On 24/06/14 15:28, Adrian wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jun 2014 11:56:17 +0100, Tim Watts wrote:


Because it is leaving our economy.

In any significantly different way to you choosing to spend it on Italian
wine in Lidl?

Because the latter has at least furnished Lidl and their transport chain
with work which is a lot better than nothing.

The difference between my colleagues and a highly mobile migrant worker
is they are all settled here and being paid the same as me - that I have
no problem with.

So you're quite happy with people of other nationalities who've chosen to
settle here, I presume? It's merely the ones who haven't - yet - who you
have an issue with?

Yes. Is it that hard to understand what I said?


OK, so you're quite happy for rewards to be in proportion to the work
required, and for the free market to set the rate for those rewards?

No, wait. You want protectionism based on nationality.

Where the nationalities have highly disparate economies, yes.

Is that regardless of where or how the individual chooses to spend their
money, purely on nationality? Would you regard it as better to work
alongside - say - a Pole who was settled in the UK and regarded it as
their home than a Brit ticking off the days until his retirement to Spain?

I don't know. Is it relevant to the very clearly stated point I made?

Do you want an indian outsourcing firm to take your job? Even more
extreme example.

Why is the origin of the firm relevant?

Because it's the most common other example of loss of local work based
on an unlevel playing field. Not to mention the impact of service. Or do
you enjoy speaking to random far flung call centres about your mobile
phone, electricity, internet etc. I know I don't because I know I'm
dealing with a script jockey with no local knowledge. This has been
bourne out in my personal experience. I'd rather ring the RBS and speak
to a scottish bloke who actually has a connection with the bank, than
ring HSBCs bloody awful call centre.

I'm less than convinced that location has anything to do with competence
and authority to actually resolve issues. I've spoken to plenty of
clueless script-jockeys within the UK, and plenty of highly competent
call centres outside the UK.

My experience has been the exact opposite with a few exceptions.

Not to mention that that particular job really ought to be being done by
people in this country.

Why? Because at a society level, we need to make sure people are working
if they need to work. In the grand scheme I have a greater allegiance to
Britain than India. I have a greater allegiance to England than
Scotland, though I respect the latter's culture and in particular their
whiskey.

I have more allegiance to the south east than the rest of the country
and I have more allegiance to my village than any other.

It's a natural state of affairs and quite proper. It's how we survived
so long. It is also far more productive. I will do stuff that helps my
village, their school, etc - because I have some "ownership" of the
outcome and a vested interest. I might donate some money to some
particular disaster fund for somewhere far away, be it america, china or
africa. But day to day I cannot get excited about those places - they
are remote, I have no input.

So it's pretty easy to understand why people rate their own locality
over and above all others.

I love China - SWMBO is from there. I love Germany, and the baltics and
Switzerland. However, I'd rather my local society looked to itself first
and others second.

There's a huge difference between what I just said and one who actively
despises others.

So yes, it's cool that a slovak person can come and be a network
engineer and get paid 40k or whatever and live here for the time,
spending his money and making the wheels go round.

It's less helpful to our society when his mate turns up, with the aim of
dossing down for 2 years, vastly undercuts the nominal wage for some job
and drives the wages for that trade through the floor.

I would have no argument with the same bloke bringing his family to live
here, and charging the same nominal wage for his work as everyone else.

In the latter case, he's adding a number to the people seeking that type
of work. In the former he's actually causing material damage to our
society. Why? Because once doing a certain job is seen as not being
worthwhile, school leavers will not bother seeking it, there's more
depressed people on benefits and a consequential rise in crime.

Most people could tolerate dossing down in simple accommodation for a
1-2 year stint if it led to better things. No-one wants that to be the norm!

It is a very similar problem to when the English (generally) were buying
loads of houses in Wales as seldom used holiday homes. The English
thought they were cheap and didn't haggle. The net result was twofold -
the supply for locals went down and the price skyrocketed.

I'm with the Welsh on that one. The English buyers (as a whole) behaved
like ****s. If they at least made an effort to negotiate the price to
local norms, it would have been a little less galling.

Now the tables are turned and you have Russian oligarchs doing the same
in Chelsea.