Reply to: NSS - migrants displace workers.

[sasguru]

I have a stalker that believes what he reads on the internet - help me......

Don't flatter yourself, you're far from being that interesting.
What I meant is that it's pretty easy to get an idea of someone's intelligence from their many posts.

[Zero Liability]

It's funny how quickly the arguments on here become personal.

[vetran]

I know a great deal about you from your posts.

I have a stalker that believes what he reads on the internet - help me......

[Zero Liability]

This argument isn't new, it was put to me over 30 years ago by a hiring manager. The difference is that the pool of available labour then was the redundant workforce (many of whom are now pensioners) caused by the shrinking of the UK's manufacturing sector - now the pool is largely composed of immigrants.

It will be interesting to see if the touted "re-shoring" that is supposedly under-way will reverse that. China is in for a big slowdown soon, which may decelerate that if their labour force becomes cheaper as a result, however I don't think it'll halt the growth of their middle class and consequent narrowing of the wage differentials between here and there. British firms are also heavily involved in energy markets, and if fracking picks up here, that could also re-vitalise the manufacturing sector here, as most of Britain's energy involvement at present is offshore.

[sasguru]

as I said you know nothing about me.

I know a great deal about you from your posts.

[vetran]

Nice to see you have a good imagination.
I have this image of you as an unemployed git living in a ghetto in Slough (why would anyone choose that hellhole BTW?) typing bollux on the net.
And I don't need imagination because that's a fact.

as I said you know nothing about me.

[Goatfell]

When I changed career, I got the qualifications first then took a pay cut to get the experience such that I could compete at the level I wanted to in the market. It took 3 years. I had to take close to a new grad's salary immediately after the MSc, about a quarter of what I earned before.

That's why I fooking have no sympathy with lazy whingers who want everything on a fooking plate.

And then you have people like vetran (sic) whose only achievement is to spout bollux on an internet forum. No wonder they believe in an entitlement culture.

But you're not typical of the section of society that's under discussion here.
If someone has the aptitude to take high level qualifications and position themselves in a lucrative sector, then that same aptitude will allow them to forego a small short term gain for the larger and more sustainable long term, it's self selecting really.

If however, one is aiming to move up the ladder to a semi-skilled or skilled trade it's much more of an uphill struggle. Why would a firm employ, at NMW, an unskilled bod in whom they have to invest resources in before they become revenue producing rather than an overhead, when they can hire a fully skilled, experienced tradesman for the same wage?

This argument isn't new, it was put to me over 30 years ago by a hiring manager. The difference is that the pool of available labour then was the redundant workforce (many of whom are now pensioners) caused by the shrinking of the UK's manufacturing sector - now the pool is largely composed of immigrants.

[sasguru]

I have this mental image of you - some grizzled sad old git in a B&Q shed waiting for the dinner bell in the shared garden of his council flat supping diamond white bought with his giro, dreaming of being important. Cheer up Walter.

Nice to see you have a good imagination.
I have this image of you as an unemployed git living in a ghetto in Slough (why would anyone choose that hellhole BTW?) typing bollux on the net.
And I don't need imagination because that's a fact.

[vetran]

I know I've got to you when you fall back on that tired old saw.
You do know you're a mediocre cretin, don't you?

hey if you can be personally rude and talk bollux knowing nothing about me it seems only polite to return the favour!

I have this mental image of you - some grizzled sad old git in a B&Q shed waiting for the dinner bell in the shared garden of his council flat supping diamond white bought with his giro, dreaming of being important. Cheer up Walter.

[sasguru]

FTFY

I know I've got to you when you fall back on that tired old saw.
You do know you're a mediocre cretin, don't you?

[vetran]

And then you have people like sasguru (sick) whose only achievement is to spout bollux on an internet forum and live off their wife. No wonder they believe in an entitlement culture.

FTFY

[sasguru]

These are very different aspects of a skill set though. Your attractiveness to firms will depend on a balance of qualifications, experience and cost.

Probably why they're are willing to pay more for skilled contractors rather than highly qualified new graduates.

When I changed career, I got the qualifications first then took a pay cut to get the experience such that I could compete at the level I wanted to in the market. It took 3 years. I had to take close to a new grad's salary immediately after the MSc, about a quarter of what I earned before.

That's why I fooking have no sympathy with lazy whingers who want everything on a fooking plate.

And then you have people like vetran (sic) whose only achievement is to spout bollux on an internet forum. No wonder they believe in an entitlement culture.

[Goatfell]

Why should employers pay for training somebody? I don't expect that an employer should train me - I get the qualifications, then I look for work.
It's just another example of the entitlement mentality espoused by vetran (sic).

These are very different aspects of a skill set though. Your attractiveness to firms will depend on a balance of qualifications, experience and cost.

Probably why they're are willing to pay more for skilled contractors rather than highly qualified new graduates.

[Zero Liability]

Why should employers pay for training somebody? I don't expect that an employer should train me - I get the qualifications, then I look for work.
It's just another example of the entitlement mentality espoused by vetran (sic).

It may be in the employer's interest to do so, e.g. with graduate schemes. But that's purely a consideration that should be left to market forces.

[Zero Liability]

I sympathise with Mich, as I am not fond of protectionism either. However, if you have the government subsidising employers and low pay workers, there is a clear issue, and requiring migrants to be economically self-sufficient and precluding them from welfare is one way of limiting that problem.

Regarding employers and training, it's understandable that they may want to offload the costs they may spend training workers onto the taxpayers, but there's no justification for such transfer payments, even from the crudest utilitarian POV.

There's also the fact that with the sheer amount of QE going on on a global scale, where this money is seeping out of the banks, it is seeping into asset markets, which has included commodities. All this serves to do is fuel speculation of the useless sort, where speculators are trying to protect and/or increase their wealth in an environment of incredibly low interest rates and uncertainty created by government policy. So this pushes up the prices of 'vital' consumer goods. Add on taxes like the VAT, plus employment taxes like NIC and the income tax (over a certain threshold), in return for services of declining value that are provided inefficiently, which you may never see (e.g. pensions), and your reservation wage goes up, particularly if benefits are on offer. And the massive subsidy the government provides to stock markets by shoving people into them for their pensions, since savings accounts are close on worthless.

It's not like this country does itself any favours through these policies. I think Sasguru is on the mark with his comments re the nanny state here. This, plus the "peasant" mentality inculcated in the poor, usually in the form of faux-Marxist class analysis implying the 'rich' are screwing them over and it's the fault of the 'rich' (usually this term is applied indiscriminately to capitalists, entrepreneurs and landlords, irrespective of how they earn their income), that they are helpless passive recipients of wages blah blah blah, and yes, you see little drive to move up in life, plus this moronic idea that it's "evil" or "wrong" or w/e to be rich. Feck that. What you need nowadays is an entrepreneurial mentality and adaptivity, not this notion that one company will provide for you throughout your life when most firms aren't even assured of their existence over this period of time. Or the idea that the government is there to be your parent. You can't say most people innately lack these skills when the government educates them for the majority of their youth.

Additionally, it's fair to say the educational system has failed to equip the young with much understanding of their finances. Perhaps because if they possessed this, they would see the stupidity of their government and its policies.

Introducing work permits, limiting immigration to the self-sustaining, slashing taxes and introducing a flat rate tax above a certain income threshold and introducing a minimum income (a.k.a negative income tax) in lieu of most welfare would all be preferable to the mess we have now, in addition to forbidding the government from borrowing against future tax receipts or manipulating the credit markets on a whim to fulfil whatever moronic policy objectives it has in mind at the time, its spending then limited to the minimum required for it to provide infrastructure, law, order and defence. I am actually quite in favour of apprenticeships and the like over and above traditional welfare measures. If the government does get involved with trying to 'retrain' people it should at least pay heed to market pricing, and not just educate people in useless schemes with no commercial value.