Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
wonderpup

What is the economic case for Freedom of Movement?

Recommended Posts

I can't help noticing that even those who argue that Freedom of Movement in the EU is 'a price worth paying' for membership, never seem offer anything positive to say about FOM itself- which is a bit strange when you think about it- after all FOM is presented by the EU as a vital component of the European project- but no one even on the remain side seem to be able to say exacty why this is the case.

Certainly there is a case for allowing skilled and even unskilled labour to go where it is needed within the EU- but what is the case for this process to be completely uncontrolled in any way?

Where is the cogent argument that begins; 'The completely uncontrolled movement of labour from the EU is a positive thing because.......' ?

Ask yourself a question- is there any other area of policy  in which the state argues that a complete lack of control is the optimal way to proceed? For example- in the case of building homes- should there be a Freedom to Build rule that allows anyone who owns land anywhere in the UK to build a house on that land? After all, we desperately need homes in this country so why not complement Freedom of Movement with Freedom to Build- at least that way the people who move here would have a decent place to live in when they arrive- what's not to like?

But- of course- we all know that when it comes to building houses the state very much wants control- and the same applies to virtually every other aspect of our lives- right down to the control of where my dog can take a sh*t and how I clean that sh*t up.

So we have this weird anomaly- in a world where nearly everything we do is subject to some degree of State control there is this one domain in which the state argues no such control is required. So it matters where my dog decides to take a dump- but it does not matter how many people come to live and work in the UK?

WTF?????

How is this bizzare heirarchy of priorites to be explained? After all, the number of people in the UK who need housing, healthcare, schooling, jobs ect is hardly a trival matter, and much as I love my dog it's difficult to see why his toilet habits are subject to scrutiny while the numbers of people crossing our border from the rest of the EU is not the states concern.

I have only one explination to offer here- Which is to suggest that the only reason that the Elites of Europe are so apparantly happy to have uncontrolled movement of labour is because they see the value in maximising competition between EU citizens for jobs, in particular low skilled or semi skilled jobs. It is explict EU policy that wage suppression and reduction is a vital component of their strategic objective to improve the competitiveness of the EU by reducing labour costs, especially in the South but also more generally.

If the issue were skill shortages this could be dealt with in a controlled way via permits or other schemes that allow companies to import people with the skills they require. You don't need an open borders policy to deal with skill shortages.

What you do need an open borders policy for is to import large amounts of unskilled labour- because it's hard to make an argument that we lack unskilled people in the UK.

In summary- the reason that there seems to be no one willing to step up to the plate and defend the principal of uncontrolled labour migration to the UK from Europe is because the only reason to allow this to happen is to suppress the wages and living conditons of UK citizens- and this is an argument that no one- even the pro remain Liberal Democrats- is willing to make.

Quote

Can't seem to delete this quotebox

 

Edited by wonderpup

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Theres nothing wrong with FOM.

Theres is a lot wrong with tax credits and benefit arbitrage. If we were seeoing wage arbitrage, youd see singke adults living cheaoly. The fzct is you see family groups. Thsts benefit arbitrage. You dont take your family to an expensive living country.

Theres even more wrong with lifting a workforce whossle from a low cost country, and setting them up. See combined heat generators in Teesside, with a polish company, paying polish benefits and wages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, wonderpup said:

Where is the cogent argument that begins; 'The completely uncontrolled movement of labour from the EU is a positive thing because.......'

Not 'from' the EU - 'within' the EU.  The world doesn't revolve around the UK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, spyguy said:

Theres nothing wrong with FOM.

Theres is a lot wrong with tax credits and benefit arbitrage. If we were seeoing wage arbitrage, youd see singke adults living cheaoly. The fzct is you see family groups. Thsts benefit arbitrage. You dont take your family to an expensive living country.

Theres even more wrong with lifting a workforce whossle from a low cost country, and setting them up. See combined heat generators in Teesside, with a polish company, paying polish benefits and wages.

+1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, hotairmail said:

The Eurozone members know that the only valves they've left themselves with is deflationary depression and FOM.

Disgusting. Northern Europe wants a common currency....they should really pay the price thru fiscal transfers. The other solutions are inhumane. Hence the unsustainable ECB QE fudge. They shouldn't be printing money when there is no financial crisis and negative rates common place.

The problem with the EU is that its a bunch of half done grand projects, thought up by unaccountable EU bueraucrats.

If theyd done a slo, democraric process, trying to find common ground, than theyd not fckup so much.

The EU is more a vanity project.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, spyguy said:

The problem with the EU is that its a bunch of half done grand projects, thought up by unaccountable EU bueraucrats.

If theyd done a slo, democraric process, trying to find common ground, than theyd not fckup so much.

The EU is more a vanity project.

I don't agree with that.  None of the big developments in the EU have been imposed against the will of any national governments.  Which country joined the Euro against their will?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, thecrashingisles said:

I don't agree with that.  None of the big developments in the EU have been imposed against the will of any national governments.  Which country joined the Euro against their will?

The big EU have been political- free market, free trade/services in 92, and the common currency.

Trade and services are sort if incremental. A company/country can scale up its supply chain. Some do, some dont. Theres a lot more interEu trade than 20 years ago. Its a good thing, you wont find any/any objecting.

The currency is another thing. Its only half done, as Greece, spsin, portugal, italy are finding out. Its also been gamed to protect german banks and french gov spending.

No country joined ghe EU agsinst its will. Somd did not grasp what they were signing up for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, spyguy said:

The currency is another thing. Its only half done, as Greece, spsin, portugal, italy are finding out. Its also been gamed to protect german banks and french gov spending.

No country joined ghe EU agsinst its will. Somd did not grasp what they were signing up for.

The interesting thing is that even in countries which are demonstrably feeling some pain because of the Euro (and after effects of the debt crisis which is not directly related) you will find very strong support for staying in the Euro.  It's as if people like the idea that their governments are in a monetary straight jacket and can't reach for the methadone solution of currency devaluation when things are tough.  In the long run the people could well be right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, davidg said:

Cheap labour, locally.

Also, expensive labour, now.  If you're looking for someone with a very rare skill set, having a larger pool of people you can employ without bureaucracy helps enormously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, hotairmail said:

No. I think the separation is between those with money and those increasingly without. Rich people and anyone with a modicum of savings don't want to see their money devalued. That is why the 'elite', the politicians, civil servants etc. across Europe support it. 

Those with capital could protect themselves from losing wealth if the Euro were abandoned, and would benefit from the subsequent drop in labour costs.  I don't think it's accurate to say that they are the ones who are benefiting from the current situation.  The Euro is here to stay anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is explicit EU policy that wage suppression and reduction is a vital component of their strategic objective to improve the competitiveness of the EU by reducing labour costs,

 

---

“I see more trouble ahead,” Cameron said. “It is not working as it was intended. Some countries have seen decades of lost growth. Those countries have a single currency, but they don’t have a single fiscal system, a fiscal tax system. It creates bigger differences.

9th Dec 2016 https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/dec/09/david-cameron-brexit-vote-trump-movement-of-unhappiness-us-speech

A policy that has a finite lifespan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

What is the quickest way to go bust? Give everything away for free.

What is the fastest way to impoverish a wealthy population?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, phantominvestor said:

What is the quickest way to go bust? Give everything away for free.

What is the fastest way to impoverish a wealthy population?

Elect Gordon Brown?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At least in part the economic case is based around obfuscating the difference between the economy of the British isles (a geographic area) and the economy of the British electorate (a specific set of people). Growth in the former is absolutely irrelevant, but growth in the latter isn't even measured. 

Edited by BuyToLeech

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Money for the 1%

 

You are motivated and brainwashed to make as much money as possible for the 1%, in the name of productivity and progress.

You are made to think striving to work harder for a pittance is good for you when it is actually only good for the 1%.

FOM is a way to create competition in the labour market, competition is good you see, really it just reduces your wages. That and globalisation, but some bloke in India can't wipe your **** for you or drive a bus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, thecrashingisles said:

I don't agree with that.  None of the big developments in the EU have been imposed against the will of any national governments.  Which country joined the Euro against their will?

How many countries joined the Euro despite not meeting the EU's own rules for joining the Euro?

How is the Euro working out for those countries now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

our leaders are either morons or evil (or perhaps both) , they don't even stop for a moment to think where these 100,000s of newcomers arriving each year are expected to live...given the extreme restrictions on the supply of new housing you dont need to be a genius to understand this is very problematic except for those with surplus housing assets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, davidg said:

Cheap labour, locally.

It might be cheap for the employer, but not for the country.  Those low paid jobs have to be subsidised through tax credits.  It puts local people out of work, so they are dependent on benefits. It drives down the cost of labour for all, so moe become dependent on benefits. They require infrastructure such as school places, hospitals and doctors. Capital spend on buildings plus more employed in those services to meet demand.  Housing becomes scarce so the cost rises.  Roads get more use and have to be maintained more often. 

If the true cost was worked out... 

the reason is to dilute notions of states and communities and nationalism, so that we all become happy little worker drones with no way of standing up to the machine 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think pushing down wages is necessarily a bad thing. We all employ people every time we buy something, and so we all benefit from those people becoming cheaper. 

The issue is pushing up the costs of living (or reducing wages relative to the cost of living). 

Immigration pushes up the cost of living through competition for services that are in fixed supply. Housing is a major one, but there are others.  

On top of that are the hidden costs, congestion, queues and overcrowding, that are real and could be priced but typically aren't.

Finally, there is the increased taxation necessary to support immigrants who can't afford to support themselves, which isn't a necessary feature of immigration, but it is a feature of a great deal of immigration to the uk at the moment. 

These costs hit different people in different ways.  They may actually add to the GDP of the country, in the way that a crowded train is more profitable than an uncrossed train and more economically efficient, from a naive point of view.

However, they make the typical member of the current electorate poorer, in the same way that I don't want anyone else forcing their way into my packed carriage. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No.

That moron Browns tax credits have changed everything. There's no competition, or cost savings.

Its and out and out subsidy.

It would be bad enough if it wsa just UK residents. Its not, half of EE are here for them.

Look at the companies and business that have been formed over the last 10 years - hairdressers, nails bars, chain restaurants.

All pulling in massive tax credit subs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   54 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.