Perception vs Reality

Graham_Devon

N1AK wrote: »

But that's because you're pathologically incapable of thinking more than one step ahead. Do you think higher taxation is good? Do you think the elderly having to spend even more on care is good? Do you think the quality of care falling is good?

Expect more than this from you NIAK to be brutally honest. The racist stuff isn't needed.

Driving down carers wages (from an already extremely low base) is likely to also drive down the moral and the quality of those seeking positions of care. We are actually already seeing this.

The care industry is one industry that can be very dangerous when you have driven down the standards of pay to extreme lows.

Secondly, doing so will just put more and more on housing benefit, tax credits etc.

I understand your points relating to higher costs, however, I was not suggesting we increase csots them further. I was merely suggesting we don't drive wages down further than they already are.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Expect more than this from you NIAK to be brutally honest. The racist stuff isn't needed.

Driving down carers wages (from an already extremely low base) is likely to also drive down the moral and the quality of those seeking positions of care. We are actually already seeing this.

The care industry is one industry that can be very dangerous when you have driven down the standards of pay to extreme lows.

Secondly, doing so will just put more and more on housing benefit, tax credits etc.

I understand your points relating to higher costs, however, I was not suggesting we increase csots them further. I was merely suggesting we don't drive wages down further than they already are.

Great! So when I'm in my dotage not only do I have to pay top dollar to have my !!!! wiped you want to tax me to keep yours clean too.

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

Great! So when I'm in my dotage not only do I have to pay top dollar to have my !!!! wiped you want to tax me to keep yours clean too.

What?

And if the argument boils down to "open borders are good, it means I might be able to pay some poor sap less than than a living wage to wipe my rear so that I can hoarde my cash right till the very end", then it sounds a pretty poor argument.

Amusing how apparently I'm the racist, but here you are defending high numbers of immigrants all in order thaty you can pay them less to wipe your bum.

I'd think a bit more before you enter the territory of exploitation as a reason to suggest we need open borders.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

What?

And if the argument boils down to "open borders are good, it means I might be able to pay some poor sap less than than a living wage to wipe my rear so that I can hoarde my cash right till the very end", then it sounds a pretty poor argument.

Amusing how apparently I'm the racist, but here you are defending high numbers of immigrants all in order thaty you can pay them less to wipe your bum.

I'd think a bit more before you enter the territory of exploitation as a reason to suggest we need open borders.

If immigration doesn't benefit us then what's the point? Wiping behinds is an exaggeration but if immigration reduces inflation in care costs and provides the numbers we need in an ageing population that sounds like a good thing for me, you and the immigrant.

Your argument seems to start and end at a desire for a big gate at entrances to the UK. Then what?

N1AK

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Expect more than this from you NIAK to be brutally honest. The racist stuff isn't needed.

If you live in a place with virtually no immigrants and are still terrified of them and think your town is alien to you because of them then you're either mad or racist. I'm pretty sure the people here are the latter. Pretending that racism has nothing at all to do with the rise of UKIP would be to ignore reality.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I understand your points relating to higher costs, however, I was not suggesting we increase csots them further. I was merely suggesting we don't drive wages down further than they already are.

In which case you're suggesting that we continue to allow sufficient foreign workers to come in to stop a shortage of staff from increasing wages. Which means that the current level of immigration is likely required (as that is what is currently keeping wages down).

You can be as disspointed as you want Graham but I said you're incapable of thinking further ahead because you repeatedly demonstrate it. It is blatantly obvious that a consequence of severely restricting immigration, especially of low skilled or low paid workers, would lead to a considerable increase in the cost of employing carers.

N1AK

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I'd think a bit more before you enter the territory of exploitation as a reason to suggest we need open borders.

In which case are you suggesting that the government should considerably increase the amount carers should be paid, and put more restrictions on what can be expected of them?

If not you're a blatant hypocrite for trying to imply wotsthat supports exploitation, if so you're a blatant lie for saying you didn't want wages to increase just a couple of posts ago

Graham_Devon

N1AK wrote: »

If you live in a place with virtually no immigrants and are still terrified of them and think your town is alien to you because of them then you're either mad or racist.

But...

A) I'm not terrified of immigrants.
I don't believe my town is alien to me.

Secondly I've said nothing at all which could suggest either of the above.

In which case you're suggesting that we continue to allow sufficient foreign workers to come in to stop a shortage of staff from increasing wages. Which means that the current level of immigration is likely required (as that is what is currently keeping wages down).

You can be as disspointed as you want Graham but I said you're incapable of thinking further ahead because you repeatedly demonstrate it. It is blatantly obvious that a consequence of severely restricting immigration, especially of low skilled or low paid workers, would lead to a considerable increase in the cost of employing carers.

Why would it?

Why did we not see an explosion in carer costs in the 1970s, 80s, 90s if this is the case?

Generali

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Why did we not see an explosion in carer costs in the 1970s, 80s, 90s if this is the case?

Prices are set by supply and demand. The problems of the aging population are just starting to kick in.

If we're talking specifically about care workers they most often, AIUI, earn the minimum wage. As it is illegal to pay below the minimum wage, legal immigration should have no impact on these wages.

Of course, as the US has found, if you decide to place heavy restrictions on immigration when you have strong demand for labour, illegal immigration results. That leads to some terrible abuses of workers and huge enforcement costs.

CLAPTON

Generali wrote: »

Prices are set by supply and demand. The problems of the aging population are just starting to kick in.

If we're talking specifically about care workers they most often, AIUI, earn the minimum wage. As it is illegal to pay below the minimum wage, legal immigration should have no impact on these wages.

Of course, as the US has found, if you decide to place heavy restrictions on immigration when you have strong demand for labour, illegal immigration results. That leads to some terrible abuses of workers and huge enforcement costs.

many care workers are paid more than the minimum wage.

the UK seems to have a certain level of unemployment at the moment

the fact that people may break a law is a poor reason for making bad laws.

Australia doesn't have an open door policy

Graham_Devon

Generali wrote: »

Prices are set by supply and demand. The problems of the aging population are just starting to kick in.

If we're talking specifically about care workers they most often, AIUI, earn the minimum wage. As it is illegal to pay below the minimum wage, legal immigration should have no impact on these wages.

Of course, as the US has found, if you decide to place heavy restrictions on immigration when you have strong demand for labour, illegal immigration results. That leads to some terrible abuses of workers and huge enforcement costs.

I'm quite passionate about care workers. I have no vested interest. I just find the care system and the "abuse" of staff (patients is another subject) quite appalling.

Panorama found that 222,000 care workers are paid LESS than minimum wage already. This is due to care workers not being paid when they are travelling from client to client. These carers only get paid while actually providing care. They need to drive from home to home however to provide this care as a mandatory part of their job. That time driving is not paid for in many cases.

This is just one of the areas in which the care industry is driving down standards and pay. The average pay across these workers was £5.15 per hour. (2012). The pay figures won't show this though. Instead they will show that care workers are paid above minimum wage. Again, were back to data not being the be all and end all. it's how that data is compiled that is key.

Now, what we are suggesting here is that it would be good to bring in even more care workers in order to drive costs down further. This, IMHO is leaning on exploitation.

IF it were the case that these people got fair pay for the job they do, even if that were minimum wage, I'd be OK with it. But as that isn't the case for many in the industry, I don't believe driving wages down further is a good thing.

Now we've touched on this though, immigration alongside the watering down of pay, terms and contracts is causing issues throughout lower paid jobs.

I found this comment on care one I agree with wholeheartedly.

It's a sad indictment on this government and our so-called civilised society that we treat our careworkers so disgracefully by paying them a pittance. They do far more than just care for disabled or elderly people, they give dignity, respect, friendship and in many cases a will to live to the most challenged people in our society. At the next election this country needs to ask itself an extremely serious question on the direction and type of society it wants; a respectful civilised society, or a f#ck-you-I'm-alright-jack neo liberal nightmare...