REFERENDUM RESULTS AND DISCUSSION THREAD

[thehistorymakers]

Other jobs that pay more money?

Although, I've been seeing Eastern Europeans picking fruit at least for the last 10 years.

I remember when I was at school we used to pick strawberries during the summer holiday.

Yes and me. We always had enough workers though to collect the harvest. They all disappeared in about 4 years. Do you think the British workers all just decided to get another job at the same time, or do you think the farmers decided to not employ British workers? It would be easy to say that British workers are lazy etc. However, British workers had been doing the same job for hundreds of years, so what was it that meant all of a sudden British workers weren't employed in agriculture and people from the EU were?

 

[Penk Wolf]

Another point, higher wages eventually means redundancies, so profits can be increased or sustained or at least that's what I've noticed of late with a number of companies.

 

[Penk Wolf]

Yes and me. We always had enough workers though to collect the harvest. They all disappeared in about 4 years. Do you think the British workers all just decided to get another job at the same time, or do you think the farmers decided to not employ British workers? It would be easy to say that British workers are lazy etc. However, British workers had been doing the same job for hundreds of years, so what was it that meant all of a sudden British workers weren't employed in agriculture and people from the EU were?

Isn't agricultural jobs seasonal? So, possibly they've found a full time job rather than part time?

 

[thehistorymakers]

Isn't agricultural jobs seasonal? So, possibly they've found a full time job rather than part time?

So you don't think British workers were useful before the influx of Eastern Europeans and not as useful after?

 

[MARKakaJIM]

Never said it was, but low paid workers should be looking at themselves for why they have a low paid job not immigrants.

If I was a low paid worker, I'd be looking to do a night course to stop me being a low paid worker.

We've been looking to take on a couple of apprentices about 18, which they can make a career out of. We are offering a starting wage of £250 a week, but those that we've spoke to, that we know, would rather earn £350 a week doing a job with no prospects. I guess when they are still earning the same money 10-15 years time, they will looking to blame the system for them earning low wages.

Saw a fair few people fall into that trap when I worked at IKEA, plenty of us there who worked part time whilst in higher education and then would look to move on into our chosen fields after graduating but some would grow impatient and end up going full time at IKEA when the didn't instantly get their career going. Then after they'd done that for a few months and earnt what seemed like decent money at the time, some committed to renting houses and what not with their new found cash and at that point they couldn't afford to drop back to a lower wage in a graduate position elsewhere. Can think of a few who ended up doing that before they even got to the end of their degree, just dropped out and settled for what they had, hoping they could climb the management ladder at some point to earn a decent wage.

My dad ended up going for your route out of low paid work, did little a school and went into an apprenticeship then ended up doing evening classes after my sister was born so he could put himself in the frame for some promotions at work and ended up in a much better position at the end of it.

 

[leedswolf]

Other jobs that pay more money?

Although, I've been seeing Eastern Europeans picking fruit at least for the last 10 years.

I remember when I was at school we used to pick strawberries during the summer holiday.

Service sector. I think the UK workforce is approx 1% in agriculture now. Mid 19th century it was 20%. Service sector -education, health, transport, retail and wholesale distribution, communications, hotel and catering, arts, entertainment and leisure, public administration and law enforcement - about 80% of current UK workforce. Construction 8% IIRC.

 

[The Saturday Boy]

Service sector. I think the UK workforce is approx 1% in agriculture now. Mid 19th century it was 20%. Service sector -education, health, transport, retail and wholesale distribution, communications, hotel and catering, arts, entertainment and leisure, public administration and law enforcement - about 80% of current UK workforce. Construction 8% IIRC.

The service sector is made up of very flexible labour (very much suited to EU immigrants in particular) and areas like health where we don't have sufficient numbers within the domestic workforce. Free movement of EU workers has propped up our biggest economic sector for much of the last 20 years. There is no way the business sector is going to stand idly by and let government rip that to shreds with politically motivated decisions about Brexit.

Those who voted no because of immigration are going to be very disappointed and likely very angry.

 

[thehistorymakers]

The service sector is made up of very flexible labour (very much suited to EU immigrants in particular) and areas like health where we don't have sufficient numbers within the domestic workforce. Free movement of EU workers has propped up our biggest economic sector for much of the last 20 years. There is no way the business sector is going to stand idly by and let government rip that to shreds with politically motivated decisions about Brexit.

Those who voted no because of immigration are going to be very disappointed and likely very angry.

How did we cope before we had all this flexible workforce from the EU?
Surprised that you seem to be defending flexible workforces and the business sector. Why haven't we got enough trained British workers in the health service?

 

[The Saturday Boy]

How did we cope before we had all this flexible workforce from the EU?
Surprised that you seem to be defending flexible workforces and the business sector. Why haven't we got enough trained British workers in the health service?

I have pointed this out to you before, do not infer anything about my opinions - you have a habit of putting a spin on my words that were never intended. At no point have I defended flexible work, I have noted their existence as fact.

We coped previously because our workforce was different. Non standard employment (that which is not Monday-Friday 9-5) is much more prevalent. Temporary work, part time work, less secure employment etc are all more common now than they were previously. The way we work has changed and so has the workforce.

You tell me why we don't have enough trained staff in the NHS - if you say it is because of immigration or the EU you will confirm my thoughts about you.

 

[leedswolf]

How did we cope before we had all this flexible workforce from the EU?

We relied on immigrants from ROI, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, West Indies, South Africa, Kenya, Hong Kong and the like.

 

[thehistorymakers]

I have pointed this out to you before, do not infer anything about my opinions - you have a habit of putting a spin on my words that were never intended. At no point have I defended flexible work, I have noted their existence as fact.

We coped previously because our workforce was different. Non standard employment (that which is not Monday-Friday 9-5) is much more prevalent. Temporary work, part time work, less secure employment etc are all more common now than they were previously. The way we work has changed and so has the workforce.

You tell me why we don't have enough trained staff in the NHS - if you say it is because of immigration or the EU you will confirm my thoughts about you.

I blame successive goverments that have not invested enough in training our young people.

Can you tell me please, how high levels of immigration has benefited the low-paid British workers?

 

[Wilf Wolf]

I blame successive goverments that have not invested enough in training our young people.

Can you tell me please, how high levels of immigration has benefited the low-paid British workers?

Well for a start it has ensured they have a health service should they need it. It's far from perfect but without immigrants it would be flat on the floor rather than on its knees!

 

[thehistorymakers]

Well for a start it has ensured they have a health service should they need it. It's far from perfect but without immigrants it would be flat on the floor rather than on its knees!

High levels of immigration also puts a strain on the health service, if you don't spend enough on investment and infrastructure, which we haven't. The people who are mostly likely to feel that strain are the low paid and the poor.

 

[The Saturday Boy]

I blame successive goverments that have not invested enough in training our young people.

Can you tell me please, how high levels of immigration has benefited the low-paid British workers?

First, understand that I don't accept the term "high levels of immigration" in the context of this debate. I consider it a pejorative term in keeping with the general tone of many of your contributions which have a "blame the immigrants" inference. I accept that you have repeatedly stated that you are not "blaming immigrants".

Immigration has supported our NHS workforce, significantly. An economy requires a healthy workforce so a direct benefit here.

Social care, including care of dependants (elderly and children). Without our immigrant workforce we would unlikely be able to provide the level of care in nursing homes, childcare facilities and other social care provision that we currently do. That responsibility would fall further on the family impacting on their ability to find work, most notably the women who have been enabled to become more active in the workplace over the last generation. One of the most significant reasons our workforce is growing is the fact that more women are able to work. Immigration has supported that.

The immigrant workforce contributes taxes and national insurance which in turn helps pay for pensions for our ever ageing population - if they were absent, the burden would fall even more so on the remaining workforce (including the low paid) possibly through tax increases.

Businesses have survived because of the immigrant workforce available to them, take that option away from them and they would fail putting people out of work.

On wages - the government's own report states there has been a "small negative impact on the wages of the low paid", this feeds into your narrative for sure but they go onto point out that there are insufficient resources targeted at enforcing existing regulations. " Inspection regimes are insufficiently robust and penalties too feeble. An employer can expect a visit from HMRC once every 250 years and a prosecution once in a million years." Which suggests that robust government intervention could address this issue.

 

[thehistorymakers]

First, understand that I don't accept the term "high levels of immigration" in the context of this debate. I consider it a pejorative term in keeping with the general tone of many of your contributions which have a "blame the immigrants" inference. I accept that you have repeatedly stated that you are not "blaming immigrants".

Immigration has supported our NHS workforce, significantly. An economy requires a healthy workforce so a direct benefit here.

Social care, including care of dependants (elderly and children). Without our immigrant workforce we would unlikely be able to provide the level of care in nursing homes, childcare facilities and other social care provision that we currently do. That responsibility would fall further on the family impacting on their ability to find work, most notably the women who have been enabled to become more active in the workplace over the last generation. One of the most significant reasons our workforce is growing is the fact that more women are able to work. Immigration has supported that.

The immigrant workforce contributes taxes and national insurance which in turn helps pay for pensions for our ever ageing population - if they were absent, the burden would fall even more so on the remaining workforce (including the low paid) possibly through tax increases.

Businesses have survived because of the immigrant workforce available to them, take that option away from them and they would fail putting people out of work.

On wages - the government's own report states there has been a "small negative impact on the wages of the low paid", this feeds into your narrative for sure but they go onto point out that there are insufficient resources targeted at enforcing existing regulations. " Inspection regimes are insufficiently robust and penalties too feeble. An employer can expect a visit from HMRC once every 250 years and a prosecution once in a million years." Which suggests that robust government intervention could address this issue.

Are you saying the living standards and pay of the low paid is better or worse, since our population has increased? (mainly because of immigration).
I noted there are 4 million people working that are below the poverty line. Usually it is the left, who don't suffer from low wages and have university education who support no controls on UK borders and the rich. I think that is because immigration doesn't affect them, where as the low paid are actually poorer and their living standards have dropped. I do blame the governments for that and not immigrants, so if you don't want me to infer what you think, it is only fair that you don't do the same.

 

[The Saturday Boy]

Are you saying the living standards and pay of the low paid is better or worse, since our population has increased? (mainly because of immigration).
I noted there are 4 million people working that are below the poverty line. Usually it is the left, who don't suffer from low wages and have university education who support no controls on UK borders and the rich. I think that is because immigration doesn't affect them, where as the low paid are actually poorer and their living standards have dropped. I do blame the governments for that and not immigrants, so if you don't want me to infer what you think, it is only fair that you don't do the same.

I explicitly stated that I accepted that you have repeatedly stated that you do not blame immigrants because I am aware that the way you structure your comments gives the impression of a "blame immigrants" tone. You, on the other hand, just make stuff up and apply it to other people's views.

Your gross stereotypes of "the left" do nothing to further your argument either - it just demonstrates that your own prejudices play out in your responses rather than dealing with the subject matter. I am the only poster to pull you up on your tendency to deflect rather than debate. But let's deal with that assertion that it is "usually the left who don't suffer from low wages and have university education who support no controls on UK borders". It is a nonsensical statement. Political parties of all persuasions have supported and enabled the EU, including free movement of Labour, so it is hardly something to hang on "the left" whatever that might be.

In terms of living standards - that is not something that can be blamed solely on the EU or immigration. "IFS calculations show that average household incomes will be 18% lower in 2021-22 than could have been reasonably expected before the financial crisis in 2007-08"

The biggest factor in the decline of living standards in the UK has been the UK's domestic response to the global financial crash, not our membership of the EU and not the levels of immigration. Austerity was, and is, a UK decision.

So if you really don't blame immigrants for the problems with standards of living and the (small) impact it has had on the lowest paid - why do so many of your contributions refer to immigration?

 

[Papper]

You can prove that can you?

There are currently 400,000 EU14 workers in the UK who are more likely to be in a skilled occupation than the UK born – 70% compared to 55%. However, there are more than twice that number from the accession countries known as the EU10 of whom almost three quarters are in low skilled employment and over one third of the total are in the very lowest category of low skilled employment

Breaking the EU24 down, EU14 workers are more likely to be in skilled work than EU10 workers, with 69% of EU14 and 28% of EU10 workers occupying roles skilled to level 3 or 4. This means that almost three quarters of the 872,000 EU10 workers are in low skilled work, as are nearly one third of the 400,000 EU14 migrants.

https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/364

 

[Papper]

An increase in the supply of labour, which happens when there is an increase in immigration, increases the potential output of an economy. Additionally, as the majority of immigrants are of working age they also increase demand in the economy. So, the theory goes, immigration is good for the UK (in an economic sense).

In theory yes but reports suggest the impact of large scale migration on the economy to do low skilled, low paid work has been minimal.

However, the greater the supply of labour - the less bargaining power the worker has. Additionally, employers generally set wages, not workers and as a country we have progressively worsened the ways in which workers can collectivise themselves to re-balance the power difference between employers and labour. But at least we have weakened those bad unions.

So what we have is a situation where immigration benefits the economy in terms of what it can achieve and increases demand in the economy meaning more is produced to meet the demand but power over wage levels are ever more in favour of employers who, in pursuit of profits, dividends to shareholders and other factors curtail wages in favour of other "priorities" - thus the value of labour is below what it should be. Consequence, a low wage economy.

The New Labour government set the minimum wage. The supply of labour, cheap labour benefits the Corporates. Probably essential given the amount of unemployable people in this country. Low wages are subsidised by the taxpayer and not the Corporates.

There are few, if any, reasons, why wages would be driven up so I am not sure why you are making this point. Before the referendum campaign, these were the issues that led me to believe that we shouldn't be in the EU because the supply of labour was preventing us addressing low pay and pay inequality but it became very clear that nobody on the leave campaign was arguing for a Brexit that addressed any of these issues and it is very clear that the current government has no intention of dealing with these issues...so this is what is going to happen.

A shift to low skilled jobs?

https://www.ft.com/content/6a8544ae-9d9e-11e4-8ea3-00144feabdc0

We will leave the EU. We will still need low skilled labour. We will rely on immigration for that labour. Mobility is the biggest barrier for low skilled workers so in all likelihood the main source of low skilled labour will continue to be from our near neighbours in Europe and because we will need them to continue coming to the UK...we will let them. This government will do nothing to address low wages through legislation so there will be little difference in wages in the foreseeable future.

So the reason why the unemployed in this country can't do the low skilled work of migrants is lack of mobility? They can't travel to work or aren't motivated to work?

Alternatively, we can rely on our own citizens to plug the gap vacated by the immigrant workforce. Do not think that suddenly all our unemployed will suddenly pick up the mantle unless you are going to force them to do it. The consequences of forcing people into work that they do not want to do is rarely favourable and I am fairly sure that most businesses would not want such labour forced on them.

If they don't want to work or are incapable of doing low skilled work why should working people subsidise them? Working people subsidise the low wages of those who work and the benefits of those that don't want to work. You are doubling the demand on public services. The Corporates get rich, the economy stagnates, national debt rises and the living standards of all decreases.

 

[The Saturday Boy]

Welfare states are imperfect. I like the idea of a national minimum income and we can afford it, if we want to.

 

[Papper]

The service sector is made up of very flexible labour (very much suited to EU immigrants in particular) and areas like health where we don't have sufficient numbers within the domestic workforce. Free movement of EU workers has propped up our biggest economic sector for much of the last 20 years. There is no way the business sector is going to stand idly by and let government rip that to shreds with politically motivated decisions about Brexit.

Those who voted no because of immigration are going to be very disappointed and likely very angry.

I'm not angry as I can vote out any government now are totally accountable. Governments who were unable to stop the freedom of movement and unable to get the work shy into work. Successive governments that have racked up insane debt levels, a low wage culture and the near collapse of public services (without the interference of the Corporate serving EU)