The EU deal

[Whistlin' Dixie]

There might be 500,000 jobs, but they could all be looking for doctors, engineers

If that was the case then the country'd be in a far worse state than you think it is, innit.....And you're telling ME to 'cut the hyperbole' LAD ??

'They could all be for doctors, engineers'....Please stop, you'll give me a hernia through laughing so much. Conclusive proof that it's not just the MP's who are out of touch.

How many of those 1.69 million people are looking for full-time, how many want part-time, how many have disabilities that prevent them from particular types of work?

Go back in the thread or read about universal credit and the conditions for claiming. See how it affects those already in part time work AS WELL as the unemployed AND the self-employed.

So, you can add them numbers to the 1.69m unemployed then divide by the 0.5m jobs.

While you're at it, read about ATOS & Maximus and the Govt's aktion T4 style programme of forcing the disabled into work they cannot do.

Don't pontificate about things you obviously have very VERY little knowledge of, and then try to tell me that I don't know what I'm talking about.

State of you - Crowing about how everything worked out for you....because you worked dead hard. I'm not remotely interested in what you've done, or how you did it. It isn't a one size fits all world.

It IS, though, further conclusive proof that you're living in your own little bubble.

What you would do with all those that are already here. No agenda me, just looking for answers.

*sighs & thinks about butting wall*

Did I not say (words to the effect of) I'd limit the amount of low-skilled, low-paid jobs they'd be allowed to hold in accordance with the UC claimant requirements?

As it happens, I never suggested that they do get the same benefits.

No. You suggested I said they do. So.....?

 

[magicjuan]

There is absolutely nothing stopping a British person from working multiple jobs except for themselves.

Some of the guff you are talking here... If everything you said was true then Canada (A country that has to rely on immigration to maintain a positive population growth) would be in absolute chaos.

I firmly believe that if a person wants work then they can find it. That doesn't mean it is going to be a job they want, or enjoy, or even pays well. There are plenty of crap jobs that pay money. If you want to a better job then save for an education to improve your marketable skills. It is very much possible to do this.

I worked as a dishwasher/porter until I learned enough skills to become a more well-paid cook all with the long-term goal of saving enough money for an education. I paid for my education out of pocket and I worked while studying I now have a better job and a better wage but nobody gave it to me, I had to go out and make it happen.

There is absolutely NOTHING stopping somebody else from doing the same except themselves. It won't happen overnight, but if they want to improve their situations bad enough then all they need do is apply the work to make it happen.

Such an overly simplistic view of the labour market. You are talking as if the situations and circumstances are the same as in the late 60s early 70s.

The need, through low wage and changing industries, for women to take a more affective role in the workplace shifted work patterns and at the same time working regulations shifted for employers to take advantage.

Women jn the workplace is a very good thing, but we are still in the early transitional phases of a technological society, it's moved on from industrialised working manners and we haven't adjusted childcare, education or social cohesion with any foresight, so this 'work is there if they can be rsed' attitude harks back to industrial times too.

How do you afford childcare on low wages and then feed, clothe, pay bills etc? How then do you pay for 'education'? Education that should have been tailored for societal demands but instead has just been determined to allow wealth based achievement and the rest to see only McJobs? Because those who are being penalised aren't just single males and females, they are those downsized and shifted from job security when they made commitments based on their existing position on the ladder of society.
The rhetoric you use is just regurgitated media jargon and jingoism. Everything in society is linked. The knock on effects of serving business alone has sent repercussions through everyone's life. Post industrial life has a pace of change not registered before, the exponential growth of the rich is matched by the speed in which the less well off are losing, not just 'wealth', but the ability to achieve wealth, it's a designed and intended wealth retention sold as the b/s that was trickle down economics.

The problems you bemoan are created by the very system you espouse. For every 'you' that succeeds there are hundreds that have had no opportunity, it's the imbalance intended in the capitalist equation. It needs that situation to exist.

So, really, don't fuel it by using such a broad broom, it really is bollix.

 

[Whistlin' Dixie]

Such an overly simplistic view of the labour market. You are talking as if the situations and circumstances are the same as in the late 60s early 70s.

The need, through low wage and changing industries, for women to take a more affective role in the workplace shifted work patterns and at the same time working regulations shifted for employers to take advantage.

Women jn the workplace is a very good thing, but we are still in the early transitional phases of a technological society, it's moved on from industrialised working manners and we haven't adjusted childcare, education or social cohesion with any foresight, so this 'work is there if they can be rsed' attitude harks back to industrial times too.

How do you afford childcare on low wages and then feed, clothe, pay bills etc? How then do you pay for 'education'? Education that should have been tailored for societal demands but instead has just been determined to allow wealth based achievement and the rest to see only McJobs? Because those who are being penalised aren't just single males and females, they are those downsized and shifted from job security when they made commitments based on their existing position on the ladder of society.
The rhetoric you use is just regurgitated media jargon and jingoism. Everything in society is linked. The knock on effects of serving business alone has sent repercussions through everyone's life. Post industrial life has a pace of change not registered before, the exponential growth of the rich is matched by the speed in which the less well off are losing, not just 'wealth', but the ability to achieve wealth, it's a designed and intended wealth retention sold as the b/s that was trickle down economics.

The problems you bemoan are created by the very system you espouse. For every 'you' that succeeds there are hundreds that have had no opportunity, it's the imbalance intended in the capitalist equation. It needs that situation to exist.

So, really, don't fuel it by using such a broad broom, it really is bollix.

Marvellous post! Take a bow, sir!

Also, people are now being told to double the money they out into their pensions...How the bloody hell can someone in a part-time mcjob be expected to save money ffs?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35696981

 

[magicjuan]

Marvellous post! Take a bow, sir!

Also, people are now being told to double the money they out into their pensions...How the bloody hell can someone in a part-time mcjob be expected to save money ffs?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35696981

Like everything, a lot of people make their mind up and don't look into the reality.

We have a genuine onslaught against the 'lesser' members of society, who that comprises of is set by the agenda, I mean I can't get out my front door for all the gypsies camped outside. Remember them and that promised invasion?

This is a designed approach, not accidental or coincidental, and for fear of rousing the chattering classes, it isn't spoken of as a class war, but it is. It's feudal. We have a new aristocratic technocracy and they're intent on, and achieving, an economic slavery to service their lifestyles. And they're doing it by keeping people uninformed, fearful and supplying them with a scapegoat to blame it all on so they will walk blindly into it and, ffs, even vote for it. Social NIMBY-ism

 

[Whistlin' Dixie]

This is a designed approach, not accidental or coincidental, and for fear of rousing the chattering classes, it isn't spoken of as a class war, but it is. It's feudal. We have a new aristocratic technocracy and they're intent on, and achieving, an economic slavery to service their lifestyles. And they're doing it by keeping people uninformed, fearful and supplying them with a scapegoat to blame it all on so they will walk blindly into it and, ffs, even vote for it. Social NIMBY-ism

Explained better than I ever could.

Look at them immigrants....10 to a room.....Working all the hours God sends....For less money.....etc

Look at you, in your under-occupied home, working less than 16 hours per week (If at all) and claiming all sorts of HANDOUTS.

Well, we're gonna fix this; and you WILL get off your SLOVENLY British arse.....Disabled? No you're not....you're 'kin SUPERMAN!! You're all paralympian gold medallists - the lot of you!!

So, you WILL work more hours (regardless of any social/health aspect) if you don't, you get nothing.

You WILL look for more suitable accommodation (regardless of any social/health aspect) Or we WILL withdraw a portion of your housing benefit.

Meanwhile, we'll allow agencies to recruit exclusively from abroad, and continue to peddle the myth that them immigrants are harder working than you because they live 10 to a room, work multiple jobs, etc etc etc - thereby making them look more attractive than you - the british national - to employers.

We WILL make you pay for your training to become a nurse etc, and we'll employ hardworking immigrant nurses from abroad.

What are you complaining for? Don't blame us - it's them immigrants coming over here taking your jobs & claiming your benefits that we took off you....

 

[hullefc]

Explained better than I ever could.

Look at them immigrants....10 to a room.....Working all the hours God sends....For less money.....etc

Look at you, in your under-occupied home, working less than 16 hours per week (If at all) and claiming all sorts of HANDOUTS.

Well, we're gonna fix this; and you WILL get off your SLOVENLY British arse.....Disabled? No you're not....you're 'kin SUPERMAN!! You're all paralympian gold medallists - the lot of you!!

So, you WILL work more hours (regardless of any social/health aspect) if you don't, you get nothing.

You WILL look for more suitable accommodation (regardless of any social/health aspect) Or we WILL withdraw a portion of your housing benefit.

Meanwhile, we'll allow agencies to recruit exclusively from abroad, and continue to peddle the myth that them immigrants are harder working than you because they live 10 to a room, work multiple jobs, etc etc etc - thereby making them look more attractive than you - the british national - to employers.

We WILL make you pay for your training to become a nurse etc, and we'll employ hardworking immigrant nurses from abroad.

What are you complaining for? Don't blame us - it's them immigrants coming over here taking your jobs & claiming your benefits that we took off you....

Part of the blame game that capitalism has always used when in times of trouble, that goes back to the 18/19th century industrial revolution. Blame immigrants - now and before - West Indian 'rivers of blood', Uganda Asian 'swamp', 'dole scroungers', single mothers, etc., that have all put a 'burden' on the state. It used to be the unions that were to blame for the crisis now it is anyone that doesn't accept the need for 'austerity' i.e putting slump policies on to the backs of the working class or changes in their contracts and working conditions - doctors, tube workers.

Nothing new in the blame game. Some working class people have always had to have more than one job to keep their head above water. Because their wages were too low. Some UK nationals who are in low paid work still have more than one job as do as do many foreign nationals.

 

[magicjuan]

Part of the blame game that capitalism has always used when in times of trouble, that goes back to the 18/19th century industrial revolution. Blame immigrants - now and before - West Indian 'rivers of blood', Uganda Asian 'swamp', 'dole scroungers', single mothers, etc., that have all put a 'burden' on the state. It used to be the unions that were to blame for the crisis now it is anyone that doesn't accept the need for 'austerity' i.e putting slump policies on to the backs of the working class or changes in their contracts and working conditions - doctors, tube workers.

Nothing new in the blame game. Some working class people have always had to have more than one job to keep their head above water. Because their wages were too low. Some UK nationals who are in low paid work still have more than one job as do as do many foreign nationals.

There was once an extreme abhorrence about these tactics which lead to the 2nd world war. There was, earlier, an acceptance of these tactics that lead to a revolution in Russia. Two ends of the spectrum with a single commonality, propaganda to serve a 'hidden' purpose.

The hypocrisy on policies regarding the EU and migrancy is designed to confuse and muddy the waters. This referendum is being shaped on this one subject, the economic and democratic arguments are being marginalised.

It is divisive, it gives rights to some and denies them to others. Nationalistic or Supra-Nationalistic. Either way it has similar characteristics to a caste system, which in this day and age has no place in a moder, allegedly, free thinking democratic population. But it has, because we are told it has.

Would anyone stop an immigrant doctor or nurse from saving their childs life? Course not. So where exactly does the fear of others start and stop?

 

[hullefc]

There was once an extreme abhorrence about these tactics which lead to the 2nd world war. There was, earlier, an acceptance of these tactics that lead to a revolution in Russia. Two ends of the spectrum with a single commonality, propaganda to serve a 'hidden' purpose.

The hypocrisy on policies regarding the EU and migrancy is designed to confuse and muddy the waters. This referendum is being shaped on this one subject, the economic and democratic arguments are being marginalised.

It is divisive, it gives rights to some and denies them to others. Nationalistic or Supra-Nationalistic. Either way it has similar characteristics to a caste system, which in this day and age has no place in a moder, allegedly, free thinking democratic population. But it has, because we are told it has.

Would anyone stop an immigrant doctor or nurse from saving their childs life? Course not. So where exactly does the fear of others start and stop?

It starts with those that control the propaganda machine. 'If you tell a lie make it outrageously a big one and tell it often enough, people will start to believe it'. Has always been the mantra of those that are in power and able to get their views over through the media.

The EU debate is controlled by those that have influence over the media, as is any debate that is about any issue they want to bring to the fore.

 

[dandydan]

It starts with those that control the propaganda machine. 'If you tell a lie make it outrageously a big one and tell it often enough, people will start to believe it'. Has always been the mantra of those that are in power and able to get their views over through the media.

The EU debate is controlled by those that have influence over the media, as is any debate that is about any issue they want to bring to the fore.

If you look at the key concepts of 1984 quite a few can be applied to the EU.

 

[hullefc]

If you look at the key concepts of 1984 quite a few can be applied to the EU.

What are the 'key concepts of 1984'?

 

[Efcjake]

If that was the case then the country'd be in a far worse state than you think it is, innit.....And you're telling ME to 'cut the hyperbole' LAD ??

'They could all be for doctors, engineers'....Please stop, you'll give me a hernia through laughing so much. Conclusive proof that it's not just the MP's who are out of touch.



Go back in the thread or read about universal credit and the conditions for claiming. See how it affects those already in part time work AS WELL as the unemployed AND the self-employed.

So, you can add them numbers to the 1.69m unemployed then divide by the 0.5m jobs.

While you're at it, read about ATOS & Maximus and the Govt's aktion T4 style programme of forcing the disabled into work they cannot do.

Don't pontificate about things you obviously have very VERY little knowledge of, and then try to tell me that I don't know what I'm talking about.

State of you - Crowing about how everything worked out for you....because you worked dead hard. I'm not remotely interested in what you've done, or how you did it. It isn't a one size fits all world.

It IS, though, further conclusive proof that you're living in your own little bubble.




*sighs & thinks about butting wall*

Did I not say (words to the effect of) I'd limit the amount of low-skilled, low-paid jobs they'd be allowed to hold in accordance with the UC claimant requirements?



No. You suggested I said they do. So.....?

My point was that you can't just throw those two numbers up (1.69m looking for work and 500,000 jobs available) and expect that to tell the whole story. You've left out a lot of context that prevents any sort of reasonable analytical look at those figures.

I thought you were discussing the effects of immigration on the labour market, but you aren't interested in discussing anything. I never meant to crow about how everything worked out for me. What I was doing was demonstrating that with some savings put towards an education that you can give yourself better job prospects. It isn't a one-size fits all solution, it is just one solution that worked for me and would likely work for a lot of people.

If those same 500,000 jobs are unfilled continuously that likely indicates that there is a skill mismatch between the labour market and the employers. If people in the labour market want those jobs they should look about acquiring the skills required for them.

Yes training/education is expensive and when you are working-class and in a crap McJob it can represent a huge proportionate expense, but if people want to improve their prospects it is going to require a sacrifice of time and money among other things.

I understand what you are saying about the barriers in place for British Nationals to claim their rightfully-owed benefits when in comparison the process is easier for immigrants in similar situations. That isn't the immigrant's fault though, that's the government's and they should be set to rights sorting that out.

I don't live in a bubble. I have been on the dole, I have been skint for long periods of my life. I just looked for a way out and worked until I got there.

 

[dandydan]

What are the 'key concepts of 1984'?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministries_of_Nineteen_Eighty-Four

 

[Efcjake]

Such an overly simplistic view of the labour market. You are talking as if the situations and circumstances are the same as in the late 60s early 70s.

The need, through low wage and changing industries, for women to take a more affective role in the workplace shifted work patterns and at the same time working regulations shifted for employers to take advantage.

Women jn the workplace is a very good thing, but we are still in the early transitional phases of a technological society, it's moved on from industrialised working manners and we haven't adjusted childcare, education or social cohesion with any foresight, so this 'work is there if they can be rsed' attitude harks back to industrial times too.

How do you afford childcare on low wages and then feed, clothe, pay bills etc? How then do you pay for 'education'? Education that should have been tailored for societal demands but instead has just been determined to allow wealth based achievement and the rest to see only McJobs? Because those who are being penalised aren't just single males and females, they are those downsized and shifted from job security when they made commitments based on their existing position on the ladder of society.
The rhetoric you use is just regurgitated media jargon and jingoism. Everything in society is linked. The knock on effects of serving business alone has sent repercussions through everyone's life. Post industrial life has a pace of change not registered before, the exponential growth of the rich is matched by the speed in which the less well off are losing, not just 'wealth', but the ability to achieve wealth, it's a designed and intended wealth retention sold as the b/s that was trickle down economics.

The problems you bemoan are created by the very system you espouse. For every 'you' that succeeds there are hundreds that have had no opportunity, it's the imbalance intended in the capitalist equation. It needs that situation to exist.

So, really, don't fuel it by using such a broad broom, it really is bollix.

You're spot on about the shape of the entire employment market changing in response to women in the workplace and the move to a technological society. Things are absolutely not the same as the 60s or 70s. One major change technology has brought is that it has completely done away with clerk-type jobs as computers have taken over the filing system. That alone was a huge portion of the job market that is gone forever.

As to how you afford childcare on low wages and then feed, clothe, pay bills etc. You shouldn't be going and having kids you can't afford in the first place. No sympathy from me for that because it is terrible on the kids and is preventable in so many ways.

You pay for your education by taking a loan with the idea being that your increased earnings as a result of your education and acquired skills will allow you to pay off that loan and still profit. You work as well as going and getting an education to support yourself.

As for the rest to see only McJobs point, if the people working those jobs are not qualified for any sort of skilled labour and are not willing to go and pay for training to gain those skills then yes they're going to be stuck in McJobs. I do think a living wage is a necessity, and that nobody should be paid under that. At the same time though I like cheap stuff, we all do, and guess what fuels those low prices? Low wages for unskilled workers. You say that society is serving business alone, but it is the consumer's(society's) desire for low prices that has contributed to the mess we find ourselves in.

I agree with you that the way the capitalist economy work is by increasing the wealth of the rich at the expense of the poor. It absolutely does and it was absolutely designed to do that. It's not going to change though is it, not unless there is full on global communist/socialist revolution and a reclaiming of the wealth. It isn't new either, money and wealth have been in control of societies from the very get go.

You say that for every me there are hundreds that have had no opportunity and it just isn't true. They have had the same opportunities I have had for the most part and they have made the choices that led them to not take that opportunity. There has to be some personal accountability for your situation in life. If you want to sit around waiting for society to turn into what you want it to be instead of living in the one you find yourself in you are going to be very unhappy.

 

[magicjuan]

You're spot on about the shape of the entire employment market changing in response to women in the workplace and the move to a technological society. Things are absolutely not the same as the 60s or 70s. One major change technology has brought is that it has completely done away with clerk-type jobs as computers have taken over the filing system. That alone was a huge portion of the job market that is gone forever.

As to how you afford childcare on low wages and then feed, clothe, pay bills etc. You shouldn't be going and having kids you can't afford in the first place. No sympathy from me for that because it is terrible on the kids and is preventable in so many ways.

You pay for your education by taking a loan with the idea being that your increased earnings as a result of your education and acquired skills will allow you to pay off that loan and still profit. You work as well as going and getting an education to support yourself.

As for the rest to see only McJobs point, if the people working those jobs are not qualified for any sort of skilled labour and are not willing to go and pay for training to gain those skills then yes they're going to be stuck in McJobs. I do think a living wage is a necessity, and that nobody should be paid under that. At the same time though I like cheap stuff, we all do, and guess what fuels those low prices? Low wages for unskilled workers. You say that society is serving business alone, but it is the consumer's(society's) desire for low prices that has contributed to the mess we find ourselves in.

I agree with you that the way the capitalist economy work is by increasing the wealth of the rich at the expense of the poor. It absolutely does and it was absolutely designed to do that. It's not going to change though is it, not unless there is full on global communist/socialist revolution and a reclaiming of the wealth. It isn't new either, money and wealth have been in control of societies from the very get go.

You say that for every me there are hundreds that have had no opportunity and it just isn't true. They have had the same opportunities I have had for the most part and they have made the choices that led them to not take that opportunity. There has to be some personal accountability for your situation in life. If you want to sit around waiting for society to turn into what you want it to be instead of living in the one you find yourself in you are going to be very unhappy.

Let's see. I don't know your age, but I would hazard a guess you display a living naivety.

Clerk type jobs, filing etc, replaced by computers, check. What about automation in industries, in production? What jobs replaced those lost?

Childcare. As I noted, the changes have happened to people who had steady work, had families on that basis, took mortgages out, built foundations for a future, if everybody held back in fear of unemployment there would only be you left and the 60 million immigrants needed to maintain a country. A very fickle and futile approach to family life.

Paying for education. Do you understand the industry of student loans companies, debt selling, changes of contracts? Exactly the same as the system that brought about the crash of 2008. Then there's the insecurity now of job stability. The trend in pay is downwards so you don't reach the point of completion until retirement age, whenever that may be in the future. The ability to pay is being denied to the poorest, if you would like some further 'education' personally I would suggest you read into the changes in New Orleans post disaster, because that is the coming model.

Cheap stuff and McJobs. We'd all like cheap stuff but I'll give you an example of how cheap stuff works. Children you don't see work 12 hour shifts to make the clthes you wear. Cheap food isn't food, it is detrimental to health. There was a chapter in Toffler's 3rd Wave iirc called the death of permanence, how nothing is made to last, no product is designed for longevity, it is made to be cheap, have a short shelf life and need replacing sooner, which fuels the economy. It also depletes resources quicker. Finite resources. Cheap is only cheap at the point if sale. It still costs a lot but to someone else other than you, someone's life, health and the future wellbeing of the global population. But then they could always save their one dollar a day wage for an education couldn't they?

Sitting around waiting for society. Consumerism. Read about it. It is part ofvthe capitalist model, it creates these people's situation, it needs them to be in that situation, without them it collapses. Understand that, you're on on the way to understanding the system.
Because the system is what there is. You have a role to play, we all have a role to play. There hasvto be layers to support those at the top controlling it. It's a pyramid. It needs people, as you have displayed, to feel safe as long as there are layers below them, supporting them, and it generates your deference to those above.

This system hasn't always been the way. Money hasn't always been in control, it needs to be implemented. If you understood the ancient hierarchical societies they were all mutual familial and community based structures whereby those thst could would look after those that couldn't, children, the old and the sick, until someone thought ' I know I'll put a value on a thing and say it is more valuable than life, then I'll create greed and fear among them. Then I can fet them to work for me'. Thus began capitalism, and it all started with s lazy b'stard who wouldn't pull his weight or care about anyone else but himself. Ironic that isn't it?

There'll be a point in your life when you realise that the best things in life aren't 'things' but life itself and giving a flying one for the life of another, if you can afford it.

 

[roydo]

Probably true, but is it ok that I cant change it, am happy with my life and that of my family, and just try to live my life in a harmonious way?