Perception vs Reality

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

dktreesea wrote: »

Is it any wonder that so many of the unemployed, cheered on by the DWP, have escaped into marginal self employment, so that they might preserve such a generous bounty?

No, it isn't.

But don't blame immigrants for coming here and doing the jobs that our own overly generous benefits system is incentivising the native born not to do.

Fix the benefits system problems first.

And if that motivates Brits to get of their behind and look for work, THEN come back and argue about immigration.

dktreesea

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

I refer you to this....


http://news.sky.com/story/1238301/brickies-earning-100k-as-brawn-drain-hits

And for every story like that, there's one like this:
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/384043/Why-our-tradesmen-are-downing-tools
Tradesmen giving up their jobs, or jumping ship and moving to warmer climes because of the cut in real incomes due in part to the high levels of foreign workers competing with them for work.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

dktreesea wrote: »

Tradesmen giving up their jobs, or jumping ship and moving to warmer climes because of the cut in real incomes due in part to the high levels of foreign workers competing with them for work.

From your article....

"Experts blame the economic downturn and a housing market which is still recovering".

Pretty obvious that when you have a global financial crisis that annihilates mortgage lending and development finance, causing it to fall by two thirds, tradesmen will suffer.

Blaming migrants is a scapegoat.

Yet now we see trade wages soaring, due to so many leaving the trades as a result of the mortgage famine curtailing building, so now lending is recovering we have shortages.

Also from your article....

"BRITAIN faces a shortage of skilled tradesmen like plumbers, builders and bricklayers".

Now, should we deal with a "shortage" by restricting the numbers of people that can work here..... Hmmmm..... Tough one.

Generali

Thrugelmir wrote: »

The treatment of the native Aussies was a disgrace. Arguably still is.

At the risk of going off topic, you're correct IMHO.

That life expectancy at birth is about 25 years less for an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander should be a national disgrace.

Things are slowly improving. The solutions still seem mostly to centre around white people telling indigenous Australians what should happen to them which is exactly what caused the problems in the first place!

IveSeenTheLight

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

'Round my way' in the north east of Scotland there are three job vacancies for every job seeker and unemployment of circa 2%.

Actually, the unemployment percentage is lower than that, although not as low as it was in 2007.

It was higher in 2012 and whilst I agree that in the last two years, we have seen a surge in job opportunities, there are signs the O&G market is cooling due to government policies and market costs being so significant.

There is a great risk that there will need to be adjustments to local costs in order to compete globally.

jamesmorgan

It is somewhat disappointing that much of the discussion on this thread is so insular. It would be surprising that an influx of well qualified, young, ambitious people willing to work for relatively low wages doesn't have a positive impact on the UK economy. There may be a few negative consequences on infrastructure, and youth unemployment (although the latter is more a consequence of market distortions due to the minimum wage), however, the overall economic impact must be positive.

However, there seems very little discussion of the impact of this economic migration on the countries they are moving from. How will they cope with losing their best talent? At the moment there are 20 countries in the world with negative population growth - 19 of these are in Europe (mainly eastern Europe). Many of these countries are predicted to lose 25% of their population by 2060. This isn't an even loss of their demographic - it is striping out the young and productive and leaving behind the elderly. You only need to look at unemployment rates by country in the EU to recognise that having less people doesn't mean less people chasing the same number of jobs, it means there are a lot less jobs (ie much higher unemployment).

The EU dream of free trade leading to high growth and convergent economic standard of living across all countries seems a long way off. The UK is predicted to be a major winner (with the largest economy by 2060). However, history has repeatedly shown us that civil unrest increases rapidly where there is a distortion of power and affluence.

There is an immigration problem in the EU, but I'm not sure that many people are looking in the right place to really see it.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

jamesmorgan wrote: »

At the moment there are 20 countries in the world with negative population growth - 19 of these are in Europe (mainly eastern Europe).

You only need to look at unemployment rates by country in the EU to recognise that having less people doesn't mean less people chasing the same number of jobs, it means there are a lot less jobs (ie much higher unemployment)..

Which is exactly the point many of us have been making.

jamesmorgan

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Which is exactly the point many of us have been making.

Yes, but you are making it from the perspective that it is a good thing that we have large economic migration. In reality it has benefits for the UK, but is greatly outweighed by the negative impacts on the countries where the immigrants are coming from.

I understand the argument that that is not our problem, but I fear that in the long run it will become our problem. A healthy Europe only works if all countries benefit.

BACKFRMTHEEDGE

Generali wrote: »

At the risk of going off topic, you're correct IMHO.

That life expectancy at birth is about 25 years less for an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander should be a national disgrace.

Things are slowly improving. The solutions still seem mostly to centre around white people telling indigenous Australians what should happen to them which is exactly what caused the problems in the first place!

I guess you are arguing that the original inhabitants of Australia should have been treated better, not that just 'cos they get their first that they"owned" Australia?

The idea that "any" group of people arrive somewhere, hop out of their boat, plant a flag in the soil, say "I own this and no-one else can come here" is both ridiculous and unworkable.

wotsthat

jamesmorgan wrote: »

Yes, but you are making it from the perspective that it is a good thing that we have large economic migration. In reality it has benefits for the UK, but is greatly outweighed by the negative impacts on the countries where the immigrants are coming from.

I understand the argument that that is not our problem, but I fear that in the long run it will become our problem. A healthy Europe only works if all countries benefit.

I agree to an extent but the reason the migrant is wishing to travel here is because their home country has failed to provide better opportunities.

According to Alan Milburn last week on R4 there are 40,000 foreign doctors in the NHS. We could restrict these numbers - would that help the home countries or just provide an incentive for their governments to continue to fail to provide opportunities?