Every 2 Out Of 3 New Jobs Go To Emigrants

[miko]

Eh no

Just how many times can you make up stuff that I have said ? The question was are there SOMETIMES when the Polish are better than the locals - and therefore get the jobs for that reason ?

Come on - just say it - you will feel better for the release !!

I have NEVER said the POLISH ARE BETTER than the Brits full stop. Why twist what I have said - just answer the question - not a difficult one !!

Yep does seem that way - nimbyism - an HPC pet hate !! When it comes to planning and not jobs of course....

Read back through your own posts and see what you have said .

As for the question show me who the locals were and the poles who got the jobs and then I can say who was better .

Not that easy is it but very easy for you to sit on here sing the praises of the Poles and have a dig at the British Chav as you like to call them , very sad to see a person have such a low attitude of their own countrymen especial one who on another post talked of people looking after their own.

[mfp123]

The problem with this argument is that it contains the assumption that there is such a thing as a globalised free market-no such market exists.

What we have in reality is a collection of nation states with widely differing costs of living, widely differing standards of environmental and safety costs and widely different social provision costs.

When the average worker in China has roughly the same costs of living as the average UK worker, and his employer operates under the same sort of regulations regarding health and safety and environmental issues, and China as a nation operates a similar health and social service regime, with all the costs implied by that- then we can have an adult conversation about the benefits of free trade.

At present what we have is not a globalised free market , what we have a game with communist mercantilists on one side and city slickers on the other- and neither side gives a shite about the 'free market' or 'globlisation' - these are just the front behind which the looting and power broking goes on.

it is a free market, and what i would say is that protectionism from another country doesnt necessarily put us at a disadvantage.

also the fact that the world is in different economic cycles and social costs etc isnt a disadvantage either.

social care is advantageous to the country. we have them becuase we either need it or want it. having low crime/corruption, a fire service that puts out fires, a healthcare that keeps people healthy, and an educated workforce, is good for the country.

and in terms of social costs, benefits etc.. this is simply a form of compulsory insurance. this too brings advantages to the country.

its like saying company X runs a bus service, however company Y runs his service without insurance, therefore his costs are lower, and so he can reduce his prices.

does company Y have an advantage? no. because you forget the point that the extra cost of insurance also serves a vital purpose that makes his business better.

we are a developed nation because we have health, education, police, etc.. not in spite of it.

if we want to wait for other countries to catch up with us before allowing for free trade then we will be waiting a long time because it will never happen.

there are always 2 sides to every position and protectionism from another country doesnt put another country in an disadvantageous position.

for instance is a weak currency good or bad for the UK?

is a weak yuan or us dollar good or bad for the UK?

you can easily make a case for either way.

Edited January 24, 2011 by mfp123

[miko]

it is a free market, and what i would say is that protectionism from another country doesnt necessarily put us at a disadvantage.

also the fact that the world is in different economic cycles and social costs etc isnt a disadvantage either.

social care is advantageous to the country. we have them becuase we either need it or want it. having low crime/corruption, a fire service that puts out fires, a healthcare that keeps people healthy, and an educated workforce, is good for the country.

and in terms of social costs, benefits etc.. this is simply a form of compulsory insurance. this too brings advantages to the country.

its like saying company X runs a bus service, however company Y runs his service without insurance, therefore his costs are lower, and so he can reduce his prices.

does company Y have an advantage? no. because you forget the point that the extra cost of insurance also serves a vital purpose.

we are a developed nation because we have health, education, police, etc.. not in spite of it.

if we want to wait for other countries to catch up with us before allowing for free trade then we will be waiting a long time because it will never happen.

there are always 2 sides to every position and protectionism from another country doesnt necessarily put another country in an disadvantageous position.

for instance is a weak currency good or bad for the UK?

is a weak yuan or us dollar good or bad for the UK?

you can easily make a case for either way.

Company X goes under as the customers travel on company Y buses. The customers at point of paying did not look at the vital service of insurance they just looked at their costs. Yes that is an advantage to company Y. Will be a massive disadvantage to the customers if they are ever hurt while traveling on company Y buses.

Taking these costs further and our society you have proved the point that we need to earn more to pay for our vital services health , education , pensions , police ect. You also agree that they are good for our country . Well they have to be paid for by everyone who is here and the british worker cannot pay for them if his wages have been drastically reduced due to immigration and cheap labour.

[mfp123]

Company X goes under as the customers travel on company Y buses. The customers at point of paying did not look at the vital service of insurance they just looked at their costs. Yes that is an advantage to company Y. Will be a massive disadvantage to the customers if they are ever hurt while traveling on company Y buses.

Taking these costs further and our society you have proved the point that we need to earn more to pay for our vital services health , education , pensions , police ect. You also agree that they are good for our country . Well they have to be paid for by everyone who is here and the british worker cannot pay for them if his wages have been drastically reduced due to immigration and cheap labour.

you miss the point. even if you didnt have to buy insurance, companies would still choose to have it, even though it is a cost, because it make the business better. you forget that company Y has to fork out if the bus gets in a crash.

its not a disadvantage for example to buy insurance for your business. it is a choice. you do it becuase you calculate you are better off with it.

Edited January 24, 2011 by mfp123

[miko]

you miss the point. even if you didnt have to buy insurance, companies would still choose to have it, even though it is a cost, because it make the business better. you forget that company Y has to fork out if the bus gets in a crash.

its not a disadvantage for example to buy insurance for your business. it is a choice. you do it becuase you calculate you are better off with it.

No you have missed the point

Company X went out of bussiness due to company Y undercutting them .

You say companies would still choose to have insurance as it makes their company a better business . Well that destroyes the example you gave in post 263 it was you who said that company Y did not have insurance , then why go on to tell me in this post that they would have it . If every company had insurance which they do actually in this country your example is irrelevant . Its is like saying ToyRus will go out of bussiness due to Father Christmas being true and then telling me that Father Christmas is not ture.

[enrieb]

It seems the immigration argument is coming down to externalities. I do not think that the pro's of hiring large numbers of workers from overseas, no matter how cheap and highly skilled they are, will outweigh the con's of leaving a equally large section of the domestic population without the opportunity to work and take a productive part of society.

As a business decision it makes economic sense because business owners don't have to put up with the social costs, but as a country theres simply no net benefit to depriving the population of the chance to earn, increase their work experience, skills and provide positive working role models for their children.

Government money that could be spent on infrastructure, education, healthcare, research etc.. is instead wasted subsidising the existence of an underclass, who become unemployable as they fall behind in experience, work skills and communication. Deprived families and communities become locked in cycles of depravation in which it is unlikely that any of the adults will ever find long term work. Then we have to pay for the social costs of dealing with people alienated by society as some turn to crime and anti social behaviour.

Edited January 24, 2011 by enrieb

[Big Orange]

The Pakistani/Indian community grew in the UK partially due to short-sighted business practices and the greed for cheap labour. They were employed as workers mainly in the textile mills because the UK textile industry were averse to modernising and once most of the UK textile industry fell apart in the 70s and 80s, there's little wonder the immigrant communities were left twisting in the wind and social/political problems have developed amongst UK Pakistanis since then.

The 2012 Olympics is a big project, but transient, after the project is finished, where else are the more poorly paid Eastern European workers and laid off UK workers going to go next?

Edited January 24, 2011 by Big Orange

[Papa Serf]

It seems the immigration argument is coming down to externalities. I do not think that the pro's of hiring large numbers of workers from overseas, no matter how cheap and highly skilled they are, will outweigh the con's of leaving a equally large section of the domestic population without the opportunity to work and take a productive part of society.

As a business decision it makes economic sense because business owners don't have to put up with the social costs, but as a country theres simply no net benefit to depriving the population of the chance to earn, increase their work experience, skills and provide positive working role models for their children.

Government money that could be spent on infrastructure, education, healthcare, research etc.. is instead wasted subsidising the existence of an underclass, who become unemployable as they fall behind in experience, work skills and communication. Deprived families and communities become locked in cycles of depravation in which it is unlikely that any of the adults will ever find long term work. Then we have to pay for the social costs of dealing with people alienated by society as some turn to crime and anti social behaviour.

That is exactly as I see it.

[ccc]

Read back through your own posts and see what you have said .

As for the question show me who the locals were and the poles who got the jobs and then I can say who was better .

Not that easy is it but very easy for you to sit on here sing the praises of the Poles and have a dig at the British Chav as you like to call them , very sad to see a person have such a low attitude of their own countrymen especial one who on another post talked of people looking after their own.

So you cannot bring yourself to say the simple phrase:

"Sometimes Poles are better at the jobs and that is why they get them"

You cannot actually say this until I give you specific examples of specific people and you go throug the pros and cons of the individual.

Honestly - that is me done with yourself on this subject. You are properly gone in the head. Of all the thousands of jobs out there that Brits and Poles have gone for - you cannot even admit that ONE was down to the Pole being better. You need a specific example to say this.

As I said - done with you on this. This is not a debate. You seriously need some help. Not kidding either.

[mfp123]

It seems the immigration argument is coming down to externalities. I do not think that the pro's of hiring large numbers of workers from overseas, no matter how cheap and highly skilled they are, will outweigh the con's of leaving a equally large section of the domestic population without the opportunity to work and take a productive part of society.

As a business decision it makes economic sense because business owners don't have to put up with the social costs, but as a country theres simply no net benefit to depriving the population of the chance to earn, increase their work experience, skills and provide positive working role models for their children.

Government money that could be spent on infrastructure, education, healthcare, research etc.. is instead wasted subsidising the existence of an underclass, who become unemployable as they fall behind in experience, work skills and communication. Deprived families and communities become locked in cycles of depravation in which it is unlikely that any of the adults will ever find long term work. Then we have to pay for the social costs of dealing with people alienated by society as some turn to crime and anti social behaviour.

for me i dont see any difference between hiring an immigrant to work picking leeks vs you buying leeks picked in france.

that how our whole economy already works, but the only real difference is, out of sight, out of mind.

Edited January 24, 2011 by mfp123

[alexw]

firstly when you say race to the bottom, this is usually the arguement for anti-globalisation and anti free market proponents.

a race to the bottom suggests that all parties lose out when this is not necessarily the case. because it can also be argued that this allows for the most efficient system, driving down costs also drives down prices for everyone.

protectionism benefits you only in the short term. does increasing wages for everyone help the economy? if so why dont we let wage inflation run and run.

the most efficient system is to let the markets decide. creating barriers, or controlling things, distorts the market, or to a certain degree stops if from being as efficient as it can be.

by protecting you from the wider market it also allows you to get lazy and fail to comete and innovate. whilst you are sitting in your gauranteed job, with a fixed amount of pay, you end up satisficing, and get overtaken down the line.

in this case, there is an arguement that foreign workers may work harder becuase theyve come from far away and are here specifically to work hard, in the same way british expats do abroad.

now you can either do 2 things. address that issue and compete according to the market, i.e give your own workforce a kick in the back side. or you can just protect yourself, give jobs to those who arent as competitive - but does that really address the root problem? because long term, it is inefficient.

the market is raw, its not about fairness, but it is the best and most efficient way for the economy as a whole.

A race to the bottom certainly does not mean everyone looses out, it means that the average worker loses out. And if such a system increased efficiency, prices would have decreased in an amount comparable to which the average workers wages have been decreased globably. Meaning that there would have been no net gain for corporations and they would not have fought so voraciously for the implementation of the globalized system.

Instead what has happened is that the typical workers wage is globally lower than it would have been, and a substantial portion of the savings instead of going to reduced prices, has gone to proffesional level and managerial level salaries. Vis a vis the skyrocketing of top decile incomes. Another substantial portion has gone to shareholders which again benefits the top decile vastly more than the other deciles - they earn much more from shares as a percentage of income than does the average citizen.

The current system has in fact increased the laziness of companies and decreased the rate of innovation. Instead of corporations having to become more efficent to increase returns to shareholders they can be placted by outsourcing to cheap labour countries. Thus compare the efficiency of the closed steelworks in the UK and the newer steelworks that have sprung up in china and india. The teeside steelworks were vastly more efficent. Similarly look at the efficiency of UK IT workers vs Indian ones. The current system of globalization has allowed highly efficient workers and systems to be replaced with much cheaper 2nd and third world ones, with the decrease in efficency made up via the savings inherent in global wage arbitrage.

Edited January 24, 2011 by alexw

[mfp123]

A race to the bottom certainly does not mean everyone looses out, it means that the average worker loses out. And if such a system increased efficiency, prices would have decreased in an amount comparable to which the average workers wages have been decreased globably. Meaning that there would have been no net gain for corporations and they would not have fought so voraciously for the implementation of the globalized system.

Instead what has happened is that the typical workers wage is globally lower than it would have been, and a substantial portion of the savings instead of going to reduced prices, has gone to proffesional level and managerial level salaries. Vis a vis the skyrocketing of top decile incomes. Another substantial portion has gone to shareholders which again benefits the top decile vastly more than the other deciles - they earn much more from shares as a percentage of income than does the average citizen.

The current system has in fact increased the laziness of companies and decreased the rate of innovation. Instead of corporations having to become more efficent to increase returns to shareholders they can be placted by outsourcing to cheap labour countries. Thus compare the efficiency of the closed steelworks in the UK and the newer steelworks that have sprung up in china and india. The teeside steelworks were vastly more efficent. Similarly look at the efficiency of UK IT workers vs Indian ones. The current system of globalization has allowed highly efficient workers and systems to be replaced with much cheaper 2nd and third world ones, with the decrease in efficency made up via the savings inherent in global wage arbitrage.

i fully disagree, because it completely ignores the fact that it benefits everyone as a whole. we dont work for the sake of it. we work to get things. its a means to an ends.

look around your house. how much of it was produced in the UK?

if everything in your house was produced in the UK how much do you think it would cost? how many hours works would you need to put in, to get the same amount of stuff?

how far do you go before you say computers put people out of work.

the IT industry is the funniest group because they complain of workers doing the same job for less work when the whole point of IT and technology is the cost savings companies make from not having to employ people.

it also might be worth pointing out that we produce roughly the same amount of steel as we did at our peak in the 1970's with only 15% of the workforce from the 1970's.

is that a good or bad thing for the UK?

Edited January 24, 2011 by mfp123

[enrieb]

for me i dont see any difference between hiring an immigrant to work picking leeks vs you buying leeks picked in france.

that how our whole economy already works, but the only real difference is, out of sight, out of mind.

True, there is no net economic benefit to the country in both of the instances you describe, which is the point I made above.

[shipbuilder]

It seems the immigration argument is coming down to externalities. I do not think that the pro's of hiring large numbers of workers from overseas, no matter how cheap and highly skilled they are, will outweigh the con's of leaving a equally large section of the domestic population without the opportunity to work and take a productive part of society.

As a business decision it makes economic sense because business owners don't have to put up with the social costs, but as a country theres simply no net benefit to depriving the population of the chance to earn, increase their work experience, skills and provide positive working role models for their children.

Government money that could be spent on infrastructure, education, healthcare, research etc.. is instead wasted subsidising the existence of an underclass, who become unemployable as they fall behind in experience, work skills and communication. Deprived families and communities become locked in cycles of depravation in which it is unlikely that any of the adults will ever find long term work. Then we have to pay for the social costs of dealing with people alienated by society as some turn to crime and anti social behaviour.

Good post, sums things up nicely.

In effect, it comes down to businesses vs the country (or capital vs labour?) - what's good for business isn't for the country and vice versa. Of course since businesses make up the economy and we all own or are employed by them, since we are all consumers and producers this is a ridiculous notion and completely dysfunctional.

However, sadly, it is our reality, brought about by the type of globalisation we have had imposed on us - not that envisaged by Adam Smith, but where money is separated from morality and humanity, human needs put second to profit and justified by sociopathic economic dogma. Sadly, there are still too many who believe this is all fine and representative of a 'free market' and 'capitalism'. Until these people open their eyes and see beyond the economic story fashioned by the sociopaths in power, we are screwed.

Edited January 24, 2011 by shipbuilder

[miko]

i fully disagree, because it completely ignores the fact that it benefits everyone as a whole. we dont work for the sake of it. we work to get things. its a means to an ends.

look around your house. how much of it was produced in the UK?

if everything in your house was produced in the UK how much do you think it would cost? how many hours works would you need to put in, to get the same amount of stuff?

Nail on the head

" We dont work for the sake of it . We work to get things . Its a means to an ends "

Problem is with mass immigration and wages dropping the work does not get the things anymore for many . Go back and read posts 155 and 156 the people quoted in post 155 are today earning similar money to what I was earning for a similar job 25 years ago post 156.

Forget looking around the house and at how much the stuff in it would cost those in post 155 could not afford the house , they might be able to fill it with plenty of cheap tat but could not pay the mortgage or rent plus CT and bills on the place I bought 25 years ago. Importing cheap stuff has enabled us to get things quickley and easily but importing cheap labour has reduced peoples ability to earn enough money to live in many cases.

[enrieb]

i fully disagree, because it completely ignores the fact that it benefits everyone as a whole. we dont work for the sake of it. we work to get things. its a means to an ends.

look around your house. how much of it was produced in the UK?

if everything in your house was produced in the UK how much do you think it would cost? how many hours works would you need to put in, to get the same amount of stuff?

how far do you go before you say computers put people out of work.

the IT industry is the funniest group because they complain of workers doing the same job for less work when the whole point of IT and technology is the cost savings companies make from not having to employ people.

it also might be worth pointing out that we produce roughly the same amount of steel as we did at our peak in the 1970's with only 15% of the workforce from the 1970's.

is that a good or bad thing for the UK?

There's a hidden cost that you don't see when buying cheap products from overseas, or when hiring cheap workers from overseas, when buying things on credit financed by the vendors that are selling you the products using the trade surpluses that they have from selling you products that you lack the industrial capacity to make domestically. In fact the only things we couldn't import was houses, hence the website. If we had to pay the true costs of the items in our homes, we would seen the housing bubble for the inflation that it was, instead politicians managed hide the inflation by allowing us to import cheaper goods and workers.

These hidden costs are referred to as externalities, which is becoming ever more apparent is the social and economic problems caused by having to subsidise the existence of millions of people who will never have the hope of getting any form of long term employment. These people have children that grow up in families and communities that have no jobs, no hope, no positive working law abiding role models to learn from.

Edited January 24, 2011 by enrieb

[shipbuilder]

it is a free market, and what i would say is that protectionism from another country doesnt necessarily put us at a disadvantage.

also the fact that the world is in different economic cycles and social costs etc isnt a disadvantage either.

social care is advantageous to the country. we have them becuase we either need it or want it. having low crime/corruption, a fire service that puts out fires, a healthcare that keeps people healthy, and an educated workforce, is good for the country.

and in terms of social costs, benefits etc.. this is simply a form of compulsory insurance. this too brings advantages to the country.

its like saying company X runs a bus service, however company Y runs his service without insurance, therefore his costs are lower, and so he can reduce his prices.

does company Y have an advantage? no. because you forget the point that the extra cost of insurance also serves a vital purpose that makes his business better.

we are a developed nation because we have health, education, police, etc.. not in spite of it.

if we want to wait for other countries to catch up with us before allowing for free trade then we will be waiting a long time because it will never happen.

there are always 2 sides to every position and protectionism from another country doesnt put another country in an disadvantageous position.

for instance is a weak currency good or bad for the UK?

is a weak yuan or us dollar good or bad for the UK?

you can easily make a case for either way.

The point I think you're missing about the social costs, while you argue rightly that they are an advantage, is that they are borne by the country/government/taxpayer, not by multinational businesses, who simply threaten to up and leave if they are asked to bear them. Hence we get increasing deficits in countries with such costs as business moves on to the next government wishing to pimp out their cheap labour, meanwhile the business owners continue to personally reap the advantages of the costly western social provisions.

The lie sold is that this is the natural and only path for globalisation, the result of market forces - as I've said, far from Smith's vision, business has become divorced from the community, amoral and without loyalty to humanity nor country.

[shipbuilder]

A crucial point to all this, in my opinion, is that the moral thinking behind economics and business has changed. We are now told that morality and loyalty have no place in business, but this is a lie, and a recent one at that. Where did this lie start? I don't know - economic theory, MBA teaching maybe, but it has become entrenched and accepted as truth.

However, history tells a different story. 'What's good for GM is good for America', the Wealth of Nations - until recently it was implicit that an American or British company, for example, were based and employed a substantial part of their workforce in their home countries, that when a British company did well, it meant that Britain did well, through taxes and money spent by the company and employees. It was this version, not the globalist lie we are now sold, that led to the rise of the US and the 'golden era' of capitalism.

While this might seem like a naive concept to be laughed at, the clincher to the argument is that we still have countries - Germany and Japan, for example, that follow this model today and are manufacturing and exporting powerhouses as a result, even China understands and follows it, meanwhile the UK and US are increasingly hollowed out and laden with debt, reliant on finance and wondering where it all went wrong.

Edited January 24, 2011 by shipbuilder

[northwestsmith2]

It's called anti dumping now

http://www.google.com/search?sclient=psy&hl=en&complete=0&tbs=nws%3A1&source=hp&q=+anti+dumping&btnG=Search

[enrieb]

A crucial point to all this, in my opinion, is that the moral thinking behind economics and business has changed. We are now told that morality and loyalty have no place in business, but this is a lie, and a recent one at that. Where did this lie start? I don't know - economic theory, MBA teaching maybe, but it has become entrenched and accepted as truth.

However, history tells a different story. 'What's good for GM is good for America', the Wealth of Nations - until recently it was implicit that an American or British company, for example, were based and employed a substantial part of their workforce in their home countries, that when a British company did well, it meant that Britain did well, through taxes and money spent by the company and employees. It was this version, not the globalist lie we are now sold, that led to the rise of the US and the 'golden era' of capitalism.

While this might seem like a naive concept to be laughed at, the clincher to the argument is that we still have countries - Germany and Japan, for example, that follow this model today and are manufacturing and exporting powerhouses as a result, even China understands and follows it, meanwhile the UK and US are increasingly hollowed out and laden with debt, reliant on finance and wondering where it all went wrong.

Yep, I agree with the above, and that does't make me some lefty Communist just because I don't want to see society impoverished for the benefit of a very narrow economic class of people who hold power. The point we are making in the similar to the one that James Goldsmith made in 1994.

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=5064665078176641728&ei=pVl3SsLtJdqv-Ab_tvngAQ&hl=en#

goldsmith quote from the above interview

The idea is to create what is known today as efficient agriculture and to impose it worldwide. Let me just give you one [impact] of GATT on the third world. The idea of GATT is that the efficiency of agriculture throughout the world should …produce the most amount of food for the least cost. But what does that really mean? …What is cost? When you produce the intensified agriculture and you reduce the number of people on the land, what happens to those people?…They are chased into the towns. They lose their jobs on the land. If they go into the towns, there are no jobs, there is no infrastructure. The social costs of those people, the financial costs of the infrastructure has to be added to the cost of producing food.

On top of that, you are breaking families, you are uprooting them, you are throwing them into the slums. Do you realize that in Brazil, the favelas (slums) did not exist before the Green Revolution of intensifying agriculture.

In the world today there are 3.1 billion people still living in rural communities. If GATT succeeds and we are able to impose modern methods of agriculture worldwide, so as to bring them to the level of Canada or Australia, what will happen? 2.1 billion people will be uprooted from the land and chased into the towns throughout the world. It is the single greatest disaster [in our history] greater than any war.

We have to change priorities. Let’s take agriculture. Instead of just trying to produce the maximum amount for the cheapest direct costs, let us try to take into account the other costs. Our purpose should not be just the one dimensional cost of food. We want the right amount of food, for the right quality for health and the right quality for the environment and employing enough people so as to maintain social stability in the rural areas.

If not, and we chase 2.1 billion people into the slums of the towns, we will create on a scale unheard of mass migration – what we saw in Rwanda with 2 million people will be nothing — so as to satisfy an economic doctrine. … We would be creating 2 billion refuges. We would be creating mass waves of migration which none of us could control. We would be destroying the towns which are already largely destroyed. Look at Mexico, Rio, look at our own towns.

And we are doing this for economic dogma?…What is this nonsense? Everything is based in our modern society on improving an economic index…The result is that we are destroying the stability of our societies, because we are worshiping the wrong god… Economic index.

The economy, like everything else, is a tool which should be submitted to, should be subject to, the true and fundamental requirements of society.

This is the establishment against the rest of society… I am for business, so long as it does not devour society…[but] we have a conflict of interest. Big business loves having access to an unlimited supply of give away labor.

In every developing nation, you have the same problem. You have a handful of people who control everything, the oligarchs. The poor in the rich countries are going to be subsidizing the rich in the poor countries.

You cannot enrich a country by destroying the health of its population. The health of a society cannot be measured by corporate profitability.

We have allowed the instruments that are supposed to serve us to become our masters.

Globalisation as it is presented is a very vague term, I often ask people 'globalisation of what'? It's not globalisation of democracy,basic human rights, health and safety, food and products standards, environmental standards, working hours, treaties on child labour, etc.. We in the developed nations are burdened with the costs of having a higher standard of living and then undercut by nations that don't have the same standards. It's globalisation of profits, at the expense of the people of the country.

Edited January 24, 2011 by enrieb

[shipbuilder]

Yep, I agree with the above, and that does't make me some lefty Communist just because I don't want to see society impoverished for the benefit of a very narrow economic class of people who hold power. The point we are making in the similar to the one that James Goldsmith made in 1994.

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=5064665078176641728&ei=pVl3SsLtJdqv-Ab_tvngAQ&hl=en#

goldsmith quote from the above interview

Globalisation as it is presented is a very vague term, I often ask people 'globalisation of what'? It's not globalisation of democracy,basic human rights, health and safety, food and products standards, environmental standards, working hours, treaties on child labour, etc.. We in the developed nations are burdened with the costs of having a higher standard of living and then undercut by nations that don't have the same standards. It's globalisation of profits, at the expense of the people of the country.

Goldsmith was spot on - E.F. Schumacher raised the very same concerns with his ideas of 'intermediate technology' (from Wikipedia)-

"Coined by E. F. Schumacher, the term intermediate technology is similar to appropriate technology. It refers specifically to tools and technology that are significantly more effective and expensive than traditional methods, but still an order of magnitude (one tenth) cheaper than developed world technology. Proponents argue that such items can be easily purchased and used by poor people, and according to proponents can lead to greater productivity while minimizing social dislocation. Much intermediate technology can also be built and serviced using locally available materials and knowledge. This intermediate technology is conducive to decentralization, compatible with the laws of ecology, gentle in its use of scarce resources, and designed to serve the human person instead of making him the servant of machines."

[Big Orange]

Germany is overall better at Britain at having a more balanced and sustainable economy, with real captains of industry who are less crazy and stupid than their Anglo-American counterparts, but they're no strangers taking on many Polish women as house cleaners (semi-illegally) and Turkish people in Germany are the equivalent to Britain's Pakistani/Banglidesh (hence Merkel's ill advised remark on multi-culturalism a few months back).

[stormymonday_2011]

It seems the immigration argument is coming down to externalities. I do not think that the pro's of hiring large numbers of workers from overseas, no matter how cheap and highly skilled they are, will outweigh the con's of leaving a equally large section of the domestic population without the opportunity to work and take a productive part of society.

As a business decision it makes economic sense because business owners don't have to put up with the social costs, but as a country theres simply no net benefit to depriving the population of the chance to earn, increase their work experience, skills and provide positive working role models for their children.

Government money that could be spent on infrastructure, education, healthcare, research etc.. is instead wasted subsidising the existence of an underclass, who become unemployable as they fall behind in experience, work skills and communication. Deprived families and communities become locked in cycles of depravation in which it is unlikely that any of the adults will ever find long term work. Then we have to pay for the social costs of dealing with people alienated by society as some turn to crime and anti social behaviour.

Very good points

It makes sense perfect businesses sense to seek cost advantage but the economic benefits will be lost if UK society completely fractures in the process

In fact it might be less dangerous if some of the jobs had simply been lost due to offshoring rather than shipping in labour because although the short term economic damage might have been greater dealing with the political consequences would probably have been easier in a more cohesive society. This will become particularly relevant if the UK economy takes another nose diive which will result in much of that recent immigrant workforce getting laid off alongside everyone else. At that point they become just another social cost on the UK (something that would not have occurred if the job had simply gone ofverseas)

Strangely, in the not too distant future I expect the UK to join Ireland as a net exporter of people something it has not been since the early 20th Century.

Edited January 25, 2011 by stormymonday_2011

[wonderpup]

it is a free market, and what i would say is that protectionism from another country doesnt necessarily put us at a disadvantage.

also the fact that the world is in different economic cycles and social costs etc isnt a disadvantage either.

social care is advantageous to the country. we have them becuase we either need it or want it. having low crime/corruption, a fire service that puts out fires, a healthcare that keeps people healthy, and an educated workforce, is good for the country.

and in terms of social costs, benefits etc.. this is simply a form of compulsory insurance. this too brings advantages to the country.

its like saying company X runs a bus service, however company Y runs his service without insurance, therefore his costs are lower, and so he can reduce his prices.

does company Y have an advantage? no. because you forget the point that the extra cost of insurance also serves a vital purpose that makes his business better.

we are a developed nation because we have health, education, police, etc.. not in spite of it.

if we want to wait for other countries to catch up with us before allowing for free trade then we will be waiting a long time because it will never happen.

there are always 2 sides to every position and protectionism from another country doesnt put another country in an disadvantageous position.

for instance is a weak currency good or bad for the UK?

is a weak yuan or us dollar good or bad for the UK?

you can easily make a case for either way.

OK- you and I both happen to run companies in direct competition in the same market place. But I happen to be well connected in government and as a result I get a special dispensation to pay my workers half the current minimum wage. This allows me to reduce my prices and drive you out business.

What is the advantage to you in this scenario?

Edited January 25, 2011 by wonderpup

[Charlie The Tramp Returns]

Would it be great if we could turn the clock back to the 1960s when we all had hope for the future.