You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
The breakeven salary is £38k pa and that's for a single person.
Figures? Citation?
Be fair, it might be me that's wrong. The most recent number I had was from the Telegraph in 2014 - and the Telegraph is occasionally inaccurate.
And is the pay that person receives enough to require no benefit payments to themselves and any family they might bring with them ?
My wife earns £9 an hour. So no, she is not a net beneficiary. She works as a Teaching Assistant, so is doing a pretty valuable job. She also has a masters in pedagogy, so is better qualified than almost all other TAs. I think she's an asset to our society, you are free to disagree.
The alleged breakeven only makes sense if you think paying tax is the only way a worker contributes to the country and the economy, which is too absurd to really reason with.
As a lot of you know, I work in the prison service. A large majority of prisoners will never ever lead useful or productive lives (apart from being allowed to breed & produce more of the same & creating more of a burden on society) while in the meantime we can take in immigrants who can help our society & integrate with our values & contribute to the economy.
However..It's not a case of letting everyone in is it.
kimbers - Memberwe are all immigrants
weve been doing it ever since we became human
its in our genes
some people have trouble accepting that populations and culture are dynamic, not static
Yes, we are all immigrants if you want to go that far.
We are all dynamic as we have evolved to compete with each others.
The moment we have brain activities we compete. Now competition has become the blueprint of our genes.
We compete for limited resources and we refuse to share because we see sharing as a form of competition for limited resources.
We may be human but that is the only similarity we have. i.e. intelligent being walking on two feet.
All the troubles/conflicts etc you see in the world now - competition.
Very ugly nasty competition. i.e. the ones that dominate the resources (whatever that is) refuse to share and those without the resources want them yesterday.
We compete for limited resources and we refuse to share because we see sharing as a form of competition for limited resources.
Speak for yourself.
You do not compete for resources in order to live?RichPenny - Member
We compete for limited resources and we refuse to share because we see sharing as a form of competition for limited resources.
Speak for yourself.
Majority and if not all of our lives are based on competition.
Therefore, enlighten me that you do not compete for resources.
.The breakeven salary is £38k pa and that's for a single person
It's for household take home and not [b]single[/b] income.
It's an awful article that messes around with the concept of average NHS usage and things like that (which comes later in life when you've paid all your Taxes before hand.)
It also doesn't take into the account the benefit to Landlords/Agency's/Employees of paying low wages to give them their big net benefit.
It's a crooked mean way of interpreting facts.
If you want to correct it then these so called few that pay all the tax could pay better wages and thus more tax can be collected from the bottom? But you can't have it both ways.
Torygraph.The point at which a [b]household[/b] switches from being an overall “taker” to a “giver” is where disposable income, after all taxes and benefits are taken into account, passes a threshold of about £27,000, Smith & Williamson found. This would be where a household’s gross income fell somewhere between £35,000 and £38,000
Also what's the point of a snapshot in time? People's contributions change at different times of their life.
I had been hoping Jamba would enlighten me as to where he got his values.
Whether it is a mean way to do things - well I can certainly see that particularly with respect to working benefits and minimum wage and the like. I object to subsiding Tescos profit.
I had been hoping Jamba would enlighten me as to where he got his values.
It's a made up number (jambafact) designed to bolster his racist / anti-immigrant view.
You do not compete for resources in order to live?
Majority and if not all of our lives are based on competition.Therefore, enlighten me that you do not compete for resources.
I do not refuse to share. Didn't you learn that as a child?
RichPenny - Member
I do not refuse to share. Didn't you learn that as a child?
I did not ask you about sharing.
We were all taught to share but we evolved, again, to compete.
Once we are fully evolved (assume we have) into adulthood our instinct to compete become even more intense.
You might take your eyes off competition in order to share momentarily but that does not exclude from continuing your competition later on.
You have a job haven't you? Why not try saying to your boss you share or donate all the extra to your colleague(s) who wants them. i.e. once you have breakeven you give the rest away.
Once we are fully evolved (assume we have) into adulthood our instinct to compete become even more intense.
What is the source of this info? It seems more an observation on your part rarther than factual.
I think that as people get older, they get more mellow and less competitive.
We evolved to share and cooperate within our own group, but compete with other groups. This is well known and has been studied.
The question is one of where we draw the lines for our group. As we've become more enlightened as a species we've tried to reduce the people we exclude. However we just voted to increase the numbers of excluded people. This seems like de-enlightenement.
It is all over us but we just refuse to see it because we refuse to be labeled as competitive (various level)captainsasquatch - Member
What is the source of this info? It seems more an observation on your part rarther than factual.
Not necessary the case. They may be old or getting older but if the mind is still strong they might compete. It all depends on circumstances of old age.I think that as people get older, they get more mellow and less competitive.
We have been taught to compete the moment we know how to walk.
All the educations that you receive to make you a "better" person is a form of competition. Yes, "better" but better than who? Why do you want to be better off than someone else if there is no concept of competition?
molgrips - Member
We evolved to share and cooperate within our own group, but compete with other groups. This is well known and has been studied.
I kind of agree but siblings do compete as well with each other just that the intensity might be different but I have seen nasty ones as well.
The question is one of where we draw the lines for our group. As we've become more enlightened as a species we've tried to reduce the people we exclude. However we just voted to increase the numbers of excluded people. This seems like de-enlightenement.
Remember limited resources.
The more you include the less to go around coz now you have to share more. (sharing cannot remain constant because some naturally want more)
The less to go around the "de-enlightenment" begins ... again.
Competition begins but this time much more intense because you now have to compete with even more inclusive.
Your group will then decide to take from other group to share (force other to share) among your own in group.
Other group(s) then retaliate.
You draw the line by either not getting involve to enlighten yourselves by letting others (out group) to fight for resources amongst themselves (they need to learn to enlighten their own in group), or by maintaining the size of your in group.
I did not ask you about sharing.
We compete for limited resources and we refuse to [b]share[/b] because we see [b]sharing[/b] as a form of competition for limited resources.
See the and in your sentence?
You have a job haven't you? Why not try saying to your boss you share or donate all the extra to your colleague(s) who wants them. i.e. once you have breakeven you give the rest away.
Correct, in the past I have argued for people in my team to be better paid at my own expense. Thanks for making my point 🙂
RichPenny - Member
See the and in your sentence?
I was referring to competition. (see previous response)chewkw - Member
Therefore, enlighten me that you do not compete for resources.
RichPenny - Member
Correct, in the past[b] [u]I have argued[/u][/b] for people in my team to be better paid at my own expense. Thanks for making my point
I have argued the same too for my team (pt workers) at the expense of the company. Normal thing to do is it not? Nothing special or to shout about. Sometimes we won, sometimes not.
So you have argued at your company's expense to get better paid for your team? your own expense or the company's expense? (other people money don't count coz we all do that) i.e. try truly at your own expense by asking the company to shift your earning to others? Why not give your earning away instead i.e. cash after taxed.
A negative way of viewing your action is just "buying/bribing" team moral in public. Very common. A positive way of viewing is that you [u]try[/u] to help others.
Even I can do better than that. As a PT worker I gave my entire set of working hours (my earning) to my older PT colleague (a true communist) when he was short of money. I gave those hours to him for more than 10 years where eventually he lose them all to others. I never got them back but just let it go.
I had been hoping Jamba would enlighten me as to where he got his values.
Do you mean the figures he quotes, or his moral values? In either case, I would not care to speculate.
As a PT worker I gave my entire set of working hours (my earning) to my older PT colleague (a true communist) when he was short of money. I gave those hours to him for more than 10 years where eventually he lose them all to others. I never got them back but just let it go.
See? People do share when it's not in their own selfish interest. Even you 🙂 Thanks for making my point again.
esselgruntfuttock - Member
As a lot of you know, I work in the prison service. A large majority of prisoners will never ever lead useful or productive lives (apart from being allowed to breed & produce more of the same & creating more of a burden on society)
A burden on society? £48000 per year to keep each one of 'em in there floating about the economy, each one of them employing people like you, and each one of them keeping corrupt middle class solicitors in the latest Porsche.
And where's your evidence that the kids end up the same? Each one of those kids will become a tax payer in due course, the unfortunate ones will prop up a corrupt justice system and keep many layers of parasites in work
Not really. I ain't sharing with someone I don't know unlike you lot trying to save the world that is the difference.RichPenny - Member
See? People do share when it's not in their own selfish interest. Even you Thanks for making my point again.
Maybe the problem is really over population .maybe benefits should be dependant on not breading.
maybe benefits should be dependant on not breading.
Would that mean the end of the Great British Bake Off?
Angela Leadsome saying that fruit picking jobs should be given to local British young people instead of immigrants.
Is this wise? If those young people weren't picking fruit, would they be on the dole or in college learning a trade?
It's not hard to imagine such low skilled jobs being a trap for local people, whereas for imported seasonal workers from countries with lower costs of living it could be a benefit. As a migrant, you could be a student or similar earning some useful cash in a few summers abroad; that's different to a local who has no option but to do it every year.
Just a discussion point - I'm not saying that actually happens, I don't know. But do such jobs trap people? If you work in an office or call centre, or in a trade, there are opportunities for development.
Angela Leadsome saying that fruit picking jobs should be given to local British young people instead of immigrants.
most of the fruit would stay un-picked!
Unless they started paying more for it - in which case it'd go up in price in the supermarket and stay un-bought!
It's incredibly hard to make money from incidentally (unless they've stopped paying piecemeal for it). On your first day you make £10 because you're not quick enough. So anyone with a choice gives up and finds something else. You either need to be forced to do it by a gangmaster, or presumably a kid who can improve before they need the money to live on.
most of the fruit would stay un-picked!
Indeed - they are filling a gap between supply and demand for labour.
There was a program on a while ago similar to your suggestion. A lad from Romania i think was picking asparagus. He got paid by KG picked, his average daily rate was about £150, not bad at all. They got a british lad on the dole to do the same job, he couldn't be arsed. The farmer said he'd love to employ more British workers but they're not interested!
@molgrips I used to do farm work in summer holidays when I was at Uni. Working in glass houses picking tomatoes or strawberries and wild oating for example (manually removing rouge plants from crops before harvesting). It was pretty hard work and another poster here famiiar with it said he'd rather claim benefits than do that work. There is the dilemma. IMO such work teaches people a life lesson. I see no reason if an EU citizen will travel large distances for such work an unemployed Brit shouldn't do the same. This is a side issue re broader immigration but a real one imo.
The farmer said he'd love to employ more British workers but they're not interested!
They'd be more motivated if the alternative was living on the streets or relying on charity and foodbanks
True. But £150 a day is not to be sniffed at.
IMO such work teaches people a life lesson.
I did it too, and it taught me how shit some jobs can be!
I see no reason if an EU citizen will travel large distances for such work an unemployed Brit shouldn't do the same.
Well there are some reasons outlined in my post. Can you address them? Do you not think that such dead-end work could be seen as a trap? The migrant need only do them for a summer or two then can go somewhere else and do something else - [i]because[/i] they are a migrant.
A lad from Romania i think was picking asparagus. He got paid by KG picked, his average daily rate was about £150, not bad at all.
It's not the norm - or at least it wasn't 20 years ago. The well practised ones could make a normal daily rate, £30 or so - the newbies made about a fiver.
They'd be more motivated if the alternative was living on the streets or relying on charity and foodbanks
I love your happy vision of society, Jam. Destitution and homelessness or a lifetime of grim work.
I used to do fruit pick (strawberries, soft fruits) as a holiday/weekend job at school (<16), while still living at home and going to school. It would never have paid enough to live on but was plenty for pocket money. May be the employee market they are aiming for is different?
Or it could be: parents don't want their kids working these jobs (if any), or the kids get provided with enough by their parents.
It's interesting that the demographic at the places I worked at is different to that mentioned above. I.e. mostly school kids rather than FTE as a means to live on.
Plenty of jobs to go round if you really want one - you can't blame immigration. I got made redundant once and did anything, yes anything to get by - from stacking boxes in a warehouse to washing up in hotels. If there's a shortage of jobs in your area then just move to somewhere where there is work (just like the immigrants do) - it's not rocket science!
About 2 years ago DWP arranged training courses for unemployed people to learn how to pick fruit, they were guaranteed a job at the end of the 2 week course. Sounds a bit daft I know as what's so difficult about picking strawberries that you need to be trained? but the courses covered the high standards required by fruit pickers to meet the supermarkets expectations, the inevitable H&S, how the farms operate and what the opportunities were, what the accommodation being offered was. The earnings of many of the experienced pickers was surprisingly high, but should a new picker not pick sufficient fruit their pay was bolstered by the grower to ensure it met minimum wages. However this was only done for a short period after which, if their picking didn't improve, the picker was 'let go'. For those who made the grade there was work guaranteed for most of the year as the soft fruit these days grows under polytunnels where it can grow almost all year round. There was also basic accommodation available in the form of old static caravans. What was the outcome? Only a very small percentage of the successful trainees took up the offer of work, and of those only a few remained after a few weeks. The growers were not surprised! If the migrant labour disappears then the fruit market in this country will collapse!
My wife's an immigrant, my mum's family are racists. But she's OK because she's white and a native English speaker, which means they can mouth off to her about how immigrants coming over here either to work harder than the natives in jobs the natives refuse to do or because their country has been decimated by wars that are sort of our fault and the could do with a helping hand and a bit of kindness are the worst thing to happen to this country.
Most immigrants have to work damn hard to get over here, and have a vast amount more get up and go than English people. We employed a chap who walked here from Syria. Funnily enough he gave much more of a shit about the job than anyone else. The downside was he was so motivated he got poached by another firm.
If we want productivity to decrease we could start employing British people, but I suspect Jamby/ninfan/dragon/thm (whichever selection of the four is arguing for total destruction of human decency today, I've got them all switched off) wouldn't want that in their hyper-capitalist utopia either.
And this is all before we get into the stats of the thing. Immigrants from the EU bring a vast net benefit to the UK economy, and the "deficit" that right wing nut jobs care so much about will be eradicated much more quickly with more EU migration. Non-EU migration has no net gain, but that's because there's so many refugees who've lost absolutely everything and need a bit of charity.
The UK benefits from a net fiscal gain from migration of 0.46% of GDP. There are only a handful of countries in the EU that lose out from migration, notably Germany and France. Poland also loses out.
The difference between benefits and services claimed by immigrants and contributions from tax is, from reasonable sources, generally between +/-1% of GDP, and the majority of studies from unbiased sources show that there is a net gain from taxation from immigrants.
The Office of Budget Responsibility even predicts that more immigrants will, in the long term, reduce the national public debt. If there were to be zero net migration they say the public debt would be around £145bn by 2062, as opposed to £75bn with high net migration. This is based on the assumption of most immigrants being of working age.
All of this information is taken from various places on the Migration Observatory website.
http://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/briefings/fiscal-impact-immigration-uk
If you want to narrow this down specifically to the EEA then these immigrants pay 34% more in taxes than they receive in benefits and services.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/nov/05/migration-target-useless-experts
Aside from the possible criminal database issue, which I would suspect effects probably half of naff all of the incoming population, I don't see how anyone that does some actual research can object to free movement in the EU.
Everyone in the EU's taxes pays for the EU as a whole at some point, so there's no reason to say "you've not paid for your share so you can't come in to the UK".
For a bit of perspective my wife has lived in the UK for over 7 years and has no entitlement to vote, has contributed around £85000 to the UK public sector and has no entitlement to benefits. And I have to prove I earn a minimum of £18500 to "support" her in order for her to get a visa at a cost of £1000-£3500 every 2.5 years. And she now has to pay £500 to use the NHS, even though she's paid tax.
[img] 
[/img]
If there's a shortage of jobs in your area then just move to somewhere where there is work (just like the immigrants do) - it's not rocket science!
To be fair, it's hard to move when you've got no money.
Everything I read about immigration into Britain suggests that it is such a tiny problem compared to other elephants in the room (pensions, health spending). I get that it is a problem for some areas, but these aren't distributed evenly nationwide, so why don't those most impacted by them have more local/regional solutions? I'm thinking along the lines of more resources funnelled to these places to pay for additional school places, healthcare and the like.
It just seems that a relatively small national problem (but a big local one) has suddenly got all out of hand compared to everything else.
Munrobiker - Please say thanks to your missus (I don't understand why she's being penalised so much), and I'm glad you aren't echoing your mum's families views.
Everything I read about immigration into Britain suggests that it is such a tiny problem compared to other elephants in the room (pensions, health spending).
Exactly. But people have blamed immigrants because they can see immigrants. And these are the people the government asked if they should leave the EU or not.
****ing hell.
I noticed during [url= http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-conference-speech-article-50-brexit-eu-a7341926.html ]Theresa May's speech[/url] she said that [i]"Employment is at a record high, and wages are on the up."[/i].
How is that happening if immigrants are taking all our jobs and driving down wages?
To be fair, it's hard to move when you've got no money.
Yup cause all the polish coming over here to work clearly have lots of money right? 🙄
Nope I get what you're saying - far easier to stay put and claim benefits eh?
There not - it was a lie
If there's a shortage of jobs in your area then just move to somewhere where there is work (just like the immigrants do)
I think I've been made redundant about six times in my adult life (20 years give or take). Each time I have moved to find a job, it is easy... ...unless you have a family that is settled. Not so easy moving schools for kids or if your partner has a job, or if you have a support network. Although I do understand that a lot of migrants are in a similar position is it the way we would want society to function? That is, an almost nomadic way of life for the economically viable?
Not sure, but worth considering I think.
is it the way we would want society to function? That is, an almost nomadic way of life
Has worked for me - I've had to move jobs to 4 different locations in the UK (north and south) as well as one abroad to get ahead in my chosen field. Think it's broadened my mind if anything.
Sometimes see many of the people I used to go to school with, still working and living in the same old town they grew up in. Their idea of a good time is to get completely sh*t faced for most of the weekend and their only exposure to being abroad seems to be via endless package holiday hotels. A lot of them voted 'leave' I think.
Has worked for me
So we should all share your values and do as you do?
I've moved a lot too for work, but I can appreciate why people wouldn't want to. People (single or double parents) who depend on their own parents for childcare, for example.
Although I do understand that a lot of migrants are in a similar position
Ah but - the EU migrants (not the refugees) have CHOSEN to do this. So they are the ones who a) want to do it, so it's no stress and b) don't need or have any support network.
Big difference between wanting to move for work and being forced to.
Has worked for me
Has for me too, in the past. Now, I think I'd struggle, as would my family.
Unfortunately, one size does not fit all.
Yeah. Looks like its heading in the direction all these threads head in.
Anyone who wants to restrict immigration is shouted down as a racist.
Bickering about the financial economics.
What about the simple concept of too many people?
Too many people in a place?
Irrespective of their ethnicity, language, whatever.
Questioning if there may be too many people in a place, isn't racism. It's pragmatism.
What shall we do, concrete over the entire UK?
Increased population is an issue most likely unsolved until Women gain true equality in education and employment.
Then population will come under control and questions of whether there are too many people in a place should cease.
So we should all share your values and do as you do?
Nope not at all, just that if you prioritise staying in one location over finding work then you should also accept that you'll probably not advance so far in your chosen career path. Can't blame immigration for that!
Anyone who wants to restrict immigration is shouted down as a racist.
Well let's have the adult discussion instead of eye-rolling.
How about answering my OP? Is immigration just bad because of population increase?
Solo - But is there too many people in one place? I'm not convinced this is true. Happy to hear the arguments/information though.
Only 10-15% of the UK is developed, there's still an awful lot of space, just needs to be used efficiently. Also brownfield/vacant sites could be utilised.
Increased population shouldn't be an issue, it's how to manage it that should be the issue considering we have the resources to do so.
Globally, you're spot on about Feminism though.
[i] Peyote - Member
But is there too many people in one place? [/i]
The two houses opposite mine have had their sitting rooms converted into a fourth, self contained room. Two houses contain at least 8 people from the EU.
They pay high rents for a single room.
I don't see that as good progress but the price those people are paying for a different chance and to boost the economy.
But are these the living conditions that should typify living in 21C UK.
I've worked with grads who still live in shared houses, after Uni and getting a good job.
Solo - I see the problems you do too. However, I was thinking from a national scale, rather than a very localised one like you've explained. Nationally, there are empty properties, there are land banks waiting to be built on etc. We have a housing crisis that needs sorting, we don't have a massive shortage of space per se.
I've worked with grads who still live in shared houses, after Uni and getting a good job.
And what's wrong with that? I rented rooms in shared houses for the first few years after Uni, allowed me the flexibility to travel with work, to meet other people in each of those new locations (an instant group of friends) and far more cost effective than renting a whole flat/house.
Increased population is an issue most likely unsolved until Women gain true equality in education and employment.
Then population will come under control and questions of whether there are too many people in a place should cease.
Could you explain what you mean, please?
When girls do as well as boys at school, they'll stop getting pregnant? Or they'll realise that being a parent is rubbish?
When women are more secure in their jobs, with better support in every respect, they'll disregard their desire to have babies?
Makes it sound like you think women only have babies because they're unenlightened and having a tough time at work.
And what about men? Do they have a say?
Edit: I assumed you're talking about over-population in the UK.
But is there too many people in one place?
In 1955 the World Population was 2,758,314,525
And the UK was the 9th most populous country in the world with 51,113,711 citizens (about 1.85% of the world total).
Now 60 odd years later the World Population is about 7,432,663,275 (!!)
And the UK is now the 21st most populous country in the world with 65,111,143 citizens (about 0.88% of the world total).
Source: http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/uk-population/
I agree there are too many people on the planet - but the UK isn't seeing anywhere near the pace of change that other countries are.
Peyote - MemberOnly 10-15% of the UK is developed, there's still an awful lot of space, just needs to be used efficiently. Also brownfield/vacant sites could be utilised.
Increased population shouldn't be an issue, it's how to manage it that should be the issue considering we have the resources to do so.
'land' is only one of the resources required to accommodate a growing population.
(for every 10% increase in population, you need an additional 10% power supply, water supply, water processing, food, transport, refuse, NHS, education, policing, etc. and that's without considering the very useful benefits to society provided by wild open spaces... I'd argue that a growing population needs a proportional increase in the amount of accessible open space)
we can't just keep on building until the 'percentage-developed' value hits 100.
(or maybe we can/will, but expect quality-of-life assessments to fall fast and hard)
bear in mind that we don't need thousands of houses, we need millions. And that's millions of proper houses, not millions of crappy 1bed studio flats for 'potential investors'.
Edit: I assumed you're talking about over-population in the UK.
I assumed otherwise!
I think it's based around the thinking that education/opportunities for women generally sees a levelling off of population growth. Compare developing and developed countries population ststs and it kind of makes sense.
The reasons for this are many and varied (and not necessarily proven), but amount to things like:
Women are free to pursue careers rather than kept at home as childbearers/rearers. Their life choices are not as limited, and their reproductive rights are far more secure (they have access to and use of contraception, abortion etc.). There rights are equal to mens so things like conjugal rights, marital rape etc. are decreased significantly (though not enough unfortunately). Their place in society is significantly improved giving them security outside of their male partners/relatives.
That's about the limit of my understanding anyway.
'land' is only one of the resources required to accommodate a growing population. <snip>
Oh yes, I quite agree. There's also a strong argument for a more efficient use of existing resources too. We're pretty wasteful as a nation in terms of energy, water etc.
we can't just keep on building until the 'percentage-developed' value hits 100.(or maybe we can/will, but expect quality-of-life assessments to fall fast and hard)
I don't think the numbers of immigrants we're talking about require the paving over of the entire nation. a few hundred thousand on top of the existing 6/7 million is a relatively small percentage increase.
bear in mind that we don't need thousands of houses, we need millions. And that's millions of proper houses, not millions of crappy 1bed studio flats for 'potential investors'.
Again, you won't get any argument from me there. However, more efficient use of what we've got in addition to further sustainable (apologies for the use of that word) development isn't going to destroy the entire GB/UK.
i agree, but raising those questions does tend to get me lumped in with the swivel-eyed-racists...
i agree, but raising those questions does tend to get me lumped in with the swivel-eyed-racists...
Collateral damage?
Who knows, if it's any consolation I've grown quite fond of being a "tree hugging, yogurt knitting hippy" and a "hand wringing lefty commie liberal"! 🙂
Peyote, totally get all of that, no arguments at all.
If you read solo's again and imagine he's talking about the UK, it reads a little differently! 🙂
molgrips - Member
Anyone who wants to restrict immigration is shouted down as a racist.
Well let's have the adult discussion instead of eye-rolling.How about answering my OP? Is immigration just bad because of population increase?
The sensible answer is that immigration is only bad if you haven't planned for the volume.
Here in the South East, we haven't had a new hospital built in eons, nor any new reservoirs, or new schools, yet we currently have unprecedented house building. Just minutes from here there are two thousand new homes being built the road serving the area is already under pressure and there are frequent jams.
On an individual level most folk get on, no matter what your origin or skin colour, the pressure only arises if your life becomes badly disrupted and your own become threatened in some way.
I was over in Wales last weekend and met a *colourful young Polish lass, when she walked to her car, bugger me if it wasn't a brand new Jag, it turns out she's in HR, coincidently my daughter is in HR and works in Holland so absolutely no logic in me being all 'she's taking our jobs', good luck to her, but, this is Wales and Wales has always had employment issues so I could well imagine local people not being as generous spirited as my personal circumstances permit me to be.
[i]*By colourful I meant charismatic and with bright dyed orange hair.[/i]
I guess you must be talking about Ebsfleet , just down the road for me too .
The a2 is going to become worse than the m25
The sensible answer is that immigration is only bad if you haven't planned for the volume.
Indeed. So don't blame the immigrants, blame the government. The country needs the immigrants to grow, so you either plan for the growth or stifle it by stopping the immigration.
this is Wales and Wales has always had employment issues
Except during the industrial revolution when, hugely ironically, it drew migrants from all over the UK.
The £38k came from another STWer (Northwind perhaps) and it was in a Telegrapgh article I recall.
Molgrips not sure which point you wanted me to answer ? Yes I got the same lesson from farm sork, bloody hard for modest money. I do think it should be looked into as to how we can ensure minimum wage is paid and not have pickers paid purely by weight.
I do agree many migrants are very hard workers and put Brits to shame, that's the point we've made things too easy for too many.
How can the Government possibly plan for migration when they had no idea what the numbers wouod be ?. Building houses schools and hospitals takes years, decades even of planning.
Good answer lunge, but surely the price is dictated by the market and if the job can be done for £25 then that's the cost of the job. Is the builder charging £50 for the work doing the job to a higher standard or simply funding a lifestyle that they have chosen? Not saying one answer is right or wrong, just interested in all aspects
Interesting.... Back in 2005 I was working on site as a chippy in London earning between 200-250£ a day.
I had my own van, was traveling into town each day. OK, like a Poddington pea I was living in my folks garden and saving on rent (whilst saving towards a deposit)
Friends of mine were earning the same, paying their mortgage, feeding their kids... Yet their partners had jobs.
Towards the end of 2005 we started to see a sudden increase of eastern laborers on site. Then more and more tradesmen turned up. The contractor I was with at the time was finding it harder to win jobs. He refused to go in so low. Guys from Belarus, Poland, Lithuania etc were living 4-6 guys in a room, earning £60-80 a day.
There was no way I or the lads I knew could compete with that. You couldn't pay a mortgage in the south east on 400£/week before tax...
So we found work elsewhere, for 200ish a day... Then the arse fell out of the building trade when the banks stopped lending money.
I decided to go to Germany and learn the language, planning to return when the market picked up again. As it was I never really returned to the UK and made a life for myself in Germany.
There we have the same problems as the UK. Try and find a German plumber, painter, plasterer.... Fortunately for me woodwork is still a predominantly German profession.
I've never undercut a fellow chippy. In fact I know that my rates are higher than many others, especially those from East Germany (who work for about 15-40% less than a chippy in Bavaria... The Oktoberfest is full of vans from the East).
I can understand why someone desperate for a job is willing to work for less than the going rate, but that has a negative impact on those people, their families, their way of life and it isn't sustainable in the long term I'd you want to have a rounded and more equal society.
There are few long term winners in a low wage sociey, and in certain sectors immigration does encourage that... When an employer doesn't have to offer high wages because there is a glut of desperate workers it helps keep wages low. This goes for trades as well as warehouse workers, delivery drivers, shop assistants..... Everyone likes to get something at a knock down price, but someone else down the line is being knocked. And if people keep getting knocked at some point society isn't going to get back up.
I have family members who show w their super cheap purchases on Facebook whilst complaining that their daughter only gets minimum wage.
Was tying to explain to my young cousin why buying from Primary wasn't something to shout about... Somebody somewhere down the line was being shafted just so she could wear a sparkly top on a night out and then throw I away as "it only cost £2"....
Just my ramblings.
Increased population is an issue most likely unsolved until Women gain true equality in education and employment.
Then population will come under control and questions of whether there are too many people in a place should cease.
Oh christ, it's one of the Population Matters lot - quick someone call pest control and purge the forums with zyklon B.
Has any government ever thought further ahead than the next election.... the UK suffered from a lack of foresight for as long as I can remember.
Recently visited my family in Chelmsford, already a town of over 100,000. I remember it as a kid when I used to visit and the infrastructure hasn't change but there are now at least four large housing estates there that never used yo be and now another 3000+ homes are being built.
The south east is near breaking point, IMO. Not a place I would be happy to live.
There was some crappy gameshow type program about low paid jobs recently. Was a bit of an eye opener. People cleaning hotels, sifting through rubbish with their hands (also called recycling), working in factories, picking veg (one of the better jobs with a chance of earning a decent wage despite having no fixed abode).... What struck me was the attitude of the few foreign workers. They had come to the UK and wanted to make something of themselves and set out to do so. Learning English, working shitty jobs, being knocked back and still their attitude was better than many of the homegrown participants.