Every 2 Out Of 3 New Jobs Go To Emigrants

[ccc]

So judging by the posts that you have answered and the answers that you have given we all agree that off shoring and unlimited immigration is all going to end in the destrction of the British economy.It is going to lower most peoples standard of living including yours . Not a good thing and we will all be worse off for it .

It was all quite simple really once you thought about it wasn't it !!

No I dont think it will result in the destruction of the British economy. However I do think globalisation will probably lower standards of living. Simple balancing act. As the East want more the West get less !!

When have I ever said this is not the case ? I have been discussing other things and like other threads - you read me saying one thing and assume it means I am thinking something else.

So you still not able to agree that sometimes Polish will just be better at the job than a local bod ? And again - if not why not ?

[Papa Serf]

No I dont think it will result in the destruction of the British economy. However I do think globalisation will probably lower standards of living. Simple balancing act. As the East want more the West get less !!

When have I ever said this is not the case ? I have been discussing other things and like other threads - you read me saying one thing and assume it means I am thinking something else.

So you still not able to agree that sometimes Polish will just be better at the job than a local bod ? And again - if not why not ?

Come on, give the British chavs a chance.

[northwestsmith2]

It's only because the jobs Eu migrants are taking are low paid that there is no outcry. EU immigrants are 90% 18-34 with no dependents working low paid jobs.

This distortion that allows it to continue is because they only suffer acute hardship and illness so require very little from society while asking for minimum wage.

Middle classes face no competition from EU immigration hence it is not a problem to swamp a particular demographic of working class youth.

Edited January 24, 2011 by northwestsmith2

[ccc]

Come on, give the British chavs a chance.

Nah - I have a serious dislike of the classic UK Chav.

I am sure there are similar elsewhere - but the ones here are on a special level.

[ccc]

It's only because the jobs Eu migrants are taking are low paid that there is no outcry. EU immigrants are 90% 18-34 with no dependents working low paid jobs.

This distortion that allows it to continue because they only suffer acute hardship and illness so require very little from society while asking for minimum wage.

Middle classes face no competition from EU immigration hence it is not a problem so swamp a particular demographic of working class youth.

Really ? Maybe not in the same numbers - but it is not exactly non existant. Competition is everywhere.

[Papa Serf]

Nah - I have a serious dislike of the classic UK Chav.

I am sure there are similar elsewhere - but the ones here are on a special level.

True. But if we can employ better people from abroad we are denying a huge portion of nationals the chance to just muddle by. Instead they become unemployable and a burden. Almost like the make do and mend attitude that is so lacking these days.

If someone is a bit thick or untalented but keen and tries hard I would like to think there is a place for them to make there own way. Perhaps thats not a chav but you get my drift.

[miko]

This would be one of these occasions when the British workers are just not up to scratch. It does happen. And if the employer can get a 'foreigner' in who they feel will be better suited to the job ? Then just what do people expect them to do ?! They are gonna hire them of course.

Well something is clearly wrong there if the ones hired were above the age limit !!

I reckon most British employers would hire a 'local' above a 'foreigner' if they had the choice. Whether people admit it or not - the idea of 'looking after your own' is very deep rooted into people.

If they go for the non local it will be for a specific reason.

The specific reason being PC idiots in the council HR department , we all know how these opperate if you don't just listen to QT for a few weeks and you will start to understand.

" the idea of looking after your own is very deep rooted into people "

Well again you pinpointed the problem the govenment's past and present are not looking after their own . Hence the dislike of the immigration saturation , and the dislike for being pointed out as racist if and when the policy is ever questioned.

[northwestsmith2]

Really ? Maybe not in the same numbers - but it is not exactly non existant. Competition is everywhere.

There will always be people from the A8 in high skilled jobs but the majority of high skilled employment is non-EU

the very area that the UK is bringing in restrictions on numbers. Other methods of comaprison are the native born low skilled

employment versus immigrants in the same age groups, or the age a person left education to work out the level

they may have reached.

Either way even if the person has skills the vast majority 80% or more of A8 workers are in low skilled low paid

employment and leave education at 19, are aged 18-35 and those who do have qualifactions are not using

them in their work often through a lack of fluency in English. Such as a nurse working in agriculture or an

engineer as a waiter.

The millions migrating to the UK are a direct attack on the low paid low skilled and the very area we have no

method to limit. The high paid high skilled are directly limited due to being non-eu to protect themselves and

nobody else.

http://www.google.com/search?sclient=psy&hl=en&complete=0&prmdo=1&site=webhp&source=hp&q=Labour+Market+Outcomes+of+Immigrants+in+the+UK&btnG=Search

In terms of the characteristics of registered workers, the overwhelming

majority are aged between 18 and 34, with less than 18% aged 35 and over and only a

small proportion (just over 7%) bringing dependants with them.

According to the WRS, around a quarter of registrants are

described as process operatives. The remainder of the top 10 most common

occupations are also low skilled, although none of these occupations individually

accounts for more than 7% of registrants. This indicates that the occupational

distribution of recent A8 migrants is far more dispersed than the industrial

distribution. In addition to the relatively high percentage of registrants in other

occupations, a large proportion of registrants did not state their occupation.

Nevertheless, it appears that recent A8 migrants overwhelmingly work in low paid-

low skilled jobs.

[ccc]

True. But if we can employ better people from abroad we are denying a huge portion of nationals the chance to just muddle by. Instead they become unemployable and a burden. Almost like the make do and mend attitude that is so lacking these days.

If someone is a bit thick or untalented but keen and tries hard I would like to think there is a place for them to make there own way. Perhaps thats not a chav but you get my drift.

Yep. Not an easy one to answer. I know what you mean though. Do we want 'better' people from abroad or lets stop this and use what we haev instead ? One one hand I can see the benefits. On the other the opposite.

The specific reason being PC idiots in the council HR department , we all know how these opperate if you don't just listen to QT for a few weeks and you will start to understand.

" the idea of looking after your own is very deep rooted into people "

Well again you pinpointed the problem the govenment's past and present are not looking after their own . Hence the dislike of the immigration saturation , and the dislike for being pointed out as racist if and when the policy is ever questioned.

I agree about the PC nonsense today. The branding of 'racist' for saying anything against immigration is ridiculous.

Then again it does go 2 ways. You say your niece got an apprenticeship role out of 1200 applicants ? You do realise the very reason she got the job was possibly down to the same PC nonsense !!

[miko]

Yep. Not an easy one to answer. I know what you mean though. Do we want 'better' people from abroad or lets stop this and use what we haev instead ? One one hand I can see the benefits. On the other the opposite.

I agree about the PC nonsense today. The branding of 'racist' for saying anything against immigration is ridiculous.

Then again it does go 2 ways. You say your niece got an apprenticeship role out of 1200 applicants ? You do realise the very reason she got the job was possibly down to the same PC nonsense !!

They had to take 5 out of the 1200 who applied 2 did not fit the critera stated she was one of 3 who did . PC nonsense or not someone had to get the jobs.

By the way no reply form you on my statement answering yours about people looking after their own.

[ccc]

They had to take 5 out of the 1200 who applied 2 did not fit the critera stated she was one of 3 who did . PC nonsense or not someone had to get the jobs.

By the way no reply form you on my statement answering yours about people looking after their own.

Yes and sometimes these are 'non locals'.

And I did reply to your statement. However you have yet replied to the question I have asked you about 5 times.....

[mfp123]

what im curious about is the opinions people have on the side of the business.

these jobs arent just given out on a quota i.e youre foreign so ill give you a job. businesses are choosing this labour and it must be for a reason.

there must be a significant advantage to the business for choosing foreign labour if immigrants are winning out.

you may say well cost is a factor, but is this not advantageous to a business to have low costs? a more profitable company or a business with lower costs allows it to expand.

this is high competition, and unfortuantely if you say well with immigrants we are getting a better standard of worker because theyve travelled 1000's of miles to get work, of course theyre going to work harder, or are more prepared to put up with tougher conditions, so its unfair - well thats the reality.

if someone is prepared to work harder for less money, why do you have an entitlement to a job based on your own expectations?

if businesses deem a uk applicant to not be quite as good as a foreigner should they be forced to go for what they deem as a poorer candidate?

because there is a reason they are choosing these foreign workers. so rather than just thinking we can cut foreign workers out of the loop so they HAVE to choose British, surely that needs to be addressed.

why is it ok to buy a mercedes benz made in germany but you dont require people to buy a rover because theyre british? is making people buy a Rover car good for the country even if its a poorer car?

Edited January 24, 2011 by mfp123

[Guest eight]

because there is a reason they are choosing these foreign workers. so rather than just thinking we can cut foreign workers out of the loop so they HAVE to choose British, surely that needs to be addressed.

I think after 13 years of newLab brainwashing we have just got into a collective mindset in this country of "Foreign is Good". Rationality doesn't come into it any more.

eight

[ccc]

what im curious about is the opinions people have on the side of the business.

these jobs arent just given out on a quota i.e youre foreign so ill give you a job. businesses are choosing this labour and it must be for a reason.

there must be a significant advantage to the business for choosing foreign labour if immigrants are winning out.

you may say well cost is a factor, but is this not advantageous to a business to have low costs? a more profitable company or a business with lower costs allows it to expand.

this is high competition, and unfortuantely if you say well with immigrants we are getting a better standard of worker because theyve travelled 1000's of miles to get work, of course theyre going to work harder, or are more prepared to put up with tougher conditions, so its unfair - well thats the reality.

if someone is prepared to work harder for less money, why do you have an entitlement to a job based on your own expectations?

if businesses deem a uk applicant to not be quite as good as a foreigner should they be forced to go for what they deem as a poorer candidate?

because there is a reason they are choosing these foreign workers. so rather than just thinking we can cut foreign workers out of the loop so they HAVE to choose British, surely that needs to be addressed.

why is it ok to buy a mercedes benz made in germany but you dont require people to buy a rover because theyre british? is making people buy a Rover car good for the country even if its a poorer car?

Please stop trying to look at things from more than one point of view. Unacceptable.

[Blod]

If the cuts in the state work force mean that 600,000 new jobs are needed to re-employ these ex-state workers then am I right in thinking that we actually need 1.8 million new public sector jobs, assuming that only one in three new positions is filled by an indigenous worker?

This is just not possible is it.

[mfp123]

when you become the decision maker or the one with the power, spending your money i wonder how people see things and do things themselves.

if you see 2 plain white t-shirts in a shop, one says made in china and is priced at £2 and one says made in britain and is priced at £10, which one would you buy?

now multiply this by all your shopping at every store. do you specifically search for British made goods and deliberately pay more for it?

why buy a Dell made computer when a TIME computer costing 20% more could be bought that was made in the UK.

why buy a Honda car when you can buy an MG Rover.

should supermarkets stop importing foreign foods and we should only eat British home grown foods, even if it costs us 50% more?

Edited January 24, 2011 by mfp123

[Kurt Barlow]

its not just my opinion, it the opinion of 10,000's of employers out there, these are the results, these are the figures.

this isnt "i prefer poles" this is the reasoning as to why theyre getting these jobs.

But there is much spectrum bias in regard to Polish migrants. The ones who come here are always going to be the more dyanimc get off your ass types. The lazy slobs will still be back in Warsaw living off benefits.

I work in the Middle East and can say without a doubt that the British in the top ranks of those with a work ethic (much higher than the yanks we work alongside) - but then we are all from skilled blue or white collar backgrounds

[enrieb]

If a firm wants to hire non uk residents and people on temporary visas, because hiring uk workers costs more and uk 'chavs' don't perform as well then I agree that they should have the opportunity to hire immigrants, however I feel the they should also bear the burnt of the social cost of keeping large sections of the domestic population on a life of unemployment benefits.

An employment tax on firms and agencies hiring non uk workers could be used to fund unemployment, retraining courses and university courses for the people over here who do not have the skills to compete against workers from overseas.

[alexw]

what im curious about is the opinions people have on the side of the business.

these jobs arent just given out on a quota i.e youre foreign so ill give you a job. businesses are choosing this labour and it must be for a reason.

there must be a significant advantage to the business for choosing foreign labour if immigrants are winning out.

you may say well cost is a factor, but is this not advantageous to a business to have low costs? a more profitable company or a business with lower costs allows it to expand.

this is high competition, and unfortuantely if you say well with immigrants we are getting a better standard of worker because theyve travelled 1000's of miles to get work, of course theyre going to work harder, or are more prepared to put up with tougher conditions, so its unfair - well thats the reality.

if someone is prepared to work harder for less money, why do you have an entitlement to a job based on your own expectations?

if businesses deem a uk applicant to not be quite as good as a foreigner should they be forced to go for what they deem as a poorer candidate?

because there is a reason they are choosing these foreign workers. so rather than just thinking we can cut foreign workers out of the loop so they HAVE to choose British, surely that needs to be addressed.

why is it ok to buy a mercedes benz made in germany but you dont require people to buy a rover because theyre british? is making people buy a Rover car good for the country even if its a poorer car?

Your confusing two completely different things capital/labour vs goods. The whole point of the economic systems we use is to provide the goods and services we need in a way that results in an increase in our standards of living. By limiting capital/labour movement you force each country to compete via productivity improvements. Once these are movable anywhere around the globe that goes out the window.

Instead competition becomes based on who has the cheapest labour, what is known as the race to the bottom. Thus for example the bangladeshi garment workers cannot increase what walmart or tesco to increase payments for their garments. Instead these companies have said do that and we will relocate somewhere else, there are plenty of other third world countries to go to.

When we import massive amounts of workers into the UK we see exactly the same thing. If you wont work for this, well there are plenty of others who will. It becomes a race to the bottom and impoverishes the workforce while enriching the holders of capital - exactly what we have seen in the uk, with increasingly divergent incomes/wealth - losses by the many for the enrichment of the few.

And if the economy is not there to enrich the many then what is it there for?

[mfp123]

Your confusing two completely different things capital/labour vs goods. The whole point of the economic systems we use is to provide the goods and services we need in a way that results in an increase in our standards of living. By limiting capital/labour movement you force each country to compete via productivity improvements. Once these are movable anywhere around the globe that goes out the window.

Instead competition becomes based on who has the cheapest labour, what is known as the race to the bottom. Thus for example the bangladeshi garment workers cannot increase what walmart or tesco to increase payments for their garments. Instead these companies have said do that and we will relocate somewhere else, there are plenty of other third world countries to go to.

When we import massive amounts of workers into the UK we see exactly the same thing. If you wont work for this, well there are plenty of others who will. It becomes a race to the bottom and impoverishes the workforce while enriching the holders of capital - exactly what we have seen in the uk, with increasingly divergent incomes/wealth - losses by the many for the enrichment of the few.

And if the economy is not there to enrich the many then what is it there for?

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.

Edited January 24, 2011 by mfp123

[miko]

Yes and sometimes these are 'non locals'.

And I did reply to your statement. However you have yet replied to the question I have asked you about 5 times.....

No you did not

Your 5 x question what was that are the Polish better than the Brits ? answer NO .

Is that ok for you , understand , quite simple really if you think about it .

Edited January 24, 2011 by miko

[wonderpup]

Isn't the truth really that we are all in favour of cheap labour and the cheap prices it brings untill it's our own job that suddenly finds itself on the wrong end of the arbitrage game.

I'm sure not so long ago many of those working in IT would have been enthusisastic advocates of the darwinian 'survival of the cheapest' theory of employment-

Now some of the same people can be found demanding that the government intervene to prevent internal transfers of cheap indian workers to do their well paid jobs on the cheap.

To paraphrase; When other people lose out to cheaper foreign workers that's 'the free market'- when you personally stand to lose out in the same way, that's 'a threat to a valuable UK industry'.

Where you stand on this issue depends how confident you feel that your particular party trick will not be easily learned by an overseas person who might be willing to do it for a lot less than you do.

But anyone who feels immune to this threat is likely to be deceiving themselves.

[miko]

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.

Decreasing wages for everyone has a very bad affect on the economy , at present not everyone has had their wages decreased however many average and low paid people have ( see posts 155/156 on this thread ) .

In many cases the tax payer has had to pick the bill up via increased benefits( both in work and out of work benefits) . That has led to higher tax's for most and reduced spending power for those tax payers . Not good for the economy.

[wonderpup]

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

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.

[ccc]

No you did not

Your 5 x question what was that are the Polish better than the Brits ? answer NO .

Is that ok for you , understand , quite simple really if you think about it .

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 !!

Isn't the truth really that we are all in favour of cheap labour and the cheap prices it brings untill it's our own job that suddenly finds itself on the wrong end of the arbitrage game.

I'm sure not so long ago many of those working in IT would have been enthusisastic advocates of the darwinian 'survival of the cheapest' theory of employment-

Now some of the same people can be found demanding that the government intervene to prevent internal transfers of cheap indian workers to do their well paid jobs on the cheap.

To paraphrase; When other people lose out to cheaper foreign workers that's 'the free market'- when you personally stand to lose out in the same way, that's 'a threat to a valuable UK industry'.

Where you stand on this issue depends how confident you feel that your particular party trick will not be easily learned by an overseas person who might be willing to do it for a lot less than you do.

But anyone who feels immune to this threat is likely to be deceiving themselves.

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