What worries me is our population is still going through the roof. If you cant shut the door during a recession then something is seriously wrong.
I don't think she invented it. It's been going on for a while. It was used when the mill workers tried to get a better standard of living after seeing the huge wealth the mill owners made off their back. The mill owners brought in labour from what we call Asia. Ironic that labour use the same tactic for different reasons.
I'm not sure that's strictly accurate due to emigration from here. The problem is that for us to emigrate, we've generally got to demonstrate we can support ourselves and provide a needed service, so it tends to be the more productive Brits that are leaving, to be replaced by the "needy". Any that come from abroad with a skill, will tend to leave a skill vacuum in their homeland, that tends to be filled by subsidies from other Countries. Best add, I don't blame the people that do it, but the system that allows it and manipulates the media to make it seem needed.
Ask Tesco/Asda/Morrisons/Sainsburys; ask the packers; ask the canning and freezing companies...the salad companies, etc. Watch them hold their hands up in shock at the thought that they might knowingly be using 'scabby' labour! . . . "We have the highest standards" and all that guff! They don't give a **** unless they get caught and get bad press. The bottom line is the annual profits/share price/share-holder dividend.
GLOBALIZATION is the name of the game....the MONEY goes where it can make most profit and the people get stuffed. Initially it appears we're getting cheap goods, but it seems the downside is
Erm, I think that's more or less what I said. They don't even have to worry about getting caught because they simply buy a product. The fact their monopoly allows them to drive down the price so far that the supplier needs to cut corners. They also buy land to limit the possibility of opposition and sell petrol at a loss/break even to drive(sic) out opposition.
I accept your point on changing demographics, though its not exactly a Brit free area. There's a great new African takeaway opened up. I'd recommend it. Guy that runs it works his bollocks off plus he's as nice a bloke as you could hope to meet. Opposite is the job centre. With it's work shy scrounging scum, not fit to lace his boots. The genuine unemployed must feel like **** mixing with these bums.
You wondered why "the Brits" hadn't started businesses like the newcomers did, I answered. Perhaps if similar funds had been made available in other areas, the career unemployed could look for other forms of income instead of being derided by the more fortunate. I read somewhere that miss-payments cost more than over-claims, and both are a drop in the ocean compared to tax fraud. Who are the bigger work shy scum?
The world isn't run by states - it's run by corporations. The states just - a) keep us happy; b) in the dark; c) voting and thinking it really has any effect; meanwhile finance and the (inter-twined) mega-corporations actually run the show. Thatcher's role was to open Pandora's box for us, as did Reagan for the USA. They 'de-regulated' our economies and freed capital to go where it wanted/made most money. It's not about people; it's not about states - it's all about money.
I'd agree Dutch - but we're all coming at it from different angles/viewpoints...... Ah,well - back to football!!!!
Totally agree there. Financially, tax avoidance and fraud is much the bigger problem. But as a society, the work shy is a big problem. Their children grow up with these same values and the cycle continues. I was using it as a general point that I'd rather take the majority of immigrants with their work ethic over the thousands of work shy born here. I've been unemployed, I know how demoralising it is. I've seen the difference between those who want to work, have had the confidence sucked out of them and those that have no interest in working. There is, has, been funds available for unemployed to start a business. No idea how this compares to whatever immigrants get. Immaterial as so many wouldn't take the opportunity.
Yet, if your opinion was reversed, and with the same level of inaccuracy of information and gross generalisation, you said that the local people were hard working and the immigrants all work shy scum, you'd be hounded out of town. Your bigotry and prejudice is one of the results of the recent misrepresentations in the media, initiated and admitted to by a previous Government. Don't blame the victims.
No generalisations. Made a point in all my comments to to say not all unemployed locals are work shy and not all immigrants are hard working assets. I speak from personal experiences and observations. As in me personally going through the new deal and friends that have worked at the job centre and with youth offenders. Fair enough if you think my opinion is wrong and I happen to agree with the general tone of what you are saying.
the jam roles [poles] that work along side me,do the same job etc, earn around £100 p/w less than i do. and thats net!! do not get payed overtime rates even! nuff said!
I'm not sure what point it is you're trying to make. When you're offered their wage and conditions, are you going to take it or the potentially higher unemployment benefits? How anyone can think paying someone a low wage (that tends to ind it's way out of this Country) while still having to pay someone else to sit at home is good for our national economy is lost on me. Especially when you add in the cost, both financial and performance wise of educating and providing health care for their families, who are also entitled to benefits. Yet some see it as an excuse to boot the victims instead of looking at ways of making working the better option, which would surely be win/win? Perhaps some form of protectionism for British products (if such beasts exist anymore).
A town in America had massive unemployment, they had tried several unsuccessful initiatives, none of which had worked. In then end, they decided to get radical and completely scrapped all benefits for six months. Two months later, there was almost full employment, as those who wouldn't work because their benefits would be cut(their jobs in turn were being done by foreign workers - they were mainly farming jobs) had no option but to accept whatever work was available. At the end of the six months, people had got into the habit of working and the unemployment rate didn't drop back to anything like the level it was at previously. You'd have a hard job pulling it off here, but somehow the cycle needs to be broken, it's too easy for people to sit around doing nothing all day, funded by the tax payers.(I'm obviously not suggesting that all unemployed people are lazy, merely that too many people have got into the habit of living off benefits)
What did they do with the foreign labour once the locals went back to work? What had happened to the original wages that meant benefits had become more attractive? In a free market economy, shouldn't the need for workers increase their worth (ie wage)? Surely that's what was manipulated with the shipping in of cheap labour?
I've no idea what happened to the foreign workers, I presume they either moved to another area that wasn't running the scheme, or they went home(it wasn't mentioned in the article I read). As for the benefits paid, I regularly see people interviewed here, who say they get the same in benefits as they would working, so why bother working. The attitude is all wrong.
