The real reason for Brexit?... Charter Cities??

[Nano]

There was only one side of rich people lying and it wasn’t those who wanted to remain. It was only rich people wanting leave who used social media to create myths and then used code to target people they knew would fall for the lie.

As for the EU not benefitting people. Free movement of people, good and services! How is that not benefitting people? I know people and know of people who run small companies who before this **** show could send their stuff to anywhere in the EU no problem. Now they complete documentation and pay individual costs each time. That is not in the interests of anyone. I know of a few young people who could previously stick their instruments in a van and tour the France, Netherlands, Germany and others without any hassle. Now, good luck organising that too.

As for cheap labour. I’m afraid you’re talking neoliberalism again and the process called Shareholder Value Maximisation. That approach is followed in Britain and America. The likes of Germany never went for that economic model.

I didn't say there were no benefits. I said the EU isn't set up to benefit people. It is setup to benefit the global companies. Any benefits people get are a by-product. There are undoubtedly benefits to being in the EU. Free movement is a huge benefit for some, less so for others.

Without getting all the way back in to the Brexit arguments all over again there is clear evidence of wage stagnation at the bottom end of the market caused by an oversupply of unskilled labour. There is also the extra resources that extra people consume (councils, NHS, school places, houses). Then there are the negatives for the countries that are losing people that could enhance their country but instead are picking fruit in the UK.

The majority of poor people only see the negatives of free movement. The bulk of the benefits are for the people that are better off that get cheap goods, cleaners, holidays, skilled jobs abroad etc.

 

[Ziggy]

“Probably why Suella Braverman wants to dump the ECHR, she is heavily involved with Freeports & Charter Cities that will be sold off to private firms. Firms who will be able make up their own rules, e.g. hours of work, wages, etc and no private enterprise wants to be burdened with court cases!”

 

[Nero]

I didn't say there were no benefits. I said the EU isn't set up to benefit people. It is setup to benefit the global companies. Any benefits people get are a by-product. There are undoubtedly benefits to being in the EU. Free movement is a huge benefit for some, less so for others.

Without getting all the way back in to the Brexit arguments all over again there is clear evidence of wage stagnation at the bottom end of the market caused by an oversupply of unskilled labour. There is also the extra resources that extra people consume (councils, NHS, school places, houses). Then there are the negatives for the countries that are losing people that could enhance their country but instead are picking fruit in the UK.

The majority of poor people only see the negatives of free movement. The bulk of the benefits are for the people that are better off that get cheap goods, cleaners, holidays, skilled jobs abroad etc.

Wage stagnation is nothing to do with 2008 and austerity then? That is the main factor is all that. Civil servants pay froze for a couple of years and then increased barely in the decade since. Private sectors companies forced pay cuts on many following 2008. Again, I know a few people who took between a 5% - 15% wage cut. That cut was never restored.

As for extra resources for extra people. Total rubbish I'm afraid. When Central Government massively cuts the budget for a local authority local services suffer. That was all about austerity again. I've read somewhere that the Teesside Local Authorities have had something like £25bn cut since 2010. It's no wonder local services have been hammered. So called "levelling up" will put a fraction of that back.

 

[Nano]

Wage stagnation is nothing to do with 2008 and austerity then? That is the main factor is all that. Civil servants pay froze for a couple of years and then increased barely in the decade since. Private sectors companies forced pay cuts on many following 2008. Again, I know a few people who took between a 5% - 15% wage cut. That cut was never restored.

As for extra resources for extra people. Total rubbish I'm afraid. When Central Government massively cuts the budget for a local authority local services suffer. That was all about austerity again. I've read somewhere that the Teesside Local Authorities have had something like £25bn cut since 2010. It's no wonder local services have been hammered. So called "levelling up" will put a fraction of that back.

Those are completely different jobs markets to unskilled labour. The bottom end of the market, aka minimum wage. There are many jobs that should pay more than minimum wage. They are unskilled but not desirable so to attract people to them a premium should be paid. That means the more attractive minimum wage jobs have to compete for labour which pushes wages up. Instead, companies can import people that will do the job for less than minimum wage (once you've taken half their pay back for accommodation) like fruit picking.

Yes, fully agree that in the public sector austerity was an ideologically unnecessary way to reduce people's pay but immigration doesn't really change that section of the market. I also agree that government ideology hasn't helped in the sense that there have been cuts to public services. There is still no denying that more people to serve for the same resources, nevermind reduced resources is more difficult. Things like housing we know is in very short supply.

More competition for housing drives prices up, more competition for jobs drives wages down.

 

[Unravel_Morrison]

Without getting all the way back in to the Brexit arguments all over again there is clear evidence of wage stagnation at the bottom end of the market caused by an oversupply of unskilled labour. There is also the extra resources that extra people consume (councils, NHS, school places, houses). Then there are the negatives for the countries that are losing people that could enhance their country but instead are picking fruit in the UK.

That's not true. The evidence shows over and again that there's very little effect on wages and every Chancellor in their book for Budgets shows immigration as a net positive.

The housing market is driven more by the fact that it has been commodified now. It's not a simple case of supply and demand. My home's value is driven not just by the number of people looking for homes; it's driven by the number of people who want to profit from owning homes. Until it's made more difficult for businesses to make money from other people paying their mortgages and easier for people to buy their own homes, that won't change.

Your competition for wages argument is similarly flawed. Why aren't nurses starting on 40K a year now?

 

[Nano]

That's not true. The evidence shows over and again that there's very little effect on wages and every Chancellor in their book for Budgets shows immigration as a net positive.

The housing market is driven more by the fact that it has been commodified now. It's not a simple case of supply and demand. My home's value is driven not just by the number of people looking for homes; it's driven by the number of people who want to profit from owning homes. Until it's made more difficult for businesses to make money from other people paying their mortgages and easier for people to buy their own homes, that won't change.

Your competition for wages argument is similarly flawed. Why aren't nurses starting on 40K a year now?

Immigration as a whole is a positive for the economy but for the people at the lowest end of the wage scale it isn't. You know what else is a positive for the economy? Big energy firms making billions in profit while people can't keep their homes warm. There is a huge difference between the economy and all the different sectors within the economy. The lowest end, that need the most help, face the most competition (consume the most public services) and are therefore disadvantaged most. The rest of us benefit from cheap stuff.

There are a finite number of homes. The more people that want to live in one the more it costs to live in them. A landlord (foreign or otherwise) can own 100 houses but they can only live in 1. They want to own houses they don't live in because they can rent them out. More people means more competition for housing means higher prices (house price or rental). If demand for housing reduced, house prices (and rents) would fall and/or standards would increase.

Nurses get screwed because they are public sector. It's ideologically driven. They can't just leave and go and do something else (although many of them have hence the vacancies). They trained to be nurses so are semi-forced to accept what they are given. Nursing is a vocational qualification. They learn how to do that job and nothing else. It isn't a particularly transferable skill so it's difficult to just go and do something else. If there was a competing private sector they could easily go to then there would be a staff exodus and wages would go up. Same for most other public sector jobs. A good example is I.T. Hospitals really struggle to recruit good I.T. staff because they can earn far more in the private sector.

 

[Nero]

There are a finite number of homes. The more people that want to live in one the more it costs to live in them. A landlord (foreign or otherwise) can own 100 houses but they can only live in 1. They want to own houses they don't live in because they can rent them out. More people means more competition for housing means higher prices (house price or rental). If demand for housing reduced, house prices (and rents) would fall and/or standards would increase.

The greatest con trick pulled by the Thatcher government was Right to Buy. That has transferred thousands of decent social houses from public to private without replacing the previous social housing. To make matters even worse, housing that use to be owned and looked after by Local Authorities are now almost entirely owned by private landlords, who mainly rent to people who would have needed social housing. So, an LA is now paying Housing Benefit to a private landlord for a house it would have owned 35 years ago.

That is the neoliberal world people of Britain are living in. It's totally wrong and has created massive inequality. There has to be a better way.

 

[Unravel_Morrison]

The greatest con trick pulled by the Thatcher government was Right to Buy. That has transferred thousands of decent social houses from public to private without replacing the previous social housing. To make matters even worse, housing that use to be owned and looked after by Local Authorities are now almost entirely owned by private landlords, who mainly rent to people who would have needed social housing. So, an LA is now paying Housing Benefit to a private landlord for a house it would have owned 35 years ago.

That is the neoliberal world people of Britain are living in. It's totally wrong and has created massive inequality. There has to be a better way.

100% this.

No government will do it but they need to make it more difficult (expensive) to own multiple homes; with that money being allocated to local authorities to provide social housing.

My landlord has just put up my rent due to the energy prices. That's fair enough; I understand as a business he has to cover costs.

I'm pretty sure he's also paying more for petrol for his Rolls Royce Ghost as well.

 

[LaPennaBianca]

Those are completely different jobs markets to unskilled labour. The bottom end of the market, aka minimum wage. There are many jobs that should pay more than minimum wage. They are unskilled but not desirable so to attract people to them a premium should be paid. That means the more attractive minimum wage jobs have to compete for labour which pushes wages up. Instead, companies can import people that will do the job for less than minimum wage (once you've taken half their pay back for accommodation) like fruit picking.

Yes, fully agree that in the public sector austerity was an ideologically unnecessary way to reduce people's pay but immigration doesn't really change that section of the market. I also agree that government ideology hasn't helped in the sense that there have been cuts to public services. There is still no denying that more people to serve for the same resources, nevermind reduced resources is more difficult. Things like housing we know is in very short supply.

More competition for housing drives prices up, more competition for jobs drives wages down.

Fun how, despite all the high falutin' arguments about sovereignty and trade policy, it comes down to immigration. Even though immigration numbers haven't gone down since Brexit and won't, as our economy needs people to pick crops, staff nursing homes and care for the ageing population. And demand will only increase in the latter.

Freedom of movement was a natural means to address this, and guaranteed right for people who came here, allowing them to settle and build lives. The same jobs will exist, undercutting the lowest paid as you say, but they will be staffed by the cheapest possible migrants in the cruellest possible way.

Ultimately, FOM isn't the source of anyone's issues. Germany and France are subject to Freedom of movement and wages haven't suffered there. In 2018, UK incomes were just 9 per cent higher than in 2005, compared with 40 per cent in Germany and 39.8 per cent in France.

Its down to domestic decisions.

Leaving the EU has effectively stopped growth in the UK economy and has resulted in the UK looking 'more and more like an emerging market' according to Saxo Bank analysts. So that has made us poorer.

 

[Nano]

The greatest con trick pulled by the Thatcher government was Right to Buy. That has transferred thousands of decent social houses from public to private without replacing the previous social housing. To make matters even worse, housing that use to be owned and looked after by Local Authorities are now almost entirely owned by private landlords, who mainly rent to people who would have needed social housing. So, an LA is now paying Housing Benefit to a private landlord for a house it would have owned 35 years ago.

That is the neoliberal world people of Britain are living in. It's totally wrong and has created massive inequality. There has to be a better way.

You aren't going to get any arguments from me but Neoliberalism isn't exclusive to the UK. The EU is a neoliberalist organisation.

Just in pure numbers however we have been building 200k-ish houses per year for the last 30 years (bit of a short-term drop post 2008 which recovered). We have never been in a situation where we had too many houses so prices have been rising steadily. In 2004 net migration jumped above that 200k from an average of 100k per year to over 300k per year. Basic numbers says that pushes up prices. The additional immigration is mostly unskilled as it came from the EU so it only affects one end of the market.

Now add in that at the bottom end of the labour market there is an increased supply of labour and therefore more people after the same level of housing causes the biggest problems for people in that market. The middle classes have been doing well from the houses the own and the fact that poor people are subsidising them by doing jobs for less than they are worth.

Fun how, despite all the high falutin' arguments about sovereignty and trade policy, it comes down to immigration. Even though immigration numbers haven't gone down since Brexit and won't, as our economy needs people to pick crops, staff nursing homes and care for the ageing population. And demand will only increase in the latter.

Freedom of movement was a natural means to address this, and guaranteed right for people who came here, allowing them to settle and build lives. The same jobs will exist, undercutting the lowest paid as you say, but they will be staffed by the cheapest possible migrants in the cruellest possible way.

Immigrants now have to get enough points to come here. Controlled immigration isn't a dirty word. It just means we are protecting the people that need it by not forcing them to compete with a huge number of people for the same jobs. So, we might have the same number of immigrants (although net migration fell significantly last year but that might be explained more by covid than anything else) but the immigrants will be skilled or they will be in areas we have specific job shortages. If we just allow people to come and plug the gaps where we have shortages without first trying to raise wages in that area then I would agree that the policy isn't working. We shouldn't accept that just because people don't want to do **** jobs for **** wages that it is ok to exploitatively import people to do those jobs. We were already undercutting the lowest paid with the cheapest possible migrants in the cruellest way by bringing people over to pick fruit for minimum wage and then charging half that wage back for them to share a shipping container with 5 other strangers and selling them all of their foods from the farm shop. I'm not sure what point you are making but exploiting skilled immigrants is far harder to do than people willing to work for next to nothing so they can send a couple of quid home to their family.

Immigrants aren't a problem. The problem is purely numbers. Controlling the numbers in the right way to protect workers in the UK is the right (correct!) thing to do (it used to be the left thing to do but now they are more bothered about not offending people than doing what they once stood for). There has to be a balance somewhere. I don't know why people can no longer accept that. I don't know how people fare in other countries. It's difficult to compare the average. Germany has a higher average salary than we do but are their poor people better off than our poor people? Do they share the same concerns as ours? I know there has been a big problem with racism in Germany and immigrants do a lot of the low paid jobs. Germany has a different issue to us though because as many people leave as enter each year. Their population has barely changed in 30 years (80m in 92 to 83m in 2022) compared to ours (56m to 68m).

Again, I'm not going to argue that it is down to domestic decisions. It is, 100%. We could have higher immigration than we currently have if we invest in the public services, housing infrastructure etc to support it. We could have higher immigration in the areas where we need people (as a country), not the area businesses need people to push costs down and keep more profits for themselves. We have shortages of carers because the pay is too low because it isn't funded correctly so make that job pay. We have shortages in the NHS for all staff groups so make the salary and conditions more attractive, make training free again. Don't have our young people working in call centres for minimum wage and then importing people from poorer countries who are happy to be paid less to do the job. It doesn't help the people that are already here and it doesn't help those countries that have invested in their people only to have them leave to do the same job here.