SmallTown
Well-known member
I feel that apropos of nothing comment needs an explanation. Care to link it to the subject?
Net Migration 728000
- Thread starter zzzzz
- Start date
hobblewobble
Well-known member
Nope
SmallTown
Well-known member
I wonder if fish can burp?
Anton_Berg
Well-known member
'Net migration' is not a very informative stat.
SmallTown
Well-known member
Why?
760k, 900k, 728k is the last 3 year's figures. They tend to underestimate initially for some reason so that recent number is likely to increase when the data is updated next year. So going off recent years, 1m extra a year isn't far off and it's getting towards nitpicking territory to argue that it isn't instead of addressing the topic. There are about 1.5m people working in the NHS in England and 205 of them are from overseas. 0.75m additional every year are not coming here to work in the NHS. They are mostly being brought in by businesses that can get away with paying foreigners less than they pay locals.
BoroMart
Well-known member
Well it’s 20% inaccurate. That’s as significant as say 20% more workers for nhs becoming available. Hardly nitbpicking…facts are important they’re a far better basis for decision making than feelings, vagaries and guesstimates.
Nhs…define “overseas” because there is no way there 205 people in the nhs who were not born in England
Redwurzel
Well-known member
Any ex gents hairdressers on here?
If yes do you believe the price of gents haircut in the UK has been affected by the influx of a large number of Turkish style barbers?
What I do know myself is the price of a haircut has not gone up with the same rate of inflation in the last 10 years.
Ladies hairdressers don't seem to be affected the same. Not quite sure why. Although ladies hairdressers are notorious in the past for very low pay levels.
I would say Taxi drivers have found it harder to earn a decent income in the last 30 years as people are willing to work for lower wages and the cost of basic like housing rent has increased faster than wages.
Ref 905,000 net migration - they may generate more tax, but they need somewhere to live and this had helped make property more expensive to buy or rent as demand increases and this affects most of the UK population. UK housing supply is much below what is needed to absorb net migration of 905,000.
A key for me is the type of person coming to the UK i.e. what type of work they will realistically do, if they have come to work. If its employment where its very difficult to train UK based people to do far dues, say like heart surgery, but if its to come to the UK to drive a taxi, cut hair, work in care, its work that can be done by UK workers if the rewards are high enough for the UK based workers and the training is fully available for the right numbers. Some people in the UK are struggling with mental health needs support into employment or struggling with a disability issue, At the moment it feels like a lot of people in the UK are just written off as not up to speed. I write this as someone who has worked for many years with people with a disability who are keen to work but are rarely given a chance.
If yes do you believe the price of gents haircut in the UK has been affected by the influx of a large number of Turkish style barbers?
What I do know myself is the price of a haircut has not gone up with the same rate of inflation in the last 10 years.
Ladies hairdressers don't seem to be affected the same. Not quite sure why. Although ladies hairdressers are notorious in the past for very low pay levels.
I would say Taxi drivers have found it harder to earn a decent income in the last 30 years as people are willing to work for lower wages and the cost of basic like housing rent has increased faster than wages.
Ref 905,000 net migration - they may generate more tax, but they need somewhere to live and this had helped make property more expensive to buy or rent as demand increases and this affects most of the UK population. UK housing supply is much below what is needed to absorb net migration of 905,000.
A key for me is the type of person coming to the UK i.e. what type of work they will realistically do, if they have come to work. If its employment where its very difficult to train UK based people to do far dues, say like heart surgery, but if its to come to the UK to drive a taxi, cut hair, work in care, its work that can be done by UK workers if the rewards are high enough for the UK based workers and the training is fully available for the right numbers. Some people in the UK are struggling with mental health needs support into employment or struggling with a disability issue, At the moment it feels like a lot of people in the UK are just written off as not up to speed. I write this as someone who has worked for many years with people with a disability who are keen to work but are rarely given a chance.
Last edited:
That should say 20%, not 205. Point being that net migration in just the last 2 years is higher than the total number of staff in the NHS and it's about 5x higher than the total number of overseas staff.Well it’s 20% inaccurate. That’s as significant as say 20% more workers for nhs becoming available. Hardly nitbpicking…facts are important they’re a far better basis for decision making than feelings, vagaries and guesstimates.
Nhs…define “overseas” because there is no way there 205 people in the nhs who were not born in England
BoroMart
Well-known member
Sure, but those people include kids who might be future employees, stay at home partners, and people in other industries that are understaffed.
I.e. People that aren't contributing economically so are a net negative to stretched public services.
Redwurzel
Well-known member
Nano - I would add a lot of those controlling the level of net migration are not very affected by over stretched public services. For example they send their kids to private school, they use private medicine providers and they provide funds for their own social care.
It tends to be the working class/lower income groups that are stretched in the over stretching. Just as its these groups that tend to face increased competition in the employment market.
It tends to be the working class/lower income groups that are stretched in the over stretching. Just as its these groups that tend to face increased competition in the employment market.
BoroMart
Well-known member
Kids become a positive, parents are needed to raise kids. Glad to see you see no value just burden from stay at home mums. I’m sure your own would be very pleased at that.
They also have to eat, travel, and spend money, so contribute to the economy and tax revenue which of course goes to leaves paying for those vital services like the nhs
Andy_W
Well-known member
Largely incorrect about construction.
So, lets assume the training is the responsibility of the employer:
You can't train people who don't apply and don't stick around, but also construction and utilities generally doesn't need training for the start, for basic labour roles (which is where 99% of site staff start). It's like an extremely basic H&S test and a CSCS card (£50 total) and you're good to go, that's kind of the point. Then once people stick around for more than 5 minutes that's when they start to get trained on the thousands of various construction courses. This happens as main contractors and clients want (insist) your lads have them (for the best sites), and it makes sense for the lads to have them, plus they're heavily subsidised. Our lads have about 10-20 courses they cycle through which need renewing every few years, but we work on rail, national highways, national grid etc.
But, training doesn't need to be the responsibility of the employer:
Anyone can do 10 courses(for about £1,000 total), and then be immediately a lot further up the chain than most of the other people with <3 years experience. Next to no young lad (or lass) does this of their own accord, but it's a massive time saver and effective proof of dedication/ willingness to work. Doing this alone could get you a 30k job extremely easily, which then only goes up, as you wouldn't be a labourer for long (even if they were extremely average).
There are even loads of free courses and grants, plus the CITB takes money from every construction company to put into a big pot which then gets dished out to anyone who wants it, so basically anyone who wants to do courses can either get them free or extremely cheap. The training is readily available, it's easy, it's quick, and it's cheap.
The wages in construction aren't rock bottom, a labourer with a £50 CSCS card can get a job in the North East on ~£15-17 an hour, and do as much overtime as they want, easy to get an "average" wage just doing that, if willing to work. If they stick it out and get other tickets then 30k+ is simple with no responsibility for others/ no supervision etc.
Even a small digger driver can easily get ~35k minimum, and you can get the ticket to do that for <£1,000, and you can basically sit in the digger all day.
None of the above even need any education really, so there's no barrier to entry for anyone from the UK, and with English as a first language they naturally end up higher up the pecking order.
If they're willing to travel and stay out overnight etc then pay is even higher and obv get meals and hotels paid for etc.
The main problem with construction is apprentices, too many companies are allowed to use this as basically slave labour, but this is more electricians, joiners, plasterers, brickies etc. The young lads don't learn much just carrying tools and tidying up etc, it's not what the scheme was designed for. This is what maybe puts a lot of lads of, but those are more jobs related to house bashing.
Students who do courses in needed degrees are paying too much and none of them should be paying interest on student loans, that's a **** take, especially when those before them got the courses for nowt and obv paid no interest. But, I can see the argument for paying something or a mechanism where people have to pay if they drop out or don't end up using their degree, as it's unfair for the taxpayer to foot that bill. To me footing the bill/ risk of that is worth it to the taxpayer.
Far too many drop out of degrees though or don't end up in a role related to their degree, or at least that's how it was when all my mates were going through uni. Maybe it's better now since the fees set in. In my day half dropped out, and seemingly the only ones who stayed in their degree industry were largely the computer science lot who are all now web/ app devs or database guys. I suppose the latter could be self taught with more relevance to specific roles, and for cheaper these days mind.
Restricting Dr training roles seems nuts, what are their reasons for that? They must give some reasons?
Do people drop out, or are the courses funded by BNA or something?
Do people get trained and then go abroad for better pay?
A doctor is what, a 7 year medical degree? Probably a £200k cost to doing that for 7 years for course fees and expenses? Or can a nurse do a top up degree to become a doctor, or something like that?