we are on, and always have been, the taxpayer is the one who meets all the costs no matter how they are accrued. All I have done is explain the two ways in which those costs are met by the tax payer. Now you are seeking detail which will depend on many things and each individual case will rest on its own merits. On average the costs for Mr Smith(s) will be lower as a taxpayer. Let us assume that he does not have increased costs as the employer is allowed to choose to employ from abroad, so far so good but next tax year his tax goes up because the Brit possibly employed is still claiming benefits, the immigrant and his family are paying tax and NI but are claiming all sorts of in work benefits and as they came from a country with a poor health care system their dental and health care initial requirements are expensive and detailed, they also have two children to educate and receive family allowance for and his wife is economically inactive. These costs are greater than that which he saved from not paying the increased care costs and the tax taken by way of income tax, VAT and fuel is more than he saved earlier. So the care cannot continue, it may be postponed a few months but it will still happen. I do not ensure useless jobs go, the market decides which jobs are productive and which are useless. |
|
