|
|
Post by Bentley on Dec 11, 2022 22:20:58 GMT
I’m a liver and let liver kind of guy. Who are you trying to kidney? You can put it to the testes. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 11, 2022 22:31:16 GMT
Well you have to face facts. A flood can do a lot of damage, it is not the water's fault and one should not blame water for it. The fault lies with not controlling the water and allowing in only the water you wish to have and keep the amount of water you let in under control at all times. Of course if you do not control it it will tend to, of its own volition, creep into many areas which you do not wish it to access, causing short circuits and hampering the lives of those living there. Well. The fact that we all face is that you don't blame water because you can't. Water is inanimate. Water doesn't have consciousness. It can not make conscious decision as to where to go. You're analogy is no good. Find another one. Cheap foreign workers make that choice of moving to the UK. And based on what has been said here and other sources, you resent and blame them for making that choice. -- They come here, undercut the locals; stagnate our wages; drain the NHS and other public resources. The concern for exploitation these cheap, foreign workers is not honest. They only make the choice because they can and they are enabled to do so. That is a choice made here. The exploitation of anyone is bad news, doubly so if it depresses the wages of others. Which holds with the water analogy. The flood only happens because a gap has been left to enable water to pour in, if there was no method of ingress we would not have a flood. Mass migration is inanimate, it is migrants that are animate. A football crowd is not an animate being it is inanimate. The individuals within the crowd are the animate beings. |
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Dec 11, 2022 22:40:41 GMT
Who are you trying to kidney? You can put it to the testes. I can't stomach any more puns, I'm too bladdered. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2022 23:26:50 GMT
Well. The fact that we all face is that you don't blame water because you can't. Water is inanimate. Water doesn't have consciousness. It can not make conscious decision as to where to go. You're analogy is no good. Find another one. Cheap foreign workers make that choice of moving to the UK. And based on what has been said here and other sources, you resent and blame them for making that choice. -- They come here, undercut the locals; stagnate our wages; drain the NHS and other public resources. The concern for exploitation these cheap, foreign workers is not honest. That is a choice made here. The exploitation of anyone is bad news, doubly so if it depresses the wages of others. Which holds with the water analogy. The flood only happens because a gap has been left to enable water to pour in, if there was no method of ingress we would not have a flood. Mass migration is inanimate, it is migrants that are animate. A football crowd is not an animate being it is inanimate. The individuals within the crowd are the animate beings. Exactly. They make that choice. So, you have to ask yourself who is exploiting whom and what? In the end, the question is; don't you want them here because of our supposedly poor working conditions and they might be exploited by unscrupulous employers? Or, don't you want them here because in your mind they depress wages and undercut overpriced locals? |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 11, 2022 23:30:44 GMT
They only make the choice because they can and they are enabled to do so. That is a choice made here. The exploitation of anyone is bad news, doubly so if it depresses the wages of others. Which holds with the water analogy. The flood only happens because a gap has been left to enable water to pour in, if there was no method of ingress we would not have a flood. Mass migration is inanimate, it is migrants that are animate. A football crowd is not an animate being it is inanimate. The individuals within the crowd are the animate beings. Exactly. They make that choice. So, you have to ask yourself who is exploiting whom and what? In the end, the question is; don't you want them here because of our supposedly poor working conditions and they might be exploited by unscrupulous employers? Or, don't you want them here because in your mind they depress wages and undercut overpriced locals? Both. Why is that a problem? Their choice also requires a choice here, why do you ignore that aspect. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2022 17:13:36 GMT
Exactly. They make that choice. So, you have to ask yourself who is exploiting whom and what? In the end, the question is; don't you want them here because of our supposedly poor working conditions and they might be exploited by unscrupulous employers? Or, don't you want them here because in your mind they depress wages and undercut overpriced locals? Both. Why is that a problem? Their choice also requires a choice here, why do you ignore that aspect. What you have been saying is irrelevant. The issue is not about exploitation itself but the inconsequence or invalidity of declaring one's concern for the welfare of cheap foreign workers while resenting and rejecting them for supposedly stagnating wages and undercutting our expensive locals -- all at the same time. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 14, 2022 18:22:23 GMT
Both. Why is that a problem? Their choice also requires a choice here, why do you ignore that aspect. What you have been saying is irrelevant. The issue is not about exploitation itself but the inconsequence or invalidity of declaring one's concern for the welfare of cheap foreign workers while resenting and rejecting them for supposedly stagnating wages and undercutting our expensive locals -- all at the same time. Concern for exploitation is another aspect of the same problem. The allowance, and it must be an allowance, to have foreign workers here is resulting in three main things; the depression of wages in lower income groups, the exploitation of those choosing lower wages and pressures on society, social cohesion and services. All are specifically bad, they may be weighed in the balance with benefits to the economy and benefits to the workers arriving and gaining jobs. However that is a balance and gaining employment for foreign nationals is effectively nothing to do with UK citizens whereas all the negative aspects affect all UK citizens and not just those whose wages are depressed. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2022 22:16:16 GMT
What you have been saying is irrelevant. The issue is not about exploitation itself but the inconsequence or invalidity of declaring one's concern for the welfare of cheap foreign workers while resenting and rejecting them for supposedly stagnating wages and undercutting our expensive locals -- all at the same time. Concern for exploitation is another aspect of the same problem. The allowance, and it must be an allowance, to have foreign workers here is resulting in three main things; the depression of wages in lower income groups, the exploitation of those choosing lower wages and pressures on society, social cohesion and services. All are specifically bad, they may be weighed in the balance with benefits to the economy and benefits to the workers arriving and gaining jobs. However that is a balance and gaining employment for foreign nationals is effectively nothing to do with UK citizens whereas all the negative aspects affect all UK citizens and not just those whose wages are depressed. So. The concern for the welfare of cheap foreign workers is out the window. Fake. Invalid. In other words, Brexiteers are willing to let EEs in only if they can exploit them. Correct me if I'm wrong. Depression of wages in lower income groups? Just a Brexiteer excuse. It's anecdotal. Studies conclude that the negative impact of EE migration on the lower wage group is negligible. Pressures on society and social cohesion? That's a construct that Brexiteers use as an excuse to reject migrants. They don't even want to acknowledge that the migrant's culture is always subsumed by and within the British culture. But really, what pressure on social cohesion? White East Enders running away to deep, snow white Essex? -- That's just xenophobia. Pressures on services? That's offset by the EE's positive fiscal contribution. Imagine, he comes here; young, no dependent; works 24/7 for 3-4 years; pays his tax; pays his NI -- which isn't refunded to him when he goes back home for good! So, not only does he have to pay tax (which is fair enough), but he also improves the UK's current account! The only ones negatively affected are those who hate foreigners. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Dec 14, 2022 22:35:21 GMT
Depression of wages in lower income groups? Just a Brexiteer excuse. It's anecdotal. Admitted by the Leader of the Remain campaign during the referendum Parents cannot get their kids into schools in Kent due to immigration There was no positive fiscal contribution. We were a net contributor to the EU. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2022 8:24:46 GMT
Depression of wages in lower income groups? Just a Brexiteer excuse. It's anecdotal. Admitted by the Leader of the Remain campaign during the referendum Parents cannot get their kids into schools in Kent due to immigration There was no positive fiscal contribution. We were a net contributor to the EU. Note the operative sentence that has been edited out -- conveniently: Studies conclude that the negative impact of EE migration on the lower wage group is negligible. Parents unable to get their kids into schools in Kent has nothing to do with social cohesion. And? It should read "Parents unable to get their kids into schools of their choice....." "Positive fiscal contribution" refers specifically to Easter Europeans positive fiscal contribution to the UK current account. And the overall economy, of course. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Dec 15, 2022 8:49:09 GMT
Admitted by the Leader of the Remain campaign during the referendum Parents cannot get their kids into schools in Kent due to immigration There was no positive fiscal contribution. We were a net contributor to the EU. Note the operative sentence that has been edited out -- conveniently: Studies conclude that the negative impact of EE migration on the lower wage group is negligible. Parents unable to get their kids into schools in Kent has nothing to do with social cohesion. And? It should read "Parents unable to get their kids into schools of their choice....." "Positive fiscal contribution" refers specifically to Easter Europeans positive fiscal contribution to the UK current account. And the overall economy, of course. Well lower wages are negligible unless you are one of those who are being affected by lower wages. I's say access to education has a great deal to do with social cohesion - if migrants are preventing UK citizens from getting the education they desire for their children then those migrants are not going to be welcome. Immigration does not add anything to the overall economy - per-capita GDP is not affected by migration. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Dec 15, 2022 9:31:01 GMT
Depression of wages in lower income groups? Just a Brexiteer excuse. It's anecdotal. Admitted by the Leader of the Remain campaign during the referendum Parents cannot get their kids into schools in Kent due to immigration There was no positive fiscal contribution. We were a net contributor to the EU. I would like to see the full interchanges of cash into and out of the EU plus the benefits of the way some of the cash fed back and directed for specific purposes did benefit the country. After that there is the many advantages of the open market and the cooperation between member states. There's a lot more to it other than your nonsense replies above. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2022 10:32:03 GMT
Note the operative sentence that has been edited out -- conveniently: Studies conclude that the negative impact of EE migration on the lower wage group is negligible. Parents unable to get their kids into schools in Kent has nothing to do with social cohesion. And? It should read "Parents unable to get their kids into schools of their choice....." "Positive fiscal contribution" refers specifically to Easter Europeans positive fiscal contribution to the UK current account. And the overall economy, of course. Well lower wages are negligible unless you are one of those who are being affected by lower wages. I's say access to education has a great deal to do with social cohesion - if migrants are preventing UK citizens from getting the education they desire for their children then those migrants are not going to be welcome. Immigration does not add anything to the overall economy - per-capita GDP is not affected by migration. Your claim does not alter the fact that the negative impact of EE migration on the lower wage group is negligible. What it does is encourage people to play the "let's blame the EEs" game. If local parents manage to beat other local parents to school places of their choice, then there will be animosity between two groups of parents. There is no research or study that concludes that EE migrants do not add anything to the overall economy. All studies and researches conclude otherwise. They are net contributors to the national economy. Anecdotally, the volume and the amount of economic activity they generate in retail and private rental sectors alone is enough to tell you about the positive contribution to the economy migrants make. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Dec 15, 2022 11:33:36 GMT
There is no research or study that concludes that EE migrants do not add anything to the overall economy. All studies and researches conclude otherwise. They are net contributors to the national economy. Anecdotally, the volume and the amount of economic activity they generate in retail and private rental sectors alone is enough to tell you about the positive contribution to the economy migrants make. No that is wrong - the most comprehensive study was done by the House of Lords who found that immigration had no impact on per-capita GDP. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2022 12:20:48 GMT
There is no research or study that concludes that EE migrants do not add anything to the overall economy. All studies and researches conclude otherwise. They are net contributors to the national economy. Anecdotally, the volume and the amount of economic activity they generate in retail and private rental sectors alone is enough to tell you about the positive contribution to the economy migrants make. No that is wrong - the most comprehensive study was done by the House of Lords who found that immigration had no impact on per-capita GDP. The HoL's recommendation to use GDP per capita is useless in this case since their recommended method (of using GDP per capita) deals with overall migration while what we've been discussing is the EE migrants' contribution to the whole economy or overall GDP. Unless, of course, the HoL study includes segmented analyses. |
|
