Brexit discussion thread IV

Leroy42

Yes, I saw that report, but one must also look at this from the POV of the domestic workers and the impact on them.

Having access to additional supply, will always lead to a reduction in price. Therefore, as companies have access to labour from other countries there is no incentive for them to invest in the domestic market to fulfil their needs.

Of course, starting off there will always be a requirement for external resources as the skills may not be available, but what has been allowed to happen is that there is no incentive to bring the domestic supply up to the required levels. This leads to further immigration, which leads to resentment from the domestic population who either see their wages stagnant of the jobs not being available.

For example, why bother taking on a domestic apprentice when you can simply bring in a fully qualified external person? It then becomes a circle.

So I am not asking why immigration happens, or whether it is advantageous to an economy, the people that don't like immigration are not looking at that. They see their communities changing, their futures changing and being told that it is something to be welcomed.

kuro68k

Leroy42 wrote: »

I understand the positive benefits of immigration so this is not some sort of anti immigration rant.

But I do question this seemingly accepted fact that immigration is needed in an economy. The UK has some 60m people, there is more than enough people to go around.

That assumed that if you have a job you can just get anyone to do it. It's not like that of course, e.g. there is a huge shortage of nurses and not enough British people wanting to become nurses.

You could throw money at the problem, make nursing really well paid and really well funded, but we can't afford that and it would take years to start working. So it's either get in some foreign nurses or people die alone in corridors.

It's also important to understand the effect that these demands for lower immigration have on British people, especially those with families. Skilled workers are in heavy demand, fee-paying students are in heavy demand, so families come bottom of the pile and the government does everything it can to break them up. Just to get the numbers down.

Every single person, without exception, who learned I was getting married followed up with something like "oh, and then she is coming here, right?" They don't realize the cruel effect that their immigration demands have on people, on families.

Christy42

It allows for concentration of skills. You can't train just anyone in any job.

IBM would not bother training a workforce if they could not get it here. They would simply move to somewhere they can. It helps that we can supply a large proportion of the workforce.

Then you have stuff like the NHS which treats workers badly and would cost an arm and a leg if they could only choose British workers who are also being tempted abroad. That would either collapse the system or force a lot more investment for little gain to the public.

Finally a country with nearly full employment needs the capability of getting more workers to support growth. This can be a new company or an expansion but if you don't think there are people to hire you won't do it.

Lemming

Leroy42 wrote: »

Yes, I saw that report, but one must also look at this from the POV of the domestic workers and the impact on them.

Having access to additional supply, will always lead to a reduction in price. Therefore, as companies have access to labour from other countries there is no incentive for them to invest in the domestic market to fulfil their needs.

Of course, starting off there will always be a requirement for external resources as the skills may not be available, but what has been allowed to happen is that there is no incentive to bring the domestic supply up to the required levels. This leads to further immigration, which leads to resentment from the domestic population who either see their wages stagnant of the jobs not being available.

For example, why bother taking on a domestic apprentice when you can simply bring in a fully qualified external person? It then becomes a circle.

So I am not asking why immigration happens, or whether it is advantageous to an economy, the people that don't like immigration are not looking at that. They see their communities changing, their futures changing and being told that it is something to be welcomed.

Have you ever moved country for work Leroy? As someone moving to another country the deck is firmly stacked against you, with the locals having all the advantages applying for interviews. That employers still consider you to be the better choice says much, and it's not all down to who is cheapest on paper.

kuro68k

Lemming wrote: »

Have you ever moved country for work Leroy? As someone moving to another country the deck is firmly stacked against you, with the locals having all the advantages applying for interviews. That employers still consider you to be the better choice says much, and it's not all down to who is cheapest on paper.

Can confirm this is correct. I only got this job in Ireland after they spent six months looking for Irish candidates and couldn't find anyone at all.

Lemming

kuro68k wrote: »

Can confirm this is correct. I only got this job in Ireland after they spent six months looking for Irish candidates and couldn't find anyone at all.

There's the simple case of having to convince the employer/recruitment agency/etc. that not only are you the best candidate but that you are committed to moving if they should make an offer, as so often,even "national" candidates flake out at the last minute with being prepared to move.

ancapailldorcha

Leroy42 wrote: »

I understand the positive benefits of immigration so this is not some sort of anti immigration rant.

But I do question this seemingly accepted fact that immigration is needed in an economy. The UK has some 60m people, there is more than enough people to go around.

You might think but it's a bit more complicated than that. For one thing, the UK has an aging population which is getting worse. Older people will increase the cost of pension provision and will likely contract diseases like Dementia and Cancer which will increase the burden on the NHS. Witness Theresa May's disastrous attempt to try and have them pay for some of their care in 2017.

In the short term, having younger, often educated people from Eastern Europe can help but they will age like everyone else, be subjected to the same living conditions and problems like the absurd cost of living in London and the SouthEast. Then there are other economic factors like wealth being concentrated and the demise of heavy industry. Recently, the Conservatives vetoed EU anti-dumping measures on Chinese steel which would have helped the industry a few years ago. Then of course, there's the fact that the Thatcher government decimated the economies of Wales, Northern England & Scotland which were then left to fend for themselves while Northern Ireland is disproportionately dependent on the public sector and agriculture for its income neither of which are good foundations to base an economy on in today's world of the internet, services and big data.

Leroy42 wrote: »

Isn't immigration, basically, at way to maintain wages as low as possible as domestic workers are forced to compete with immigrants. In many, although of course not all, cases immigrants are coming to a country for a relatively short period of time and as such are willing to put up with issues that a domestic person can't. SO the level of the health service, the schools, the government etc are not as big a deal. Rent of course is, but long term housing is not.

Isn't that giving them an unfair advantage against the domestic worker who will no doubt have children, a house, car, debts, family, friends etc etc. Basically, the domestic worker is looking for jobs that they can do for many years, whilst immigrants are looking for jobs that they can maximise the income from for a shorter time before returning 'home' (I use home in terms of their first country not trying to imply that they are at home whilst in the country.)

It's a perfectly fair question, Leroy42. FWIW, I don't mind people discussing immigration. It's how its discussed in the media (on both sides) that really f**ks me off to be honest.

On wages, again things are more complicated. The impact on wages tends to be slight with middle and high earners getting a slight boost while the lowest paid take a slight hit. From Fullfact.org:

• In the period 1997-2005 when the UK experienced significant immigration of people coming for work, one major study finds that an increase in the number of immigrants corresponding to 1% of the UK-born working-age population resulted in an increase in average wages of 0.1 to 0.3%.
• Another study, for the period 2000-2007, found that a 1% increase in the share of immigrants in the UK's working-age population conversely lowers the average wage by 0.3%.
• These studies, which relate to different time periods, reach opposing conclusions but they agree that the effects of immigration on averages wages are relatively small.
  ....
• Research from University College London finds that an inflow of immigrants the size of 1% of the UK-born population leads to a 0.6% decline in the wages of the 5% lowest paid workers and to an increase in the wages of higher paid workers.
• Similarly, another study focusing on wage effects at the occupational level during 1992 and 2006, found that, in the unskilled and semi-skilled service sector, a 1% rise in the share of immigrants reduced average wages in that occupation by 0.5%.
• An updated version of this study, considering the period between 1992 and 2014, found similar results. This study found that a 1% rise in the share of immigrants reduced averages wages in unskilled and semi-skilled service sector by just under 0.2%.

Regarding jobs, I think you might be looking at it from a zero-sum perspective. Immigrants are more likely to start their own companies than the native British. From the Telegraph:

Immigrants are three times more likely to be entrepreneurial than people born in Britain, it has emerged, with 15.4pc of immigrant adults launching companies compared to just 5.3pc of lifelong UK residents. 

Immigrants also grow the size of markets both where they live locally and in the country as a whole, increasing the needs for goods and services. In addition, EU migrants are net contributors though non-EU migrants, the flow of which the UK has full control over are net drains on the economy. I would quote some of that article but the FT's website produces text prohibiting this when pasted.

Leroy42 wrote: »

Of course I get the argument that in many cases domestic workers simply do not have the skills needed. But surely the answer is to invest in creating the skills rather than simply buy in the skills. Of course some skills will need to be brought in, as they don't exist, but after say 5 years in a country there really is no excuse for Intel to need to hire foreign workers in Ireland, they should be investing in up-skilling and educating the domestic workforce. Not doing so allows them to get in relatively cheaper workers from abroad.

The problem isn't just that technology is changing society, it's that the rate of change has skyrocketed. For example, I worked in a biotech startup recently in London. We needed people who could work an automated cell culture machine. It was a nightmare to find people. The company ended up hiring 2 Portugese chaps, and 2 women from Finland and Poland. It was such a niche skillset that it would have taken months to train someone with a science degree and relevant laboratory experience, never mind someone with a non-relevant qualification. Then there's the cost of the training. If you impose that on the private sector, they will either bear the cost and pass it on or emigrate if they feel that the latter would better suit their interests. To use your Intel example, there's no real incentive for them to do so. Sure, they could but why should they pay for it? I think incentivising them to do so via tax breaks would be a nice idea but I don't know how feasible it is.S

killsets are becoming more and more niche and I think Universities have a duty to up their game in this regard, especially if they're getting taxpayer money. The same should apply to local people as well. If things are to get better for the lower classes, they need to engage as well. I don't think anyone knows how things are going to pan out with automation and the like but the populist right's wolf-whistling about immigrants won't solve anything. We need real, practical solutions such as a bold housing strategy for starters and measures to try to ensure that the benefits of immigration are spread out better to lower income communities. Companies could be incentivised to move to these areas for example.

Leroy42

Lemming wrote: »

Have you ever moved country for work Leroy? As someone moving to another country the deck is firmly stacked against you, with the locals having all the advantages applying for interviews. That employers still consider you to be the better choice says much, and it's not all down to who is cheapest on paper.

No I haven't, though my wife is from a different country so I fully agree with your point.

However, I feel that it in some way goes to back up my point. Instead of raising the salary, the benefits or looking to train someone up, they (and I accept that it is not the 1st choice) have the ability to go external.

That keeps the wages lower, the benefits lower etc.

fash

Sometimes it is the only choice though: what do you do in Ireland with the construction industry for example- where it collapses, people move to other countries or jobs, young people stop training in those areas and then all of a sudden you have a housing crisis and effectively construction workers left? Do you wait 10 years to encourage and train new people to an appropriate level? Love with the housing crisis in the meantime?

Professor Moriarty

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

You might think but it's a bit more complicated than that. For one thing, the UK has an aging population which is getting worse. Older people will increase the cost of pension provision and will likely contract diseases like Dementia and Cancer which will increase the burden on the NHS. Witness Theresa May's disastrous attempt to try and have them pay for some of their care in 2017.

In the short term, having younger, often educated people from Eastern Europe can help but they will age like everyone else, be subjected to the same living conditions and problems like the absurd cost of living in London and the SouthEast. Then there are other economic factors like wealth being concentrated and the demise of heavy industry. Recently, the Conservatives vetoed EU anti-dumping measures on Chinese steel which would have helped the industry a few years ago. Then of course, there's the fact that the Thatcher government decimated the economies of Wales, Northern England & Scotland which were then left to fend for themselves while Northern Ireland is disproportionately dependent on the public sector and agriculture for its income neither of which are good foundations to base an economy on in today's world of the internet, services and big data.



It's a perfectly fair question, Leroy42. FWIW, I don't mind people discussing immigration. It's how its discussed in the media (on both sides) that really f**ks me off to be honest.

On wages, again things are more complicated. The impact on wages tends to be slight with middle and high earners getting a slight boost while the lowest paid take a slight hit. From Fullfact.org:

• In the period 1997-2005 when the UK experienced significant immigration of people coming for work, one major study finds that an increase in the number of immigrants corresponding to 1% of the UK-born working-age population resulted in an increase in average wages of 0.1 to 0.3%.
• Another study, for the period 2000-2007, found that a 1% increase in the share of immigrants in the UK's working-age population conversely lowers the average wage by 0.3%.
• These studies, which relate to different time periods, reach opposing conclusions but they agree that the effects of immigration on averages wages are relatively small.
  ....
• Research from University College London finds that an inflow of immigrants the size of 1% of the UK-born population leads to a 0.6% decline in the wages of the 5% lowest paid workers and to an increase in the wages of higher paid workers.
• Similarly, another study focusing on wage effects at the occupational level during 1992 and 2006, found that, in the unskilled and semi-skilled service sector, a 1% rise in the share of immigrants reduced average wages in that occupation by 0.5%.
• An updated version of this study, considering the period between 1992 and 2014, found similar results. This study found that a 1% rise in the share of immigrants reduced averages wages in unskilled and semi-skilled service sector by just under 0.2%.

Regarding jobs, I think you might be looking at it from a zero-sum perspective. Immigrants are more likely to start their own companies than the native British. From the Telegraph:



Immigrants also grow the size of markets both where they live locally and in the country as a whole, increasing the needs for goods and services. In addition, EU migrants are net contributors though non-EU migrants, the flow of which the UK has full control over are net drains on the economy. I would quote some of that article but the FT's website produces text prohibiting this when pasted.



The problem isn't just that technology is changing society, it's that the rate of change has skyrocketed. For example, I worked in a biotech startup recently in London. We needed people who could work an automated cell culture machine. It was a nightmare to find people. The company ended up hiring 2 Portugese chaps, and 2 women from Finland and Poland. It was such a niche skillset that it would have taken months to train someone with a science degree and relevant laboratory experience, never mind someone with a non-relevant qualification. Then there's the cost of the training. If you impose that on the private sector, they will either bear the cost and pass it on or emigrate if they feel that the latter would better suit their interests. To use your Intel example, there's no real incentive for them to do so. Sure, they could but why should they pay for it? I think incentivising them to do so via tax breaks would be a nice idea but I don't know how feasible it is.S

killsets are becoming more and more niche and I think Universities have a duty to up their game in this regard, especially if they're getting taxpayer money. The same should apply to local people as well. If things are to get better for the lower classes, they need to engage as well. I don't think anyone knows how things are going to pan out with automation and the like but the populist right's wolf-whistling about immigrants won't solve anything. We need real, practical solutions such as a bold housing strategy for starters and measures to try to ensure that the benefits of immigration are spread out better to lower income communities. Companies could be incentivised to move to these areas for example.

Excellent post. Pedant that I am, I think you mean 'dog whistling' rather than 'wolf-whistling'.

listermint

Leroy42 wrote: »

No I haven't, though my wife is from a different country so I fully agree with your point.

However, I feel that it in some way goes to back up my point. Instead of raising the salary, the benefits or looking to train someone up, they (and I accept that it is not the 1st choice) have the ability to go external.

That keeps the wages lower, the benefits lower etc.

tbh you havent shown any example of where your thoughts ring true. Where is their stats that tradesmens prices for example have come down and their takehome is down . Lets take Ireland for example where we had a massive influx of eastern european labour.

Can you back your thoughts up with details as to examples of tradesmen having depressed salarys ?


because i havent found one

Akrasia

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Excellent post. Pedant that I am, I think you mean 'dog whistling' rather than 'wolf-whistling'.

And skillsets, not killsets

I'm not sure if I agree with universities being responsible for training their graduates in highly specialised skills though. It's too much to ask a young student to specialise in a skill that is very narrowly applicable and they could be chasing jobs that might only have very few vacancies a year

Universities should teach fundamental skills and employers should be prepared to train the employees in how to operate their equipment and internal processes. If students go on to become PHDs in very narrow fields, that's different, but on an undergraduate or even Masters level, students shouldn't be putting all their eggs into one basket, especially when the employers will then often say that they need to have x number of years industry experience before they even consider their application

demfad

Akrasia wrote: »

And skillsets, not killsets

I'm not sure if I agree with universities being responsible for training their graduates in highly specialised skills though. It's too much to ask a young student to specialise in a skill that is very narrowly applicable and they could be chasing jobs that might only have very few vacancies a year

Universities should teach fundamental skills and employers should be prepared to train the employees in how to operate their equipment and internal processes. If students go on to become PHDs in very narrow fields, that's different, but on an undergraduate or even Masters level, students shouldn't be putting all their eggs into one basket, especially when the employers will then often say that they need to have x number of years industry experience before they even consider their application

There was a case in the US where a programmer was fired for secretly subcontracting all his work out to a Chinese person. He spent all his day on boards.....i mean..the internet.

This was a preview for how employment might go:

Why pay this guy 5 times the money, when this other one will do it for so much less? Also I don't need this big building, it can be done from home saving me a lot of money. Come to think of it why give a salary/wages. Why employ these Jack of All trades, when I can easily contract this work out to masters on a per-job basis. When the job is done, the contract is over. I wont even half to train people up in this ever changing speciality employment market. Just hire the qualified ones.

Education will have to adapt to this ever changing realities. A standard University qualification may only be a baseline, with those seeking employment/contracts constantly upgrading their skilsets with smaller more specialised modules.

In this technological world, a futurologist can only reliably predict 3 years ahead (if even) these days so new modules will need to be crested or old ones adapted very regularly.

A huge challenge for Universities.

Zubeneschamali

Akrasia wrote: »

I'm not sure if I agree with universities being responsible for training their graduates in highly specialised skills though.

Agreed - undergraduates should be learning generally applicable skills, problem solving, research methods, maths etc.

A degree in operating machine X is useless as soon as machine X is replaced by machine Y.

My basic engineering skills are still useful 30 years later.

ancapailldorcha

In other news, Emmanuel Macron has reiterated that he would be happy to welcome the UK back into the EU if voters chose remain in a referendum:

French President Emmanuel Macron said he’d welcome Britain back should its voters decide in a second referendum to stay in the European Union.

“For sure,” Macron responded when asked in a Bloomberg interview at the One Planet Summit on climate change in New York on Wednesday.

Asked about giving up the opportunity of luring London bankers to Paris, he responded: “This is about history, not about domestic interests,” though he insisted it’s not up to him to decide if Britain holds another referendum.

I think it's more likely after the Labour conference and while this certainly helps there is still a long way to go before enough political will is amassed to properly challenge Brexit.

Leroy42

listermint wrote: »

tbh you havent shown any example of where your thoughts ring true. Where is their stats that tradesmens prices for example have come down and their takehome is down . Lets take Ireland for example where we had a massive influx of eastern european labour.

Can you back your thoughts up with details as to examples of tradesmen having depressed salarys ?


because i havent found one

No, but I think you might be missing the point somewhat.

You can throw at statistics all you like, bu the reason why economists find it so hard to predict the future is that human behaviour is very hard to predict for new situations.

What people see if what they believe. When people ring a call centre and get linked to India, when they go to the local pub and get served by a Polish person.

As was mentioned about the building trade, when it collapses the immigrants return home but the domestic worker (with kids in school etc) stays to pick up the pieces.

I am not for one minute saying this is the immigrants fault, or problem. I am trying to understand why this narrative has taken hold that immigration is, almost by definition, a good thing.

It certainly is a good thing in certain areas, and maybe even in an overall sense, but there is no doubt that it causes problems in certain sectors/segments of society and the continual failure to take that seriously and deal with it properly has, I believe, led to Brexit and Trump.

Anyway, I am not trying to get into an argument about the merits or otherwise of immigration. I was trying to get other peoples opinions on why it is deemed as good as a fact.

keane2097

Leroy42 wrote: »

No, but I think you might be missing the point somewhat.

You can throw at statistics all you like, bu the reason why economists find it so hard to predict the future is that human behaviour is very hard to predict for new situations.

What people see if what they believe. When people ring a call centre and get linked to India, when they go to the local pub and get served by a Polish person.

As was mentioned about the building trade, when it collapses the immigrants return home but the domestic worker (with kids in school etc) stays to pick up the pieces.

I am not for one minute saying this is the immigrants fault, or problem. I am trying to understand why this narrative has taken hold that immigration is, almost by definition, a good thing.


It certainly is a good thing in certain areas, and maybe even in an overall sense, but there is no doubt that it causes problems in certain sectors/segments of society and the continual failure to take that seriously and deal with it properly has, I believe, led to Brexit and Trump.

Anyway, I am not trying to get into an argument about the merits or otherwise of immigration. I was trying to get other peoples opinions on why it is deemed as good as a fact.

I am not sure where you live and what sort of people you interact with but in my experience the narrative that has hold is far more commonly that immigration is, almost by definition, a bad thing.

The stats and research are not part of any 'narrative', they are simply facts.

An Claidheamh

swampgas wrote: »

The British weren't always wedded to FPTP.

In fact the British had a large role in creating STV and spreading it round the world. Ireland has it because the British insisted on it being used, as a way to protect minorities after Home Rule / independence.

Ireland has it as the British wanted to stop Sinn Féin and, well, democracy.

Nothing to do with protecting minorities, just their hypocrisy and interests.

listermint

demfad wrote: »

There was a case in the US where a programmer was fired for secretly subcontracting all his work out to a Chinese person. He spent all his day on boards.....i mean..the internet.

This was a preview for how employment might go:

Why pay this guy 5 times the money, when this other one will do it for so much less? Also I don't need this big building, it can be done from home saving me a lot of money. Come to think of it why give a salary/wages. Why employ these Jack of All trades, when I can easily contract this work out to masters on a per-job basis. When the job is done, the contract is over. I wont even half to train people up in this ever changing speciality employment market. Just hire the qualified ones.

Education will have to adapt to this ever changing realities. A standard University qualification may only be a baseline, with those seeking employment/contracts constantly upgrading their skilsets with smaller more specialised modules.

In this technological world, a futurologist can only reliably predict 3 years ahead (if even) these days so new modules will need to be crested or old ones adapted very regularly.

A huge challenge for Universities.

Your story is wrong it was a programmer with repetitive task and it was India. And im not even sure it wast true.

You would not get away with this in an actual programming environment. Your team lead would spot this a mile away.

Once again there is zero evidence of wage suppression its a tall tell told by those with an agenda. The agenda being locals only.

listermint

Leroy42 wrote: »

No, but I think you might be missing the point somewhat.

You can throw at statistics all you like, bu the reason why economists find it so hard to predict the future is that human behaviour is very hard to predict for new situations.

What people see if what they believe. When people ring a call centre and get linked to India, when they go to the local pub and get served by a Polish person.

As was mentioned about the building trade, when it collapses the immigrants return home but the domestic worker (with kids in school etc) stays to pick up the pieces.

I am not for one minute saying this is the immigrants fault, or problem. I am trying to understand why this narrative has taken hold that immigration is, almost by definition, a good thing.

It certainly is a good thing in certain areas, and maybe even in an overall sense, but there is no doubt that it causes problems in certain sectors/segments of society and the continual failure to take that seriously and deal with it properly has, I believe, led to Brexit and Trump.

Anyway, I am not trying to get into an argument about the merits or otherwise of immigration. I was trying to get other peoples opinions on why it is deemed as good as a fact.

Domestic Worker Stays ????

What are you even on about!

Our construction workers left for Australia and Canada.

There is no argument here and im not trying to make one, Im pointing to flaws in your thought process. Its simply not backed up by facts.

Jobs will move wherever there is need. Thats the simply facts of it. in the UK they need bar workers therefore the polish person serves them.

Leroy42

listermint wrote: »

Domestic Worker Stays ????

What are you even on about!

Our construction workers left for Australia and Canada.

There is no argument here and im not trying to make one, Im pointing to flaws in your thought process. Its simply not backed up by facts.

Jobs will move wherever there is need. Thats the simply facts of it. in the UK they need bar workers therefore the polish person serves them.

But why do they need bar workers? Are we really suggesting that UK people do not want to work in bars anymore? There is some of that or course, but I think that it is because the employer is not offering enough money for the domestic workers to judge it as worthwhile.

But instead of increasing the benefits in order to match to the demand, they are able to get in foreign workers to fill the gap.

The normal rules of supply and demand are skewed in favour of the employer. So it doesn't result in dropping in wages, but it stops wages from growing.

Nody

Leroy42 wrote: »

But why do they need bar workers? Are we really suggesting that UK people do not want to work in bars anymore? There is some of that or course, but I think that it is because the employer is not offering enough money for the domestic workers to judge it as worthwhile.

But instead of increasing the benefits in order to match to the demand, they are able to get in foreign workers to fill the gap.

The normal rules of supply and demand are skewed in favour of the employer. So it doesn't result in dropping in wages, but it stops wages from growing.

What you highlight is an issue with a to generous system for people who don't want to work rather than a problem with the salary level. Same thing applies with the picking fruit jobs; there are to few UK people who can be bothered to do something which pays a decent wage because the work is actually hard. The few UK people that show up tend to quit with in a week because they can't handle it; raising the salary does not fix the problem that people are to lazy to take existing jobs. Do you think someone comming from a foreign country with a foreign name has a better or worse chance to get a job over a local? You know the answer but unlike locals the foreigners tend to be willing to move were the work is and take what's available unlike many local people who rather sit home on wellfare etc. and complain about foreigners taking their jobs. Hence if the company pays a legal salary and local people can't be arsed to do the job why should the companies need to increase salaries (and drive inflation, higher prices etc. because all that cost with margin is passed back on to the consumers) to get local people to get off their arses to do the job?

listermint

Leroy42 wrote: »

But why do they need bar workers? Are we really suggesting that UK people do not want to work in bars anymore? There is some of that or course, but I think that it is because the employer is not offering enough money for the domestic workers to judge it as worthwhile.

But instead of increasing the benefits in order to match to the demand, they are able to get in foreign workers to fill the gap.

The normal rules of supply and demand are skewed in favour of the employer. So it doesn't result in dropping in wages, but it stops wages from growing.

Thats a government problem - Minimum wage rates / benefits

as stated above the people that have the benefits wont do the work.

Its not really rocket science. Which is why there is demand from employers for employment.

kuro68k

Nody wrote: »

What you highlight is an issue with a to generous system for people who don't want to work rather than a problem with the salary level.

No that's not it.

People need decent, stable jobs so that they can build up a credit history, save for a mortgage or at least reliably pay the rent. A lot of these jobs are zero hour contracts or just don't pay enough, so they are okay if it's a migrant worker sending money home and planning to only do it for a few years...

But for natives trying to build a life independent of their parents, they are useless.

Akrasia

listermint wrote: »

Your story is wrong it was a programmer with repetitive task and it was India. And im not even sure it wast true.

You would not get away with this in an actual programming environment. Your team lead would spot this a mile away.

Once again there is zero evidence of wage suppression its a tall tell told by those with an agenda. The agenda being locals only.

My company used to offshore unit testing which used to be done by the development team via peer review.

It worked great, by great, i mean terribly. It took so long to explain to the sub contracted workers what they were actually supposed to be looking for that we would have done it ourselves faster and to higher quality. Also, because of the time difference, the indian workers spend half their day waiting for us to sign off on their work and assign them back new work, or answer queries on the work they had been given.

If the work is simple to explain and repetitive then yes, it can be done by a low paid sub contractor off shore, or a macro.

flutered

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

In other news, Emmanuel Macron has reiterated that he would be happy to welcome the UK back into the EU if voters chose remain in a referendum:

French President Emmanuel Macron said he’d welcome Britain back should its voters decide in a second referendum to stay in the European Union.

“For sure,” Macron responded when asked in a Bloomberg interview at the One Planet Summit on climate change in New York on Wednesday.

Asked about giving up the opportunity of luring London bankers to Paris, he responded: “This is about history, not about domestic interests,” though he insisted it’s not up to him to decide if Britain holds another referendum.

I think it's more likely after the Labour conference and while this certainly helps there is still a long way to go before enough political will is amassed to properly challenge Brexit.

any info on barniers meeting with corybn and starmer today

flutered

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

In other news, Emmanuel Macron has reiterated that he would be happy to welcome the UK back into the EU if voters chose remain in a referendum:

French President Emmanuel Macron said he’d welcome Britain back should its voters decide in a second referendum to stay in the European Union.

“For sure,” Macron responded when asked in a Bloomberg interview at the One Planet Summit on climate change in New York on Wednesday.

Asked about giving up the opportunity of luring London bankers to Paris, he responded: “This is about history, not about domestic interests,” though he insisted it’s not up to him to decide if Britain holds another referendum.

I think it's more likely after the Labour conference and while this certainly helps there is still a long way to go before enough political will is amassed to properly challenge Brexit.

any info on barniers meeting with corybn and starmer today

Nody wrote: »

Leroy42 wrote: »

But why do they need bar workers?  Are we really suggesting that UK people do not want to work in bars anymore?  There is some of that or course, but I think that it is because the employer is not offering enough money for the domestic workers to judge it as worthwhile.

But instead of increasing the benefits in order to match to the demand, they are able to get in foreign workers to fill the gap.

The normal rules of supply and demand are skewed in favour of the employer.  So it doesn't result in dropping in wages, but it stops wages from growing.

What you highlight is an issue with a to generous system for people who don't want to work rather than a problem with the salary level. Same thing applies with the picking fruit jobs; there are to few UK people who can be bothered to do something which pays a decent wage because the work is actually hard. The few UK people that show up tend to quit with in a week because they can't handle it; raising the salary does not fix the problem that people are to lazy to take existing jobs. Do you think someone comming from a foreign country with a foreign name has a better or worse chance to get a job over a local? You know the answer but unlike locals the foreigners tend to be willing to move were the work is and take what's available unlike many local people who rather sit home on wellfare etc. and complain about foreigners taking their jobs. Hence if the company pays a legal salary and local people can't be arsed to do the job why should the companies need to increase salaries (and drive inflation, higher prices etc. because all that cost with margin is passed back on to the consumers) to get local people to get off their arses to do the job?

but in the uk folks on benifits have not much of an income, plus we rear of ill people being forced to work, with in some cases loss of life, i recon it is not the actual folk on benifits who are saying they wont do it, they are being used a decoy by others with an agenda

An Ciarraioch

flutered wrote: »

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

In other news, Emmanuel Macron has reiterated that he would be happy to welcome the UK back into the EU if voters chose remain in a referendum:

French President Emmanuel Macron said he’d welcome Britain back should its voters decide in a second referendum to stay in the European Union.

“For sure,” Macron responded when asked in a Bloomberg interview at the One Planet Summit on climate change in New York on Wednesday.

Asked about giving up the opportunity of luring London bankers to Paris, he responded: “This is about history, not about domestic interests,” though he insisted it’s not up to him to decide if Britain holds another referendum.

I think it's more likely after the Labour conference and while this certainly helps there is still a long way to go before enough political will is amassed to properly challenge Brexit.

any info on barniers meeting with corybn and starmer today

The Guardian's take is that the threat to vote down May's deal has sparked fresh no deal fears, but given they had a virtually identical piece 24 hours ago, it reads like a pre-prepared article, with some fresh quotes inserted:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/sep/27/i-will-work-to-avoid-national-disaster-of-no-deal-brexit-corbyn-tells-eu

Capt'n Midnight

demfad wrote: »

There was a case in the US where a programmer was fired for secretly subcontracting all his work out to a Chinese person. He spent all his day on boards.....i mean..the internet.

Most IT people had the same two thoughts on this bit of outsourcing.

At first it was "Nice one"

Then when it was explained that he handed over his security login it was "lock him up and throw away the key"


The UK might be the best data services provider, but that matters naught if they aren't allowed to process data.


If the UK leaves without a good deal on data transfer of EU data then they won't be able to offer the range of services they do now. Which puts them at a disadvantage compared to places that the EU recognises as having Adequacy.

https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-topic/data-protection/data-transfers-outside-eu/adequacy-protection-personal-data-non-eu-countries_en

The European Commission has so far recognised Andorra, Argentina, Canada (commercial organisations), Faroe Islands, Guernsey, Israel, Isle of Man, Jersey, New Zealand, Switzerland, Uruguay and the United States of America (limited to the Privacy Shield framework) as providing adequate protection.

Adequacy talks are ongoing with South Korea. The adoption procedure of the adequacy decision concerning Japan was launched on 5 September 2018.

Gibraltar status as a haven for online gambling firms is likely to be affected too. http://gbga.gi/

Kermit.de.frog

The UK has appointed a Minister for Food Supplies in case of a hard Brexit.


No, really.