harriedgary wrote: ↑9 Jun 2023, 2:44pm
it does seem like the torys (read ukip) have decided to go all out broke to get the indigenous unemployed into work no matter what the cost to the country (not withstanding the greatest benefit expenditure is actually on pensions, not unemployment)
Before we had low paid migrant workers doing the back breaking jobs we brits didn't want, i.e long hours in fields picking tates and colli.
Now we are actively seeking highly skilled immigrant workers to take the jobs we haven't been training our lot for, while stopping the migrant workers from doing the low paid jobs we don't want to do.
Make sense? Not to me unless you really do believe the torys want the unemployed in work at ANY cost.
Meanwhile, in case you haven't got a degree in economics, if you attract high paid migrant workers into your country, one effect is that housing costs will increase, as they want decent homes and so compete in a limited space with others. The low paid field workers from 5 years ago, they didn't care too much because they were only staying a few years to make a bundle before going onto better things. So they happily shared houses.
The problem for our unemployed lot is, that unless they are given a real, solid, substantial, genuine route upwards, then a field worker today is what they will remain 20 years later. And 20 years of working in a field is never going to get you your own home because the cost of housing goes up faster than you can save a deposit from what's left after you have paid your rent to someone buy to letting and getting you to pay their mortgage for them thank you very much.
That's one reason why the unemployed don't want to do field work. Because they already know it is, in itself a dead end job with no prospects, and no hope. No future.
I know the demographic of this forum is predominantly middle class. And it never ceases to amaze me when lecturing, how ignorant the one side is, of the other side's situation. 'let them eat cake'
50 years ago a hard working man (yes man because we're talking pre sex equality) could if he chose to be frugal and didn't get ill or sacked, save up and then get a house on a working man's wage. Wages have gone up since, but property prices have gone up faster. Now hard working people cannot afford to buy their own property. Too many people are either been trolls over this, or plain ignorant. Minimum wage is what many working class people earn. There are only so many days in the week, so many hours in the day. And not many people can sustain a long working week.
Confirmation bias: when you support your own belief with one example.
Oh but people can work 2 or 3 jobs. OH yes? Few can. It is draining. When I was younger long before the NMW and working time directive, I worked 2 and sometimes 3 jobs. It was bloody tiring. And I eventually collapsed. Did you hear me shouting out about how I managed to buy a house, start a business and become a millionaire by working 70 to 110 hours a week?
NO. Because I didn't. They were low paid jobs. I had expenses in doing the jobs, I had to pay tax, I had rent to pay. And by flogging myself to near death, it meant I couldn't focus on moving up.
What's the fastest 100m sprint in the world?
9.58 seconds
OK, now you go ahead and sprint in that time! You can't, oh, why not?
Because you are not unique, or super human, Just human. You hear about the fastest man on earth, you don't hear about the billions that would take 20 seconds to sprint 100m. That's confirmation bias in action. 9.58 seconds is staggering fast. It's actually faster than most of us normally cycle at if you work it out in mph.
So no, the average person isn't capable of working enough hours to compensate for low wages that don't match the very high property prices in England. A few can, they are the Olympic athletes. You hear about Olympic athletes because they are newsworthy. Who was second to walk on the moon.Quite a lot know that answer.
Ah, but who was number 5 to walk on the moon eh? Know that without googling it. And to become a NASA astronaut was to be the best of the best.
So what is the difference then? Support. That's the key. Have a partner = chances of success triple. Have better off parent = chances of success triple. Brexit won't cure our social ills, never was meant to. All a fudge. Going back to the EU won't change it either in fact. The only thing that will sort out our problems is a change in heart in this country about how we treat our neighbours. As long as critical needs are restricted by capitalist supply chains, then we will have social ills. Do you think the poorest are happy? You better not as you won't see the coming revolution then, They are revolting slowly, but surely. If we don't share out the profits of labour among those who labour, then we will all suffer.
The question posed almost sounds like a typical supporter of brexit's lance at remainers. Poke fun and abuse at those who disagree. Just remember though it was fine cut in the vote before the lies were revealed. Only 2% in it. Hardly a true mandate to fundamentally change the social and economic well being of the country.