Reply to: A third of Poles driven home by recession

[TimberWolf]

Probably when 60m people here are facing death by starvation as their indigenous population is.

61m

UK population growth is one of Labour's greatest triumphs.

[hyperD]

How bad does the recession have to be before we get rid of Somalians and some of the other welfare dependent groups I wonder?

Probably when 60m people here are facing death by starvation as their indigenous population is.

[xoggoth]

How bad does the recession have to be before we get rid of Somalians and some of the other welfare dependent groups I wonder?

[M_B]

And it's your assertion that it's a 'majority' that I don't......

Too much to quote !

Unfortunately I don't have time to put together a reply. I don't completely disagree with you, but then I don't completely agree either. If I get time I'll try to reply later.

I should say though that my argument was off topic as it wasn't really about foreign workers as such. If anyone wants to up sticks to better themselves then good luck to them. I was just arguing that not everyone can. Anyway I'll try to get back to it later.

[Cyberman]

completely agree with you LG, i dont agree with the government policies either, but we shouldnt take it out and blame the foreign workers who are doing exactly what we would do if faced with the same scenario. Immigration controls are a at best described as a joke, we are a small island and need to have some seriously strong immigration policies as opposed to the current policy which is a do nothing approach

Agreed. In IT there are so many New Zealanders, Aussies and South Africans here who in a few months time will be keeping indigenous folk out of work. On top of that many of them pay very low tax.
We cannot do it with EU workers, but is time to start sending them home and utilising our unemployed and have them paying taxes instead of paying benefits !!

[TheBigYinJames]

If migration were as open and simple as you suggest, the UK would let all and sundry in and let the indigenous population be damned / eating a bowl of rice day. This does appear to be labour's plan I admit.

I'm not talking about individual immigration policies, I'm looking at the bigger picture of humans over the centuries. People move. "can't" is a word invented by the modern age in relation to migration.

[TimberWolf]

Economic migration is the norm for human beings, and has been since the dawn of mankind. Each and every one of those people who decide to move has had to take hard and risky decisions to move and better their own lot, and the future of their families.

If migration were as open and simple as you suggest, the UK would let all and sundry in and let the indigenous population be damned / eating a bowl of rice day. This does appear to be labour's plan I admit.

[TheBigYinJames]

Flight to catch.

Bah!!! No wifi on the plane?

I do agree that some could move to improve their lot, but I would suggest the majority could not.

Economic migration is the norm for human beings, and has been since the dawn of mankind. Each and every one of those people who decide to move has had to take hard and risky decisions to move and better their own lot, and the future of their families.

99.9% of the people in history who ever moved to a different part of the country, or a different country or even a different continent, have done so with bodily danger of fatigue, death, attack, robbery and starvation, without the social safeguards we have in place today such as benefits, social housing, cheap transport, etc. For most of history, migration was done on foot.

If anything, it's the safest and cheapest time to relocate than it's ever been in most of our history. "could not" is a lifestyle choice portrayed as neccessity.

[The Lone Gunman]

Sorry BYJ, but I have to take issue.
In principle you are correct but the reality is far removed from how you see it.

I do not have time to respond to all your points. Flight to catch.

There are more low skilled workers than there are low skilled jobs, that is why the pay is low.
The cities have enough people without low paid workers turning up.
If all the low paid turned up for a 2 quid pay rise the rate for the job would reduce due to over subscription.
The low waged can not afford to run 2 households the rate increase would have to more than compensate for travel and housing costs.
So much to say and no time.

I do agree that some could move to improve their lot, but I would suggest the majority could not.

[Bagpuss]

to TheBigYinJames

[TheBigYinJames]

I'm not talking about the long term unemployed though. I am talking about those who are employed. The poster earlier stated if they weren't happy with their wage then they should move. I was merely pointing out that for the majority this just is not possible for whatever reason.

And it's your assertion that it's a 'majority' that I don't agree with - I believe most people could if they really had to. There are only a few professions which are intrinsically tied to a particular area - the ones you've used as examples, such as fishermen and farmers. And in those cases (especially with food production) I agree that these people should be helped and subsidised, because we need their skills exactly in the location they are now.

But the reason they can't move is that their skills are not commodity skills - your examples of miners, civil servants, butchers and factory workers are prime examples of commodity skills - they can be replaced and re-used in various geographic areas. Your butcher can move to another town or city to get work, so can your civil servant, etc.

Additionally you have a job that permits you to work away and still be a bread winner. That is a something many people simply cant do.

Why? When I graduated in 1990 I couldn't get a job matching my skills in my home town. So I worked in other skill areas, did crappy shop work etc. When I was sick of that I eventually moved to the south of England to get a job that fulfilled my qualifications. The only forces at play which may have stopped me moving were a desire to stay where I was born and close to my family and existing friends. But this is a preference not a requirement, a lifestyle choice. Why should society have subsidised me for that lifestyle choice? People need to get real about what society owes them.

Also you cannot dismiss the effect on communities. If people leave jobs to move away, then that income leaves the community thereby directly affecting the income of local pubs, shops etc etc.

You're getting mixed up between relocation and long distance commuting. When I get a contract in Manchester, I don't move the family up there, I do a weekly commute. I still do my shopping in the local supermarket, go for a drink in my local pub on a weekend. My local community has to do without me Monday to Friday, but it gets by. This is a form of geographically flexible working that a lot of people don't want to do, but it's not that they CAN'T do it, they decide that they don't want to.

It also undermines the sense of community. Have you been to the villages in Wales or infact any village not in commuting distance of a city ? There are a vast amount and in most cases are based around a single industry. Your argument does not fit with that and I suspect you have no experience outside that of a commuting suburban area.

You'd be wrong, I have a lot of experience living in just such towns and villages. I'll tell you what kills a community faster than any relocation - that's most of the working population sitting on the dole, and then their children making the same choice to stay there on the dole because it's become the family business.

Again your entire argument is based on freedom of movement. This doesnt exist whatever you may think.

Yes it does. You keep saying it doesn't without offering any reasons why not. Can the ex-miner from the valleys not get on the bus to the local train station? Can he and a few friends not chip in for a cheap car and drive 3 or 4 hours to the nearest source of paying work? You make out that rural areas are so remote that it's impossible, but the UK is geographically small. Apart from the very north of Scotland, there's nowhere in the UK more than 3 hours from a major conurbation.

Apart from a few cases where the breadwinner has to stay with their family due to disability or health reasons, I believe it's a breadwinner's duty to do whatever it takes to safeguard the stability and financial footing of the family. My dad saw us through the 80s recession by doing whatever it took to keep us all safe and fed, and I'll do the same if it comes to a recession now.

[NetwkSupport]

completely agree with you LG, i dont agree with the government policies either, but we shouldnt take it out and blame the foreign workers who are doing exactly what we would do if faced with the same scenario. Immigration controls are a at best described as a joke, we are a small island and need to have some seriously strong immigration policies as opposed to the current policy which is a do nothing approach

[The Lone Gunman]

Something strikes me whilst reading all these posts, overall looking at the bigger picture from a sociological aspect, we are all complaining about this and that, these foreign workers are just like everyone else trying to make a better life for themselves

If you could go next door to france and earn 3x your normal salary than you can in the UK would you stay in the UK or go to france for a few years? I know what i would do.

I am one such person. I have spent 10 years working for much higher rates on the mainland than can be achieved at home.

The issue for me is that other countries seem to have very strict rules on imported workers and one of those criteria is that they must not undercut local rates. The Union (it is not really a union, but most would see it as such) on site here keeps a close eye on what we get paid and we are certainly not the cheap option.
It seems in the UK a company can advertise a job at well below the going rate and then use the fact that nobody applied for the job as evidence of a shortage of workers, thus allowing them to bring in migrants.

I have no issue with any migrant workers. I have issue with our Government and its policies. It is the system that is at fault, not the migrant. As you say they are doing what they can that is best for them and theirs.

[NetwkSupport]

Something strikes me whilst reading all these posts, overall looking at the bigger picture from a sociological aspect, we are all complaining about this and that, these foreign workers are just like everyone else trying to make a better life for themselves

If you could go next door to france and earn 3x your normal salary than you can in the UK would you stay in the UK or go to france for a few years? I know what i would do.

[M_B]

If many people have "no freedom of movement" because of financial reasons it is because they live beyond their means and have burdoned themselves with unnecessary debt. Must have a Plasma, must have Sky, must have a new car, kitchen etc etc.

Of course you can retrain when working, most FE colleges run night courses, there is loads of support for parents who want to get in back into full time FE. If you show a bit of initiative anything is possible.

Sorry mate you are talking rubbish.

Tell that to a fisherman with his own boat in Aberdeen for example. He's probably worked himself to the bone to get his business up and running and now he's been hit by the double whammy of reduced fish stocks and recession. He's got 2 kids and mortgaged to the hilt.

Or what about a factory worker in Wales. 12 hours a day, 6 days a week, mortgage + kids. When will he get time or the spare cash to attend an evening class ?

And if these people all mass migrate ? How do we get our fish ? How do we get our cars made in the factories ?

Not everyone is exploiting the system - many working class people are trying their hardest and battling to survive. (am off to bed now - night all)