Discussion:
Migrant workers earn more than British workers
(too old to reply)
The Highlander
2007-10-17 05:21:29 UTC
Permalink
Migrant workers earn more than British

By Philip Johnston, Telegraph Home Affairs Editor
Last Updated: 2:49am BST 17/10/2007

Immigrant workers are both higher paid and more reliable than their
British counterparts and contributed £6 billion to economic growth
last year, a Government study said yesterday.

The Home Office report on migration (pdf).
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2007/10/17/Economic_Fiscal_Impact_Immigration.pdf

The study estimated an economic contribution of £6 billion from
foreign workers in the UK

Migrants earned £424 a week on average, compared with £395 for UK
workers, and paid more in tax than they consumed in services.

However, a separate paper issued together with the study by the Home
Office admitted there were complaints about the impact of immigration
on housing and other public services. Liam Byrne, the immigration
minister, said the research showed that ''in the long run, our country
and Exchequer are better off with immigration rather than without it".

The report found that in 2006, record immigration pushed the number of
foreign workers up to 12.5 per cent – or one eighth – of the labour
force, compared to 7.4 per cent a decade ago.

Since average output growth over this period was 2.7 per cent a year
and migration contributed an estimated 15 to 20 per cent of this, the
study estimated a contribution of £6 billion from foreign workers – or
£700,000 a day.
advertisement

However, the figure does not take account of the costs of a growing
population, for instance the impact on public services such as health,
education and transport. But the overwhelmingly positive findings were
last night challenged by academics.

Robert Rowthorn, an emeritus professor of economics at Cambridge
University, warned that as well as putting pressure on services,
large-scale migration would "undermine the labour market position of
the most vulnerable sections of the local workforce". The study, the
first official attempt to establish the economic and fiscal impact of
the record levels of immigration seen in recent years, states that
''in the long run, it is likely that the net fiscal contribution of an
immigrant will be greater than that of a non-immigrant".

It also claims there is no evidence of foreign workers pushing British
people out of jobs, although it presents no firm evidence for this.

David Davis, the shadow home secretary, said: ''Labour are being
disingenuous again.

"They are equating the effect of migration on aggregate GDP with its
effect on GDP per head. They are also ignoring the fact that relying
on immigration to boost the economy is a short-term answer.

"What will they do for the million economically inactive under-25s in
the country?"
Ian Smith
2007-10-17 18:40:47 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 05:21:29 GMT
Post by The Highlander
Migrant workers earn more than British
By Philip Johnston, Telegraph Home Affairs Editor
Last Updated: 2:49am BST 17/10/2007
Immigrant workers are both higher paid and more reliable than their
British counterparts and contributed £6 billion to economic growth
last year, a Government study said yesterday.
The Home Office report on migration (pdf).
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2007/10/17/Economic_Fiscal_Impact_Immigration.pdf
The study estimated an economic contribution of £6 billion from
foreign workers in the UK
Migrants earned £424 a week on average, compared with £395 for UK
workers, and paid more in tax than they consumed in services.
However, a separate paper issued together with the study by the Home
Office admitted there were complaints about the impact of immigration
on housing and other public services. Liam Byrne, the immigration
minister, said the research showed that ''in the long run, our country
and Exchequer are better off with immigration rather than without it".
The report found that in 2006, record immigration pushed the number of
foreign workers up to 12.5 per cent – or one eighth – of the labour
force, compared to 7.4 per cent a decade ago.
Since average output growth over this period was 2.7 per cent a year
and migration contributed an estimated 15 to 20 per cent of this, the
study estimated a contribution of £6 billion from foreign workers – or
£700,000 a day.
advertisement
However, the figure does not take account of the costs of a growing
population, for instance the impact on public services such as health,
education and transport. But the overwhelmingly positive findings were
last night challenged by academics.
Robert Rowthorn, an emeritus professor of economics at Cambridge
University, warned that as well as putting pressure on services,
large-scale migration would "undermine the labour market position of
the most vulnerable sections of the local workforce". The study, the
first official attempt to establish the economic and fiscal impact of
the record levels of immigration seen in recent years, states that
''in the long run, it is likely that the net fiscal contribution of an
immigrant will be greater than that of a non-immigrant".
It also claims there is no evidence of foreign workers pushing British
people out of jobs, although it presents no firm evidence for this.
David Davis, the shadow home secretary, said: ''Labour are being
disingenuous again.
"They are equating the effect of migration on aggregate GDP with its
effect on GDP per head. They are also ignoring the fact that relying
on immigration to boost the economy is a short-term answer.
"What will they do for the million economically inactive under-25s in
the country?"
Other reports actually indicate a _net drain_ on the economy, as locals
are displaced from the job market (thus claiming benefits), incomers
also claim benefits, send money out of the country to homeland, housing
shortages causing a "market bubble", etc. Employers are actively
choosing to hire (often non-English speaking) East Europeans over
locals. My employer is one of them. What do locals do if they can't
find an company to hire them? There is a much bigger picture, and
societal issue, than merely how much these foreigners earn and pay tax
on.

It is financial madness to flood the country on an unprecedented scale
with millions of low-skilled immigrants/migrants, while at the same
time pay c.8 million "economically active" locals of working age to
stay at home. Granted, a fair proportion of them are genuinely needy,
but the welfare state is obviously a way of life for far too many.

The answer is get the missing millions back into work (even if it
really hurts for a while), and only after that consider whether to
import _skilled_ labour for filling in the "gaps".
--
http://www.1r5.net
"Think outside your government-issue box."
Robert Peffers
2007-10-17 21:33:01 UTC
Permalink
"Ian Smith" <***@btinternet.naespam.com> wrote in message news:***@ianinhoose-desktop...
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 05:21:29 GMT
Post by The Highlander
Migrant workers earn more than British
By Philip Johnston, Telegraph Home Affairs Editor
Last Updated: 2:49am BST 17/10/2007
Immigrant workers are both higher paid and more reliable than their
British counterparts and contributed £6 billion to economic growth
last year, a Government study said yesterday.
The Home Office report on migration (pdf).
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2007/10/17/Economic_Fiscal_Impact_Immigration.pdf
The study estimated an economic contribution of £6 billion from
foreign workers in the UK
Migrants earned £424 a week on average, compared with £395 for UK
workers, and paid more in tax than they consumed in services.
However, a separate paper issued together with the study by the Home
Office admitted there were complaints about the impact of immigration
on housing and other public services. Liam Byrne, the immigration
minister, said the research showed that ''in the long run, our country
and Exchequer are better off with immigration rather than without it".
The report found that in 2006, record immigration pushed the number of
foreign workers up to 12.5 per cent – or one eighth – of the labour
force, compared to 7.4 per cent a decade ago.
Since average output growth over this period was 2.7 per cent a year
and migration contributed an estimated 15 to 20 per cent of this, the
study estimated a contribution of £6 billion from foreign workers – or
£700,000 a day.
advertisement
However, the figure does not take account of the costs of a growing
population, for instance the impact on public services such as health,
education and transport. But the overwhelmingly positive findings were
last night challenged by academics.
Robert Rowthorn, an emeritus professor of economics at Cambridge
University, warned that as well as putting pressure on services,
large-scale migration would "undermine the labour market position of
the most vulnerable sections of the local workforce". The study, the
first official attempt to establish the economic and fiscal impact of
the record levels of immigration seen in recent years, states that
''in the long run, it is likely that the net fiscal contribution of an
immigrant will be greater than that of a non-immigrant".
It also claims there is no evidence of foreign workers pushing British
people out of jobs, although it presents no firm evidence for this.
David Davis, the shadow home secretary, said: ''Labour are being
disingenuous again.
"They are equating the effect of migration on aggregate GDP with its
effect on GDP per head. They are also ignoring the fact that relying
on immigration to boost the economy is a short-term answer.
"What will they do for the million economically inactive under-25s in
the country?"
Other reports actually indicate a _net drain_ on the economy, as locals
are displaced from the job market (thus claiming benefits), incomers
also claim benefits, send money out of the country to homeland, housing
shortages causing a "market bubble", etc. Employers are actively
choosing to hire (often non-English speaking) East Europeans over
locals. My employer is one of them. What do locals do if they can't
find an company to hire them? There is a much bigger picture, and
societal issue, than merely how much these foreigners earn and pay tax
on.

It is financial madness to flood the country on an unprecedented scale
with millions of low-skilled immigrants/migrants, while at the same
time pay c.8 million "economically active" locals of working age to
stay at home. Granted, a fair proportion of them are genuinely needy,
but the welfare state is obviously a way of life for far too many.

The answer is get the missing millions back into work (even if it
really hurts for a while), and only after that consider whether to
import _skilled_ labour for filling in the "gaps".
--
http://www.1r5.net
"Think outside your government-issue box."


Strange then that Scotland, with the highest UK employment figures, still
has a shortage of skilled workers. Scotland also has lots of migrant
workers. It has to be remembered that except for places like the London
Boroughs, with a long standing and permanent unemployment problem, (Source:
The London Mayor's Office). The rest of the UK has, more or less, full
employment. Full employment does not mean everyone of working age is
employed. It means that there will always be a percentage of people, for one
reason or another, who are between jobs, or unable to work, but over that
figure the rest are employed or actively seeking work. In Scotland, just now
we have the highest employment figures and the lowest unemployment figures
in the UK and rank about 2nd or 3rd in Europe.
--
Auld Bob Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).
Ian Smith
2007-10-19 23:49:06 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 22:33:01 +0100
Post by Ian Smith
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 05:21:29 GMT
Post by The Highlander
Migrant workers earn more than British
By Philip Johnston, Telegraph Home Affairs Editor
Last Updated: 2:49am BST 17/10/2007
Immigrant workers are both higher paid and more reliable than their
British counterparts and contributed £6 billion to economic growth
last year, a Government study said yesterday.
The Home Office report on migration (pdf).
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2007/10/17/Economic_Fiscal_Impact_Immigration.pdf
The study estimated an economic contribution of £6 billion from
foreign workers in the UK
Migrants earned £424 a week on average, compared with £395 for UK
workers, and paid more in tax than they consumed in services.
However, a separate paper issued together with the study by the Home
Office admitted there were complaints about the impact of
immigration on housing and other public services. Liam Byrne, the
immigration minister, said the research showed that ''in the long
run, our country and Exchequer are better off with immigration
rather than without it".
The report found that in 2006, record immigration pushed the number
of foreign workers up to 12.5 per cent – or one eighth – of the
labour force, compared to 7.4 per cent a decade ago.
Since average output growth over this period was 2.7 per cent a year
and migration contributed an estimated 15 to 20 per cent of this,
the study estimated a contribution of £6 billion from foreign
workers – or £700,000 a day.
advertisement
However, the figure does not take account of the costs of a growing
population, for instance the impact on public services such as
health, education and transport. But the overwhelmingly positive
findings were last night challenged by academics.
Robert Rowthorn, an emeritus professor of economics at Cambridge
University, warned that as well as putting pressure on services,
large-scale migration would "undermine the labour market position of
the most vulnerable sections of the local workforce". The study, the
first official attempt to establish the economic and fiscal impact
of the record levels of immigration seen in recent years, states
that ''in the long run, it is likely that the net fiscal
contribution of an immigrant will be greater than that of a
non-immigrant".
It also claims there is no evidence of foreign workers pushing
British people out of jobs, although it presents no firm evidence
for this.
David Davis, the shadow home secretary, said: ''Labour are being
disingenuous again.
"They are equating the effect of migration on aggregate GDP with its
effect on GDP per head. They are also ignoring the fact that relying
on immigration to boost the economy is a short-term answer.
"What will they do for the million economically inactive under-25s
in the country?"
Other reports actually indicate a _net drain_ on the economy, as
locals are displaced from the job market (thus claiming benefits),
incomers also claim benefits, send money out of the country to
homeland, housing shortages causing a "market bubble", etc. Employers
are actively choosing to hire (often non-English speaking) East
Europeans over locals. My employer is one of them. What do locals do
if they can't find an company to hire them? There is a much bigger
picture, and societal issue, than merely how much these foreigners
earn and pay tax on.
It is financial madness to flood the country on an unprecedented scale
with millions of low-skilled immigrants/migrants, while at the same
time pay c.8 million "economically active" locals of working age to
stay at home. Granted, a fair proportion of them are genuinely needy,
but the welfare state is obviously a way of life for far too many.
The answer is get the missing millions back into work (even if it
really hurts for a while), and only after that consider whether to
import _skilled_ labour for filling in the "gaps".
Strange then that Scotland, with the highest UK employment figures,
still has a shortage of skilled workers. Scotland also has lots of
migrant workers. It has to be remembered that except for places like
the London Boroughs, with a long standing and permanent unemployment
problem, (Source: The London Mayor's Office). The rest of the UK has,
more or less, full employment. Full employment does not mean everyone
of working age is employed. It means that there will always be a
percentage of people, for one reason or another, who are between jobs,
or unable to work, but over that figure the rest are employed or
actively seeking work. In Scotland, just now we have the highest
employment figures and the lowest unemployment figures in the UK and
rank about 2nd or 3rd in Europe.
--
Auld Bob Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).

========================

My 8 million figure was slightly low. Far from full employment; there
are at least 9 million "economically inactive" people of working age
across the UK. They are the ones who have been recategorized by
government to make unemployment figures look better. Presumably
Scotland has somewhere near a pro rata share (i.e. 800,000). Such
blatant dishonesty by those who represent us. However, sweeping
inconvenient truths under the carpet will not make them go away.

Another one; the original post states that migrant/immigrant workers
bring a "net" benefit of £6 billion to the UK economy. However, this is
utter rubbish, since none of the real _costs_, amounting to c.£8.8
billion, have been factored in. Therefore the current mass influx of
foreigners is causing a net _drain_ of around £2.8 billion. Another
pile of steaming dishonesty by those in charge.

One could be forgiven for asking why we need to rapidly fill up these
islands at such a historically unprecedented rate, for so little actual
benefit, and indeed at such huge cost to society and our way of life?

The labour government have been barefaced liars for the last 10 years,
just as the tories were before them. Frankly, none of it surprises me.
We have a political system which rewards and perpetuates an "ivory
towers" mentality. Well, at least the Scottish Parliament shows some
signs of being more "down to Earth".

It will be interesting to see if Westminster MP's might at last have the
balls to gazzump the proposed EU Treaty that we were supposed to get a
referendum on (and overwhelmingly reject). But I won't hold my breath.
--
http://www.1r5.net
"Think outside your government-issue box."
Ian Smith
2007-10-21 01:22:17 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 00:49:06 +0100
Post by Ian Smith
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 22:33:01 +0100
Post by Ian Smith
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 05:21:29 GMT
Post by The Highlander
Migrant workers earn more than British
By Philip Johnston, Telegraph Home Affairs Editor
Last Updated: 2:49am BST 17/10/2007
Immigrant workers are both higher paid and more reliable than
their British counterparts and contributed £6 billion to
economic growth last year, a Government study said yesterday.
The Home Office report on migration (pdf).
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2007/10/17/Economic_Fiscal_Impact_Immigration.pdf
The study estimated an economic contribution of £6 billion from
foreign workers in the UK
Migrants earned £424 a week on average, compared with £395 for
UK workers, and paid more in tax than they consumed in services.
However, a separate paper issued together with the study by the
Home Office admitted there were complaints about the impact of
immigration on housing and other public services. Liam Byrne, the
immigration minister, said the research showed that ''in the long
run, our country and Exchequer are better off with immigration
rather than without it".
The report found that in 2006, record immigration pushed the
number of foreign workers up to 12.5 per cent – or one eighth –
of the labour force, compared to 7.4 per cent a decade ago.
Since average output growth over this period was 2.7 per cent a
year and migration contributed an estimated 15 to 20 per cent of
this, the study estimated a contribution of £6 billion from
foreign workers – or £700,000 a day.
advertisement
However, the figure does not take account of the costs of a
growing population, for instance the impact on public services
such as health, education and transport. But the overwhelmingly
positive findings were last night challenged by academics.
Robert Rowthorn, an emeritus professor of economics at Cambridge
University, warned that as well as putting pressure on services,
large-scale migration would "undermine the labour market position
of the most vulnerable sections of the local workforce". The
study, the first official attempt to establish the economic and
fiscal impact of the record levels of immigration seen in recent
years, states that ''in the long run, it is likely that the net
fiscal contribution of an immigrant will be greater than that of a
non-immigrant".
It also claims there is no evidence of foreign workers pushing
British people out of jobs, although it presents no firm evidence
for this.
David Davis, the shadow home secretary, said: ''Labour are being
disingenuous again.
"They are equating the effect of migration on aggregate GDP with
its effect on GDP per head. They are also ignoring the fact that
relying on immigration to boost the economy is a short-term
answer.
"What will they do for the million economically inactive under-25s
in the country?"
Other reports actually indicate a _net drain_ on the economy, as
locals are displaced from the job market (thus claiming benefits),
incomers also claim benefits, send money out of the country to
homeland, housing shortages causing a "market bubble", etc.
Employers are actively choosing to hire (often non-English
speaking) East Europeans over locals. My employer is one of them.
What do locals do if they can't find an company to hire them? There
is a much bigger picture, and societal issue, than merely how much
these foreigners earn and pay tax on.
It is financial madness to flood the country on an unprecedented
scale with millions of low-skilled immigrants/migrants, while at
the same time pay c.8 million "economically active" locals of
working age to stay at home. Granted, a fair proportion of them are
genuinely needy, but the welfare state is obviously a way of life
for far too many.
The answer is get the missing millions back into work (even if it
really hurts for a while), and only after that consider whether to
import _skilled_ labour for filling in the "gaps".
Strange then that Scotland, with the highest UK employment figures,
still has a shortage of skilled workers. Scotland also has lots of
migrant workers. It has to be remembered that except for places like
the London Boroughs, with a long standing and permanent unemployment
problem, (Source: The London Mayor's Office). The rest of the UK has,
more or less, full employment. Full employment does not mean everyone
of working age is employed. It means that there will always be a
percentage of people, for one reason or another, who are between jobs,
or unable to work, but over that figure the rest are employed or
actively seeking work. In Scotland, just now we have the highest
employment figures and the lowest unemployment figures in the UK and
rank about 2nd or 3rd in Europe.
My 8 million figure was slightly low. Far from full employment; there
are at least 9 million "economically inactive" people of working age
across the UK. They are the ones who have been recategorized by
government to make unemployment figures look better. Presumably
Scotland has somewhere near a pro rata share (i.e. 800,000). Such
blatant dishonesty by those who represent us. However, sweeping
inconvenient truths under the carpet will not make them go away.

Another one; the original post states that migrant/immigrant workers
bring a "net" benefit of £6 billion to the UK economy. However, this is
utter rubbish, since none of the real _costs_, amounting to c.£8.8
billion, have been factored in. Therefore the current mass influx of
foreigners is causing a net _drain_ of around £2.8 billion. Another
pile of steaming dishonesty by those in charge.

One could be forgiven for asking why we need to rapidly fill up these
islands at such a historically unprecedented rate, for so little actual
benefit, and indeed at such huge cost to society and our way of life?

The labour government have been barefaced liars for the last 10 years,
just as the tories were before them. Frankly, none of it surprises me.
We have a political system which rewards and perpetuates an "ivory
towers" mentality. Well, at least the Scottish Parliament shows some
signs of being more "down to Earth".

It will be interesting to see if Westminster MP's might at last have the
balls to gazzump the proposed EU Treaty that we were supposed to get a
referendum on (and overwhelmingly reject). But I won't hold my breath.
--
http://www.1r5.net
"Think outside your government-issue box."
allan connochie
2007-10-21 07:24:34 UTC
Permalink
"Ian Smith" <***@btinternet.naespam.com> wrote in message news:***@ianinhoose-desktop...
On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 00:49:06 +0100
Post by Ian Smith
My 8 million figure was slightly low. Far from full employment; there
are at least 9 million "economically inactive" people of working age
across the UK. They are the ones who have been recategorized by
government to make unemployment figures look better. Presumably
Scotland has somewhere near a pro rata share (i.e. 800,000). Such
blatant dishonesty by those who represent us. However, sweeping
inconvenient truths under the carpet will not make them go away.
On the contrary rather than undersestimate the figures you have somewhat
misrepresented them on an even bigger scale than the govrnment has. Bad
though some of the figures are (eg a proportion of the long term sick could
be working) you seemed to suggest that all these people were being paid for
staying at home which is untrue. I'm not suggesting there is not a problem
but you have to keep perspective. The figure includes students; people in
early retirement; housewives; young mothers not at work; people on shorter
term sickness leave; and people acting as carers for relatives etc. The
numbers of people being economically inactive went up by 360,000 in the 5
years up to 2004. However a massive 310,000 of these were attributable to
the increase in students whilst only 10,000 was an increase in the long term
sick.

Allan
Ian Smith
2007-10-21 17:05:55 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 07:24:34 GMT
Post by Ian Smith
On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 00:49:06 +0100
Post by Ian Smith
My 8 million figure was slightly low. Far from full employment; there
are at least 9 million "economically inactive" people of working age
across the UK. They are the ones who have been recategorized by
government to make unemployment figures look better. Presumably
Scotland has somewhere near a pro rata share (i.e. 800,000). Such
blatant dishonesty by those who represent us. However, sweeping
inconvenient truths under the carpet will not make them go away.
On the contrary rather than undersestimate the figures you have
somewhat misrepresented them on an even bigger scale than the
govrnment has. Bad though some of the figures are (eg a proportion of
the long term sick could be working) you seemed to suggest that all
these people were being paid for staying at home which is untrue. I'm
not suggesting there is not a problem but you have to keep
perspective. The figure includes students; people in early
retirement; housewives; young mothers not at work; people on shorter
term sickness leave; and people acting as carers for relatives etc.
The numbers of people being economically inactive went up by 360,000
in the 5 years up to 2004. However a massive 310,000 of these were
attributable to the increase in students whilst only 10,000 was an
increase in the long term sick.
Allan
Thank you for that. Granted, there are many different types of
"economically inactive"; some of which are important functions of
society, and some not. I think my point still stands about the
government unemployment figures being nonsense, since they themselves
admit to the 9 million total; which cost the taxpayers c.£50billion per
year to support. Obviously, there are millions capable of working, and
should, but don't. So, our answer is import millions to do their work.
Utter madness.
--
http://www.1r5.net
"Think outside your government-issue box."
Robert Peffers
2007-10-21 20:26:43 UTC
Permalink
"Ian Smith" <***@btinternet.naespam.com> wrote in message news:***@ianinhoose-desktop...
On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 07:24:34 GMT
Post by Ian Smith
On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 00:49:06 +0100
Post by Ian Smith
My 8 million figure was slightly low. Far from full employment; there
are at least 9 million "economically inactive" people of working age
across the UK. They are the ones who have been recategorized by
government to make unemployment figures look better. Presumably
Scotland has somewhere near a pro rata share (i.e. 800,000). Such
blatant dishonesty by those who represent us. However, sweeping
inconvenient truths under the carpet will not make them go away.
On the contrary rather than undersestimate the figures you have
somewhat misrepresented them on an even bigger scale than the
govrnment has. Bad though some of the figures are (eg a proportion of
the long term sick could be working) you seemed to suggest that all
these people were being paid for staying at home which is untrue. I'm
not suggesting there is not a problem but you have to keep
perspective. The figure includes students; people in early
retirement; housewives; young mothers not at work; people on shorter
term sickness leave; and people acting as carers for relatives etc.
The numbers of people being economically inactive went up by 360,000
in the 5 years up to 2004. However a massive 310,000 of these were
attributable to the increase in students whilst only 10,000 was an
increase in the long term sick.
Allan
Thank you for that. Granted, there are many different types of
"economically inactive"; some of which are important functions of
society, and some not. I think my point still stands about the
government unemployment figures being nonsense, since they themselves
admit to the 9 million total; which cost the taxpayers c.£50billion per
year to support. Obviously, there are millions capable of working, and
should, but don't. So, our answer is import millions to do their work.
Utter madness.
--
http://www.1r5.net
"Think outside your government-issue box."


Come on - just admit you got your figures wrong.
Either that or go find out how many students, carers, mothers of small
children, the genuine sick, blind and other disabilities, workers changing
jobs, people leaving her majesty's forces and seeking work, people made
redundant, for whatever reason, and actively seeking work. Folks leaving the
education system and not yet found a job. Then subtract those figures from
the number quoted as unemployed. Here is a wee hint for you about Carers : -

"Carers save the UK economy £87 billion a year
Unpaid carers are now saving the UK £87 billion every year in potential care
costs, which amounts to more than the government's total spend on the NHS in
the last financial year. These new figures, calculated... 20.09.07"

Cite - http://www.carers.org/




Then of course there are those who have served their country for around 50
years and who paid tax, NI Stamp and what not, all their working life. You
know, the ones who paid for your nursery, primary and secondary schooling,
early medical cover and all the other things you got while your mother was
not working to keep you. Then there was the family allowance, tax rebates
and allowances your parents got when you were young. Then, of course, if you
married the same goes for your wife and any kids you both may have had
together. Who the hell do you think financed all such things?
The plain fact is we have just about as full employment now as we are ever
likely to get. And as noted above the Carers alone are saving the government
more each year than the government spends on Healthcare in a year.
--
Auld Bob Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).
Ian Smith
2007-10-21 23:52:09 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 21:26:43 +0100
Post by Ian Smith
On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 07:24:34 GMT
Post by Ian Smith
On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 00:49:06 +0100
Post by Ian Smith
My 8 million figure was slightly low. Far from full employment;
there are at least 9 million "economically inactive" people of
working age across the UK. They are the ones who have been
recategorized by government to make unemployment figures look
better. Presumably Scotland has somewhere near a pro rata share
(i.e. 800,000). Such blatant dishonesty by those who represent us.
However, sweeping inconvenient truths under the carpet will not
make them go away.
On the contrary rather than undersestimate the figures you have
somewhat misrepresented them on an even bigger scale than the
govrnment has. Bad though some of the figures are (eg a proportion
of the long term sick could be working) you seemed to suggest that
all these people were being paid for staying at home which is
untrue. I'm not suggesting there is not a problem but you have to
keep perspective. The figure includes students; people in early
retirement; housewives; young mothers not at work; people on shorter
term sickness leave; and people acting as carers for relatives etc.
The numbers of people being economically inactive went up by 360,000
in the 5 years up to 2004. However a massive 310,000 of these were
attributable to the increase in students whilst only 10,000 was an
increase in the long term sick.
Allan
Thank you for that. Granted, there are many different types of
"economically inactive"; some of which are important functions of
society, and some not. I think my point still stands about the
government unemployment figures being nonsense, since they themselves
admit to the 9 million total; which cost the taxpayers c.£50billion
per year to support. Obviously, there are millions capable of
working, and should, but don't. So, our answer is import millions to
do their work. Utter madness.
Come on - just admit you got your figures wrong.
Either that or go find out how many students, carers, mothers of small
children, the genuine sick, blind and other disabilities, workers
changing jobs, people leaving her majesty's forces and seeking work,
people made redundant, for whatever reason, and actively seeking work.
Folks leaving the education system and not yet found a job. Then
subtract those figures from the number quoted as unemployed. Here is a
wee hint for you about Carers : -

"Carers save the UK economy £87 billion a year
Unpaid carers are now saving the UK £87 billion every year in potential
care costs, which amounts to more than the government's total spend on
the NHS in the last financial year. These new figures, calculated...
20.09.07"

Cite - http://www.carers.org/




Then of course there are those who have served their country for around
50 years and who paid tax, NI Stamp and what not, all their working
life. You know, the ones who paid for your nursery, primary and
secondary schooling, early medical cover and all the other things you
got while your mother was not working to keep you. Then there was the
family allowance, tax rebates and allowances your parents got when you
were young. Then, of course, if you married the same goes for your wife
and any kids you both may have had together. Who the hell do you think
financed all such things? The plain fact is we have just about as full
employment now as we are ever likely to get. And as noted above the
Carers alone are saving the government more each year than the
government spends on Healthcare in a year.

=======================================

I got none of my figures wrong, since they are not mine. Do you accept
that 9 million are "economically inactive" or not? It is a number
admitted by the government. Although, as I've said before, you should
take anything the government says with a pinch of salt these days. The
question really is, how many of the 9 million would be classified as
unemployed, if the government were honest about it?
Robert Peffers
2007-10-24 00:03:30 UTC
Permalink
"Ian Smith" <***@btinternet.naespam.com> wrote in message news:***@ianinhoose-desktop...
On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 21:26:43 +0100
Post by Ian Smith
On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 07:24:34 GMT
Post by Ian Smith
On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 00:49:06 +0100
Post by Ian Smith
My 8 million figure was slightly low. Far from full employment;
there are at least 9 million "economically inactive" people of
working age across the UK. They are the ones who have been
recategorized by government to make unemployment figures look
better. Presumably Scotland has somewhere near a pro rata share
(i.e. 800,000). Such blatant dishonesty by those who represent us.
However, sweeping inconvenient truths under the carpet will not
make them go away.
On the contrary rather than undersestimate the figures you have
somewhat misrepresented them on an even bigger scale than the
govrnment has. Bad though some of the figures are (eg a proportion
of the long term sick could be working) you seemed to suggest that
all these people were being paid for staying at home which is
untrue. I'm not suggesting there is not a problem but you have to
keep perspective. The figure includes students; people in early
retirement; housewives; young mothers not at work; people on shorter
term sickness leave; and people acting as carers for relatives etc.
The numbers of people being economically inactive went up by 360,000
in the 5 years up to 2004. However a massive 310,000 of these were
attributable to the increase in students whilst only 10,000 was an
increase in the long term sick.
Allan
Thank you for that. Granted, there are many different types of
"economically inactive"; some of which are important functions of
society, and some not. I think my point still stands about the
government unemployment figures being nonsense, since they themselves
admit to the 9 million total; which cost the taxpayers c.£50billion
per year to support. Obviously, there are millions capable of
working, and should, but don't. So, our answer is import millions to
do their work. Utter madness.
Come on - just admit you got your figures wrong.
Either that or go find out how many students, carers, mothers of small
children, the genuine sick, blind and other disabilities, workers
changing jobs, people leaving her majesty's forces and seeking work,
people made redundant, for whatever reason, and actively seeking work.
Folks leaving the education system and not yet found a job. Then
subtract those figures from the number quoted as unemployed. Here is a
wee hint for you about Carers : -

"Carers save the UK economy £87 billion a year
Unpaid carers are now saving the UK £87 billion every year in potential
care costs, which amounts to more than the government's total spend on
the NHS in the last financial year. These new figures, calculated...
20.09.07"

Cite - http://www.carers.org/




Then of course there are those who have served their country for around
50 years and who paid tax, NI Stamp and what not, all their working
life. You know, the ones who paid for your nursery, primary and
secondary schooling, early medical cover and all the other things you
got while your mother was not working to keep you. Then there was the
family allowance, tax rebates and allowances your parents got when you
were young. Then, of course, if you married the same goes for your wife
and any kids you both may have had together. Who the hell do you think
financed all such things? The plain fact is we have just about as full
employment now as we are ever likely to get. And as noted above the
Carers alone are saving the government more each year than the
government spends on Healthcare in a year.

=======================================

I got none of my figures wrong, since they are not mine. Do you accept
that 9 million are "economically inactive" or not? It is a number
admitted by the government. Although, as I've said before, you should
take anything the government says with a pinch of salt these days. The
question really is, how many of the 9 million would be classified as
unemployed, if the government were honest about it?


Honest about what?
The figures include, "Job Seekers".
Just remember that not everyone who is not working for a living are sponging
upon the taxpayer. Many of us pay tax on our incomes - as I do, and I paid
tax on it when I spent 50 odd years earning it and never had a day's
unemployment in my life.
--
Auld Bob Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).
Ian Smith
2007-10-24 03:05:28 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 01:03:30 +0100
Post by Ian Smith
On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 21:26:43 +0100
Post by Ian Smith
On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 07:24:34 GMT
Post by Ian Smith
On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 00:49:06 +0100
Post by Ian Smith
My 8 million figure was slightly low. Far from full employment;
there are at least 9 million "economically inactive" people of
working age across the UK. They are the ones who have been
recategorized by government to make unemployment figures look
better. Presumably Scotland has somewhere near a pro rata share
(i.e. 800,000). Such blatant dishonesty by those who represent
us. However, sweeping inconvenient truths under the carpet will
not make them go away.
On the contrary rather than undersestimate the figures you have
somewhat misrepresented them on an even bigger scale than the
govrnment has. Bad though some of the figures are (eg a proportion
of the long term sick could be working) you seemed to suggest that
all these people were being paid for staying at home which is
untrue. I'm not suggesting there is not a problem but you have to
keep perspective. The figure includes students; people in early
retirement; housewives; young mothers not at work; people on
shorter term sickness leave; and people acting as carers for
relatives etc. The numbers of people being economically inactive
went up by 360,000 in the 5 years up to 2004. However a massive
310,000 of these were attributable to the increase in students
whilst only 10,000 was an increase in the long term sick.
Allan
Thank you for that. Granted, there are many different types of
"economically inactive"; some of which are important functions of
society, and some not. I think my point still stands about the
government unemployment figures being nonsense, since they
themselves admit to the 9 million total; which cost the taxpayers
c.£50billion per year to support. Obviously, there are millions
capable of working, and should, but don't. So, our answer is import
millions to do their work. Utter madness.
Come on - just admit you got your figures wrong.
Either that or go find out how many students, carers, mothers of small
children, the genuine sick, blind and other disabilities, workers
changing jobs, people leaving her majesty's forces and seeking work,
people made redundant, for whatever reason, and actively seeking work.
Folks leaving the education system and not yet found a job. Then
subtract those figures from the number quoted as unemployed. Here is a
wee hint for you about Carers : -
"Carers save the UK economy £87 billion a year
Unpaid carers are now saving the UK £87 billion every year in
potential care costs, which amounts to more than the government's
total spend on the NHS in the last financial year. These new figures,
calculated... 20.09.07"
Cite - http://www.carers.org/
Then of course there are those who have served their country for
around 50 years and who paid tax, NI Stamp and what not, all their
working life. You know, the ones who paid for your nursery, primary
and secondary schooling, early medical cover and all the other things
you got while your mother was not working to keep you. Then there was
the family allowance, tax rebates and allowances your parents got
when you were young. Then, of course, if you married the same goes
for your wife and any kids you both may have had together. Who the
hell do you think financed all such things? The plain fact is we have
just about as full employment now as we are ever likely to get. And
as noted above the Carers alone are saving the government more each
year than the government spends on Healthcare in a year.
=======================================
I got none of my figures wrong, since they are not mine. Do you accept
that 9 million are "economically inactive" or not? It is a number
admitted by the government. Although, as I've said before, you should
take anything the government says with a pinch of salt these days. The
question really is, how many of the 9 million would be classified as
unemployed, if the government were honest about it?
Honest about what?
The figures include, "Job Seekers".
Just remember that not everyone who is not working for a living are
sponging upon the taxpayer. Many of us pay tax on our incomes - as I
do, and I paid tax on it when I spent 50 odd years earning it and
never had a day's unemployment in my life.
Of course "not everyone" (of the 9 million) is sponging upon the
taxpayer. I didn't say that anywhere. My point is entirely that "full
employment" (or anywhere near it) is a myth in this country, and
the ruling party, in keeping with tradition, has obfuscated the figures
to make itself look good, win votes, create a "client state" of
benefits claimants, gain power, etc. The sad/inconvenient reality is
that there are the "forgotten millions" who should/would like to be
working, but are not; despite official statistics which declare them
not to exist.

I am patriotic towards Scotland, its traditions, and way of life. I
have deep respect for those who went before me and helped build up our
society. What pisses me off is the current trend in which it is all
being dismantled for the sake of political ideology (and the political
gravy train). What a f*cking sh*te way to run a country.
--
http://www.1r5.net + 1.000 pinches of salt
Robert Peffers
2007-10-24 12:45:00 UTC
Permalink
"Ian Smith" <***@btinternet.naespam.com> wrote in message news:***@ubuntu...
On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 01:03:30 +0100
Post by Ian Smith
On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 21:26:43 +0100
Post by Ian Smith
On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 07:24:34 GMT
Post by Ian Smith
On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 00:49:06 +0100
Post by Ian Smith
My 8 million figure was slightly low. Far from full employment;
there are at least 9 million "economically inactive" people of
working age across the UK. They are the ones who have been
recategorized by government to make unemployment figures look
better. Presumably Scotland has somewhere near a pro rata share
(i.e. 800,000). Such blatant dishonesty by those who represent
us. However, sweeping inconvenient truths under the carpet will
not make them go away.
On the contrary rather than undersestimate the figures you have
somewhat misrepresented them on an even bigger scale than the
govrnment has. Bad though some of the figures are (eg a proportion
of the long term sick could be working) you seemed to suggest that
all these people were being paid for staying at home which is
untrue. I'm not suggesting there is not a problem but you have to
keep perspective. The figure includes students; people in early
retirement; housewives; young mothers not at work; people on
shorter term sickness leave; and people acting as carers for
relatives etc. The numbers of people being economically inactive
went up by 360,000 in the 5 years up to 2004. However a massive
310,000 of these were attributable to the increase in students
whilst only 10,000 was an increase in the long term sick.
Allan
Thank you for that. Granted, there are many different types of
"economically inactive"; some of which are important functions of
society, and some not. I think my point still stands about the
government unemployment figures being nonsense, since they
themselves admit to the 9 million total; which cost the taxpayers
c.£50billion per year to support. Obviously, there are millions
capable of working, and should, but don't. So, our answer is import
millions to do their work. Utter madness.
Come on - just admit you got your figures wrong.
Either that or go find out how many students, carers, mothers of small
children, the genuine sick, blind and other disabilities, workers
changing jobs, people leaving her majesty's forces and seeking work,
people made redundant, for whatever reason, and actively seeking work.
Folks leaving the education system and not yet found a job. Then
subtract those figures from the number quoted as unemployed. Here is a
wee hint for you about Carers : -
"Carers save the UK economy £87 billion a year
Unpaid carers are now saving the UK £87 billion every year in
potential care costs, which amounts to more than the government's
total spend on the NHS in the last financial year. These new figures,
calculated... 20.09.07"
Cite - http://www.carers.org/
Then of course there are those who have served their country for
around 50 years and who paid tax, NI Stamp and what not, all their
working life. You know, the ones who paid for your nursery, primary
and secondary schooling, early medical cover and all the other things
you got while your mother was not working to keep you. Then there was
the family allowance, tax rebates and allowances your parents got
when you were young. Then, of course, if you married the same goes
for your wife and any kids you both may have had together. Who the
hell do you think financed all such things? The plain fact is we have
just about as full employment now as we are ever likely to get. And
as noted above the Carers alone are saving the government more each
year than the government spends on Healthcare in a year.
=======================================
I got none of my figures wrong, since they are not mine. Do you accept
that 9 million are "economically inactive" or not? It is a number
admitted by the government. Although, as I've said before, you should
take anything the government says with a pinch of salt these days. The
question really is, how many of the 9 million would be classified as
unemployed, if the government were honest about it?
Honest about what?
The figures include, "Job Seekers".
Just remember that not everyone who is not working for a living are
sponging upon the taxpayer. Many of us pay tax on our incomes - as I
do, and I paid tax on it when I spent 50 odd years earning it and
never had a day's unemployment in my life.
Of course "not everyone" (of the 9 million) is sponging upon the
taxpayer. I didn't say that anywhere. My point is entirely that "full
employment" (or anywhere near it) is a myth in this country, and
the ruling party, in keeping with tradition, has obfuscated the figures
to make itself look good, win votes, create a "client state" of
benefits claimants, gain power, etc. The sad/inconvenient reality is
that there are the "forgotten millions" who should/would like to be
working, but are not; despite official statistics which declare them
not to exist.

I am patriotic towards Scotland, its traditions, and way of life. I
have deep respect for those who went before me and helped build up our
society. What pisses me off is the current trend in which it is all
being dismantled for the sake of political ideology (and the political
gravy train). What a f*cking sh*te way to run a country.
--
http://www.1r5.net + 1.000 pinches of salt


There are very few fit people who want work who do not get it.
There are many disabled people who want work who don't get it.
This is very often due to the utterly biased view of most employers who
often underestimate the capabillities of disabled people.
In most cases office type work is done sitting down so the only reason to
refuse a wheelchair bound person an office job is that of access to the
office.
Answering phones can be done by blind people.
Why, then, are so many blind people, who want to work, unemployed?

My next door neighbour is having work done on drainage, a patio and a
conservatory.
The workers are Poles.
My other next door neighbour just remarked yesterday that these men were
hard workers while he had just passed three local unemployables in the
village. Each with a litre bottle of, "Buckfast", grasped in their hands.
However, there are very few of that kind in the village these days and they
are treated as lepers.
I'm almost certain that even taking away the benefit from those few would
cause them to seek employment but would, most likely, see a great rise for
the village crime statistics.
Probably the same couls be said about the unmarried parents of the village.
The prostitution figures would go from zero in an upward direction if we
took their benefits away and it would only be their children who would
suffer.

Whatever else the proportion of these people is tiny in relation to the
whole.
--
Auld Bob Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).
Custos Custodum
2007-10-21 21:56:41 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 22:33:01 +0100, "Robert Peffers"
Post by Robert Peffers
Strange then that Scotland, with the highest UK employment figures, still
has a shortage of skilled workers.
In some sectors, perhaps. AFAICS, much of the perceived shortage is
due to employers focusing their recruitment on touchy-feely
considerations that have nothing whatsoever to do with the skills
required for the job. Have you tried looking for a job commensurate
with your skills and experience lately? What sort of success do you
think you would have? Or put it another way: why do you think
Glenallan had to commute 200 miles over the border every weekend? Why
will I be telecommuting to Köln next week?
Post by Robert Peffers
Scotland also has lots of migrant
workers. It has to be remembered that except for places like the London
The London Mayor's Office). The rest of the UK has, more or less, full
employment. Full employment does not mean everyone of working age is
employed.
Really? So what does it mean?
Post by Robert Peffers
It means that there will always be a percentage of people, for one
reason or another, who are between jobs, or unable to work, but over that
figure the rest are employed or actively seeking work.
I see. So anyone who is unemployed, but actively seeking work, is
counted among the employed to make the government figures look good?
Sounds like dishonest accounting to me.
Post by Robert Peffers
In Scotland, just now
we have the highest employment figures and the lowest unemployment figures
in the UK and rank about 2nd or 3rd in Europe.
It's easy to see why, if they are counting the unemployed as employed.
Robert Peffers
2007-10-23 23:56:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Custos Custodum
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 22:33:01 +0100, "Robert Peffers"
Post by Robert Peffers
Strange then that Scotland, with the highest UK employment figures, still
has a shortage of skilled workers.
In some sectors, perhaps. AFAICS, much of the perceived shortage is
due to employers focusing their recruitment on touchy-feely
considerations that have nothing whatsoever to do with the skills
required for the job. Have you tried looking for a job commensurate
with your skills and experience lately? What sort of success do you
think you would have? Or put it another way: why do you think
Glenallan had to commute 200 miles over the border every weekend? Why
will I be telecommuting to Köln next week?
Post by Robert Peffers
Scotland also has lots of migrant
workers. It has to be remembered that except for places like the London
The London Mayor's Office). The rest of the UK has, more or less, full
employment. Full employment does not mean everyone of working age is
employed.
Really? So what does it mean?
It means that everyone who wants a job can have one.
Just to put your rant into perspective - I used to have a friend who never
worked after he was around 25 years old.

His name was Rennie and he was the sleeping partner of the guy who owned/ran
Rennie's Bus Company.
Why, though, would he want to work? He was a multi-Millionaire, (pounds -
not dollars), in the days when these were rather thin upon the ground.
Get the point?
Not all unemployed people are sponging upon the nation.
Post by Custos Custodum
Post by Robert Peffers
It means that there will always be a percentage of people, for one
reason or another, who are between jobs, or unable to work, but over that
figure the rest are employed or actively seeking work.
I see. So anyone who is unemployed, but actively seeking work, is
counted among the employed to make the government figures look good?
Sounds like dishonest accounting to me.
Nope - they are counted as unemployed.
Post by Custos Custodum
Post by Robert Peffers
In Scotland, just now
we have the highest employment figures and the lowest unemployment figures
in the UK and rank about 2nd or 3rd in Europe.
It's easy to see why, if they are counting the unemployed as employed.
And your proof of that is?
--
Auld Bob Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).
Adam Whyte-Settlar
2007-10-25 15:21:02 UTC
Permalink
"Custos Custodum" <
Post by Custos Custodum
It's easy to see why, if they are counting the unemployed as employed.
And your proof of that is?
Do you get the impression that a lot of these people are too young to have
lived through the Thatcher era?
That was when some of the most highly qualified and highly skilled people in
the country were unemployed for years on end.
Somewhere around 4.5 million of them. Even the government's own figures
('recalculated' 17 times in 9 years) put the figure at well over 3 million.
Some people don't know they're born.
Custos Custodum
2007-10-29 00:17:58 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 00:56:08 +0100, "Robert Peffers"
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Custos Custodum
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 22:33:01 +0100, "Robert Peffers"
Post by Robert Peffers
Strange then that Scotland, with the highest UK employment figures, still
has a shortage of skilled workers.
In some sectors, perhaps. AFAICS, much of the perceived shortage is
due to employers focusing their recruitment on touchy-feely
considerations that have nothing whatsoever to do with the skills
required for the job. Have you tried looking for a job commensurate
with your skills and experience lately? What sort of success do you
think you would have? Or put it another way: why do you think
Glenallan had to commute 200 miles over the border every weekend? Why
will I be telecommuting to Köln next week?
Post by Robert Peffers
Scotland also has lots of migrant
workers. It has to be remembered that except for places like the London
The London Mayor's Office). The rest of the UK has, more or less, full
employment. Full employment does not mean everyone of working age is
employed.
Really? So what does it mean?
It means that everyone who wants a job can have one.
Well that certainly isn't the situation in the UK today.

http://www.tuc.org.uk/economy/tuc-12258-f0.cfm

Another statistic I read, but which I don't yet have a link for, is
that only one in five men who are made redundant in their fifities is
likely to find work at a level comparable to what they had before. But
I guess you think it's OK to force brain surgeons and nuclear
physicists to work in call centres and all-night filling stations if
it means we can claim full employment in the midst of a mythical
skills shortage.
Post by Robert Peffers
Just to put your rant into perspective - I used to have a friend who never
worked after he was around 25 years old.
His name was Rennie and he was the sleeping partner of the guy who owned/ran
Rennie's Bus Company.
Why, though, would he want to work? He was a multi-Millionaire, (pounds -
not dollars), in the days when these were rather thin upon the ground.
Get the point?
Not all unemployed people are sponging upon the nation.
Nobody here claimed they were.
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Custos Custodum
Post by Robert Peffers
It means that there will always be a percentage of people, for one
reason or another, who are between jobs, or unable to work, but over that
figure the rest are employed or actively seeking work.
I see. So anyone who is unemployed, but actively seeking work, is
counted among the employed to make the government figures look good?
Sounds like dishonest accounting to me.
Nope - they are counted as unemployed.
Actually, only those claiming JSA are counted as unemployed. There are
many who don't bother. If they have no dependents and their
spouses/partners are working, they are unlikely to receive anything,
anyway. In these circumstances, others feel that, as a means-tested
benefit, it represents an unacceptable intrusion by the state into
their private affairs.
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Custos Custodum
Post by Robert Peffers
In Scotland, just now
we have the highest employment figures and the lowest unemployment figures
in the UK and rank about 2nd or 3rd in Europe.
It's easy to see why, if they are counting the unemployed as employed.
And your proof of that is?
You more or less implied it above, viz

It means that there will always be a percentage of people, for one
reason or another, who are between jobs, or unable to work, but
over that figure the rest are employed or actively seeking work.

No mention of long-term unemployed there.
Actually, my proof is as above - the gov't only counts those claiming
JSA and sweeps the rest under the carpet to make the figures look
better.
Robert Peffers
2007-11-03 22:22:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Custos Custodum
On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 00:56:08 +0100, "Robert Peffers"
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Custos Custodum
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 22:33:01 +0100, "Robert Peffers"
Post by Robert Peffers
Strange then that Scotland, with the highest UK employment figures, still
has a shortage of skilled workers.
In some sectors, perhaps. AFAICS, much of the perceived shortage is
due to employers focusing their recruitment on touchy-feely
considerations that have nothing whatsoever to do with the skills
required for the job. Have you tried looking for a job commensurate
with your skills and experience lately? What sort of success do you
think you would have? Or put it another way: why do you think
Glenallan had to commute 200 miles over the border every weekend? Why
will I be telecommuting to Köln next week?
Post by Robert Peffers
Scotland also has lots of migrant
workers. It has to be remembered that except for places like the London
The London Mayor's Office). The rest of the UK has, more or less, full
employment. Full employment does not mean everyone of working age is
employed.
Really? So what does it mean?
It means that everyone who wants a job can have one.
Well that certainly isn't the situation in the UK today.
http://www.tuc.org.uk/economy/tuc-12258-f0.cfm
That statistic is for the UK - the UK does not claim to have full
employment.
Post by Custos Custodum
Another statistic I read, but which I don't yet have a link for, is
that only one in five men who are made redundant in their fifities is
likely to find work at a level comparable to what they had before. But
I guess you think it's OK to force brain surgeons and nuclear
physicists to work in call centres and all-night filling stations if
it means we can claim full employment in the midst of a mythical
skills shortage.
There is a shortage of doctors and surgeons in Scotland. They could get work
if they want it.
As Scotland is wanting rid of nuclear power, nuclear subs and nuclear
weapons we will send the ones out of work to England where they seem to be
needed.
Post by Custos Custodum
Post by Robert Peffers
Just to put your rant into perspective - I used to have a friend who never
worked after he was around 25 years old.
His name was Rennie and he was the sleeping partner of the guy who owned/ran
Rennie's Bus Company.
Why, though, would he want to work? He was a multi-Millionaire, (pounds -
not dollars), in the days when these were rather thin upon the ground.
Get the point?
Not all unemployed people are sponging upon the nation.
Nobody here claimed they were.
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Custos Custodum
Post by Robert Peffers
It means that there will always be a percentage of people, for one
reason or another, who are between jobs, or unable to work, but over that
figure the rest are employed or actively seeking work.
I see. So anyone who is unemployed, but actively seeking work, is
counted among the employed to make the government figures look good?
Sounds like dishonest accounting to me.
Nope - they are counted as unemployed.
Actually, only those claiming JSA are counted as unemployed. There are
many who don't bother. If they have no dependents and their
spouses/partners are working, they are unlikely to receive anything,
anyway. In these circumstances, others feel that, as a means-tested
benefit, it represents an unacceptable intrusion by the state into
their private affairs.
What has that got to do with the statement you are telling me I got wrong?
If they are not bothering and not drawing benefits then they fall outside
the definition. "anyone WHO WANTS work can get a job.
Post by Custos Custodum
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Custos Custodum
Post by Robert Peffers
In Scotland, just now
we have the highest employment figures and the lowest unemployment figures
in the UK and rank about 2nd or 3rd in Europe.
It's easy to see why, if they are counting the unemployed as employed.
And your proof of that is?
You more or less implied it above, viz
It means that there will always be a percentage of people, for one
reason or another, who are between jobs, or unable to work, but
over that figure the rest are employed or actively seeking work.
No mention of long-term unemployed there.
Actually, my proof is as above - the gov't only counts those claiming
JSA and sweeps the rest under the carpet to make the figures look
better.
So you pick the holes in this -

http://www.scotlandoffice.gov.uk/our-communications/release.php?id=3627

Latest Data for Scotland

Employment
The Labour Force Survey (LFS) indicates that the number of people in
employment in Scotland in June - August 2007 was 2,534,000. Employment was
6,000 lower compared with the previous three months and 67,000 higher
compared to the same period last year. The employment rate amongst those of
working age was down 0.1 percentage points over the quarter and up 1.5
percentage points over the year, to 76.6 per cent. In international terms,
the Scottish employment rate remains above the UK average and the
corresponding rate for the majority of other EU countries.

Unemployment
ILO unemployment in Scotland was down by 4,000 over the quarter June -
August 2007 to 123,000. The level was 2,000 lower compared to the same
quarter last year. The unemployment rate fell by 0.1 percentage points from
the previous quarter to 4.6% per cent, and is down 0.2 percentage points
over the year.

Claimant Count Unemployment
The claimant count in Scotland, based on the seasonally adjusted number of
people claiming Job Seeker’s Allowance (JSA), fell by 600 in the month of
September to 73,800. The level is down by 13,600 on September 2006. The
claimant count rate remained unchanged over the month and fell 0.5
percentage points over the year to 2.7%.

Economic Activity
The number of economically active (defined as those in employment or ILO
unemployed, seasonally adjusted) in Scotland in the June - August 2007
quarter was 2,657,000. This is 10,000 lower than the previous quarter, and
65,000 higher than at the same time in 2006. Among those aged 16-59/64, the
economic activity rate was 80.4 per cent – down by 0.3 percentage points on
the previous quarter, and up 1.5 percentage points over the year.
There are no hidden figures and these figures are from the Scottish Office.
Note that they show employment;Unemployment;claimants and Economic activity.
Note also that Claimant Count Unemployment mentions that JSA is included.
Kind of knocks your claim of being swept under the carpet on the head - does
it not?
I do not ever base my claims of such things upon the media reports of
trashy publications.
--
Auld Bob Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).
Custos Custodum
2007-11-12 15:45:48 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 3 Nov 2007 22:22:03 -0000, "Robert Peffers"
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Custos Custodum
On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 00:56:08 +0100, "Robert Peffers"
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Custos Custodum
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 22:33:01 +0100, "Robert Peffers"
Post by Robert Peffers
Strange then that Scotland, with the highest UK employment figures, still
has a shortage of skilled workers.
In some sectors, perhaps. AFAICS, much of the perceived shortage is
due to employers focusing their recruitment on touchy-feely
considerations that have nothing whatsoever to do with the skills
required for the job. Have you tried looking for a job commensurate
with your skills and experience lately? What sort of success do you
think you would have? Or put it another way: why do you think
Glenallan had to commute 200 miles over the border every weekend? Why
will I be telecommuting to Köln next week?
Post by Robert Peffers
Scotland also has lots of migrant
workers. It has to be remembered that except for places like the London
The London Mayor's Office). The rest of the UK has, more or less, full
employment. Full employment does not mean everyone of working age is
employed.
Really? So what does it mean?
It means that everyone who wants a job can have one.
Well that certainly isn't the situation in the UK today.
http://www.tuc.org.uk/economy/tuc-12258-f0.cfm
That statistic is for the UK - the UK does not claim to have full
employment.
You have evidence to suggest that Scotland's share of that figure is
anything other than pro rata?
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Custos Custodum
Another statistic I read, but which I don't yet have a link for, is
that only one in five men who are made redundant in their fifities is
likely to find work at a level comparable to what they had before. But
I guess you think it's OK to force brain surgeons and nuclear
physicists to work in call centres and all-night filling stations if
it means we can claim full employment in the midst of a mythical
skills shortage.
There is a shortage of doctors and surgeons in Scotland. They could get work
if they want it.
Well duh! Actually the shortage, based on advertised vacancies, isn't
as great as you think and being a paediatrician isn't much use when
they're looking for haematologists. The point, which you are
studiously avoiding, is that there are many skilled people working in
jobs that are well below the level of their abilities because there is
nothing else available. You might think that's a sign of a healthy
economy. I don't.
Post by Robert Peffers
As Scotland is wanting rid of nuclear power, nuclear subs and nuclear
weapons we will send the ones out of work to England where they seem to be
needed.
So what happened to 'anyone who wants a job can have one'?
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Custos Custodum
Post by Robert Peffers
Just to put your rant into perspective - I used to have a friend who never
worked after he was around 25 years old.
His name was Rennie and he was the sleeping partner of the guy who owned/ran
Rennie's Bus Company.
Why, though, would he want to work? He was a multi-Millionaire, (pounds -
not dollars), in the days when these were rather thin upon the ground.
Get the point?
Not all unemployed people are sponging upon the nation.
Nobody here claimed they were.
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Custos Custodum
Post by Robert Peffers
It means that there will always be a percentage of people, for one
reason or another, who are between jobs, or unable to work, but over that
figure the rest are employed or actively seeking work.
I see. So anyone who is unemployed, but actively seeking work, is
counted among the employed to make the government figures look good?
Sounds like dishonest accounting to me.
Nope - they are counted as unemployed.
Actually, only those claiming JSA are counted as unemployed. There are
many who don't bother. If they have no dependents and their
spouses/partners are working, they are unlikely to receive anything,
anyway. In these circumstances, others feel that, as a means-tested
benefit, it represents an unacceptable intrusion by the state into
their private affairs.
What has that got to do with the statement you are telling me I got wrong?
If they are not bothering and not drawing benefits then they fall outside
the definition. "anyone WHO WANTS work can get a job.
Claiming benefits and wanting a job are two different things. As you
are quick to point out, there are those who live on benefits and have
no intention of finding work. On the other hand, there are those who
are unemployed, who want to work, but who do not claim benefits for
the reasons I gave previously.
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Custos Custodum
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Custos Custodum
Post by Robert Peffers
In Scotland, just now
we have the highest employment figures and the lowest unemployment figures
in the UK and rank about 2nd or 3rd in Europe.
It's easy to see why, if they are counting the unemployed as employed.
And your proof of that is?
You more or less implied it above, viz
It means that there will always be a percentage of people, for one
reason or another, who are between jobs, or unable to work, but
over that figure the rest are employed or actively seeking work.
No mention of long-term unemployed there.
Actually, my proof is as above - the gov't only counts those claiming
JSA and sweeps the rest under the carpet to make the figures look
better.
So you pick the holes in this -
http://www.scotlandoffice.gov.uk/our-communications/release.php?id=3627
Latest Data for Scotland
Employment
The Labour Force Survey (LFS) indicates that the number of people in
employment in Scotland in June - August 2007 was 2,534,000. Employment was
6,000 lower compared with the previous three months and 67,000 higher
compared to the same period last year. The employment rate amongst those of
working age was down 0.1 percentage points over the quarter and up 1.5
percentage points over the year, to 76.6 per cent. In international terms,
the Scottish employment rate remains above the UK average and the
corresponding rate for the majority of other EU countries.
Unemployment
ILO unemployment in Scotland was down by 4,000 over the quarter June -
August 2007 to 123,000. The level was 2,000 lower compared to the same
quarter last year. The unemployment rate fell by 0.1 percentage points from
the previous quarter to 4.6% per cent, and is down 0.2 percentage points
over the year.
Claimant Count Unemployment
The claimant count in Scotland, based on the seasonally adjusted number of
people claiming Job Seeker’s Allowance (JSA), fell by 600 in the month of
September to 73,800. The level is down by 13,600 on September 2006. The
claimant count rate remained unchanged over the month and fell 0.5
percentage points over the year to 2.7%.
Economic Activity
The number of economically active (defined as those in employment or ILO
unemployed, seasonally adjusted) in Scotland in the June - August 2007
quarter was 2,657,000. This is 10,000 lower than the previous quarter, and
65,000 higher than at the same time in 2006. Among those aged 16-59/64, the
economic activity rate was 80.4 per cent – down by 0.3 percentage points on
the previous quarter, and up 1.5 percentage points over the year.
There are no hidden figures and these figures are from the Scottish Office.
Note that they show employment;Unemployment;claimants and Economic activity.
Note also that Claimant Count Unemployment mentions that JSA is included.
Kind of knocks your claim of being swept under the carpet on the head - does
it not?
Not at all. In fact, it doesn't even address my point; it merely
reports the figures as determined by the methods they use to determine
the figures - either JSA claimants or some sort of sampled
guesstimate. Quite apart from the seemingly contradictory figures in
the first two paragraphs - one says employment was down by 6000, the
other claims unemployment was down by 2000 over the same period yet
there is no attempt to explain the apparent discrepancy - the report
contains no detailed demographic information or details about the sort
of jobs that are being created. I'm willing to bet that a large
percentage of them are part-time, temporary or minimum wage. Not the
sort of thing you could raise a family on.
Post by Robert Peffers
I do not ever base my claims of such things upon the media reports of
trashy publications.
Nor do I.
Robert Peffers
2007-11-17 01:07:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Custos Custodum
On Sat, 3 Nov 2007 22:22:03 -0000, "Robert Peffers"
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Custos Custodum
On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 00:56:08 +0100, "Robert Peffers"
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Custos Custodum
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 22:33:01 +0100, "Robert Peffers"
Post by Robert Peffers
Strange then that Scotland, with the highest UK employment figures, still
has a shortage of skilled workers.
In some sectors, perhaps. AFAICS, much of the perceived shortage is
due to employers focusing their recruitment on touchy-feely
considerations that have nothing whatsoever to do with the skills
required for the job. Have you tried looking for a job commensurate
with your skills and experience lately? What sort of success do you
think you would have? Or put it another way: why do you think
Glenallan had to commute 200 miles over the border every weekend? Why
will I be telecommuting to Köln next week?
Post by Robert Peffers
Scotland also has lots of migrant
workers. It has to be remembered that except for places like the London
The London Mayor's Office). The rest of the UK has, more or less, full
employment. Full employment does not mean everyone of working age is
employed.
Really? So what does it mean?
It means that everyone who wants a job can have one.
Well that certainly isn't the situation in the UK today.
http://www.tuc.org.uk/economy/tuc-12258-f0.cfm
That statistic is for the UK - the UK does not claim to have full
employment.
You have evidence to suggest that Scotland's share of that figure is
anything other than pro rata?
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Custos Custodum
Another statistic I read, but which I don't yet have a link for, is
that only one in five men who are made redundant in their fifities is
likely to find work at a level comparable to what they had before. But
I guess you think it's OK to force brain surgeons and nuclear
physicists to work in call centres and all-night filling stations if
it means we can claim full employment in the midst of a mythical
skills shortage.
There is a shortage of doctors and surgeons in Scotland. They could get work
if they want it.
Well duh! Actually the shortage, based on advertised vacancies, isn't
as great as you think and being a paediatrician isn't much use when
they're looking for haematologists. The point, which you are
studiously avoiding, is that there are many skilled people working in
jobs that are well below the level of their abilities because there is
nothing else available. You might think that's a sign of a healthy
economy. I don't.
More a sign of someone not ready to go where the work is.
Post by Custos Custodum
Post by Robert Peffers
As Scotland is wanting rid of nuclear power, nuclear subs and nuclear
weapons we will send the ones out of work to England where they seem to be
needed.
So what happened to 'anyone who wants a job can have one'?
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Custos Custodum
Post by Robert Peffers
Just to put your rant into perspective - I used to have a friend who never
worked after he was around 25 years old.
His name was Rennie and he was the sleeping partner of the guy who owned/ran
Rennie's Bus Company.
Why, though, would he want to work? He was a multi-Millionaire, (pounds -
not dollars), in the days when these were rather thin upon the ground.
Get the point?
Not all unemployed people are sponging upon the nation.
Nobody here claimed they were.
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Custos Custodum
Post by Robert Peffers
It means that there will always be a percentage of people, for one
reason or another, who are between jobs, or unable to work, but over that
figure the rest are employed or actively seeking work.
I see. So anyone who is unemployed, but actively seeking work, is
counted among the employed to make the government figures look good?
Sounds like dishonest accounting to me.
Nope - they are counted as unemployed.
Actually, only those claiming JSA are counted as unemployed. There are
many who don't bother. If they have no dependents and their
spouses/partners are working, they are unlikely to receive anything,
anyway. In these circumstances, others feel that, as a means-tested
benefit, it represents an unacceptable intrusion by the state into
their private affairs.
What has that got to do with the statement you are telling me I got wrong?
If they are not bothering and not drawing benefits then they fall outside
the definition. "anyone WHO WANTS work can get a job.
Claiming benefits and wanting a job are two different things. As you
are quick to point out, there are those who live on benefits and have
no intention of finding work. On the other hand, there are those who
are unemployed, who want to work, but who do not claim benefits for
the reasons I gave previously.
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Custos Custodum
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Custos Custodum
Post by Robert Peffers
In Scotland, just now
we have the highest employment figures and the lowest unemployment figures
in the UK and rank about 2nd or 3rd in Europe.
It's easy to see why, if they are counting the unemployed as employed.
And your proof of that is?
You more or less implied it above, viz
It means that there will always be a percentage of people, for one
reason or another, who are between jobs, or unable to work, but
over that figure the rest are employed or actively seeking work.
No mention of long-term unemployed there.
Actually, my proof is as above - the gov't only counts those claiming
JSA and sweeps the rest under the carpet to make the figures look
better.
So you pick the holes in this -
http://www.scotlandoffice.gov.uk/our-communications/release.php?id=3627
Latest Data for Scotland
Employment
The Labour Force Survey (LFS) indicates that the number of people in
employment in Scotland in June - August 2007 was 2,534,000. Employment was
6,000 lower compared with the previous three months and 67,000 higher
compared to the same period last year. The employment rate amongst those of
working age was down 0.1 percentage points over the quarter and up 1.5
percentage points over the year, to 76.6 per cent. In international terms,
the Scottish employment rate remains above the UK average and the
corresponding rate for the majority of other EU countries.
Unemployment
ILO unemployment in Scotland was down by 4,000 over the quarter June -
August 2007 to 123,000. The level was 2,000 lower compared to the same
quarter last year. The unemployment rate fell by 0.1 percentage points from
the previous quarter to 4.6% per cent, and is down 0.2 percentage points
over the year.
Claimant Count Unemployment
The claimant count in Scotland, based on the seasonally adjusted number of
people claiming Job Seeker’s Allowance (JSA), fell by 600 in the month of
September to 73,800. The level is down by 13,600 on September 2006. The
claimant count rate remained unchanged over the month and fell 0.5
percentage points over the year to 2.7%.
Economic Activity
The number of economically active (defined as those in employment or ILO
unemployed, seasonally adjusted) in Scotland in the June - August 2007
quarter was 2,657,000. This is 10,000 lower than the previous quarter, and
65,000 higher than at the same time in 2006. Among those aged 16-59/64, the
economic activity rate was 80.4 per cent – down by 0.3 percentage points on
the previous quarter, and up 1.5 percentage points over the year.
There are no hidden figures and these figures are from the Scottish Office.
Note that they show employment;Unemployment;claimants and Economic activity.
Note also that Claimant Count Unemployment mentions that JSA is included.
Kind of knocks your claim of being swept under the carpet on the head - does
it not?
Not at all. In fact, it doesn't even address my point; it merely
reports the figures as determined by the methods they use to determine
the figures - either JSA claimants or some sort of sampled
guesstimate. Quite apart from the seemingly contradictory figures in
the first two paragraphs - one says employment was down by 6000, the
other claims unemployment was down by 2000 over the same period yet
there is no attempt to explain the apparent discrepancy - the report
contains no detailed demographic information or details about the sort
of jobs that are being created. I'm willing to bet that a large
percentage of them are part-time, temporary or minimum wage. Not the
sort of thing you could raise a family on.
If you had bothered to read the facts there are good reasons for quoting
Unemployment figures and Employment figures that do not agree.
They do not agree for the good reason that they count all those out of
work - the unemployed, the long-term-sick, et.al., and then extract from
that figure those who are unable to work.
That was the point of directing you to the page, it explained the figures
and why there will never be full employment.
Suffice to say there are more empty jobs than people to fill them.
Post by Custos Custodum
Post by Robert Peffers
I do not ever base my claims of such things upon the media reports of
trashy publications.
Nor do I.
Furthermore, it is a skills shortage in Scotland - in other words it is not
the part-time , temporary or minimum wage jobs they cannot fill.
--
Auld Bob Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).
Glenallan
2007-10-25 18:28:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Custos Custodum
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 22:33:01 +0100, "Robert Peffers"
Post by Robert Peffers
Strange then that Scotland, with the highest UK employment figures, still
has a shortage of skilled workers.
Have you tried looking for a job commensurate
with your skills and experience lately? What sort of success do you
think you would have? Or put it another way: why do you think
Glenallan had to commute 200 miles over the border every weekend? Why
will I be telecommuting to Köln next week?
Let it be known that Glenallan used to love rising at 3.30 am to travel
South at the fag end of his career to work in the UK's Nuclear industry
utilising his qualifications. He loved driving through the night and then
doing a
day's work on the Monday. Flopping absolutely fucked into his hotel
on the Monday evening is just what the doctor ordered.

An then of course, this elderly Gent had to deal with his diabetic condition
to be fit for the following day's round of Engineering Type Testing of
Robotic
Apparatus, writing of Reports and Recommendations and Engineering Papers
before flopping even more fucked into his bed on the Tuesday.

Then after he had flopped even more fucked into his bed on the
Wednesday and Thursday, he was allowed to drive back home on the
Friday whereupon he flopped considerably more fucked into his marital
kip on the Friday evening, where the only thing on his mind was 'feeling
fucked',
not 'getting fucked 'until 11.00 am on the Saturday morning.

As far as I am concerned, immigrants can go and get fucked.!!!

Glenallan
---------
Cory Bhreckan
2007-10-25 18:46:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Glenallan
Post by Custos Custodum
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 22:33:01 +0100, "Robert Peffers"
Post by Robert Peffers
Strange then that Scotland, with the highest UK employment figures, still
has a shortage of skilled workers.
Have you tried looking for a job commensurate
with your skills and experience lately? What sort of success do you
think you would have? Or put it another way: why do you think
Glenallan had to commute 200 miles over the border every weekend? Why
will I be telecommuting to Köln next week?
Let it be known that Glenallan used to love rising at 3.30 am to travel
South at the fag end of his career to work in the UK's Nuclear industry
utilising his qualifications. He loved driving through the night and then
doing a
day's work on the Monday. Flopping absolutely fucked into his hotel
on the Monday evening is just what the doctor ordered.
An then of course, this elderly Gent had to deal with his diabetic condition
to be fit for the following day's round of Engineering Type Testing of
Robotic
Apparatus, writing of Reports and Recommendations and Engineering Papers
before flopping even more fucked into his bed on the Tuesday.
Then after he had flopped even more fucked into his bed on the
Wednesday and Thursday, he was allowed to drive back home on the
Friday whereupon he flopped considerably more fucked into his marital
kip on the Friday evening, where the only thing on his mind was 'feeling
fucked',
not 'getting fucked 'until 11.00 am on the Saturday morning.
Too much information!
Post by Glenallan
As far as I am concerned, immigrants can go and get fucked.!!!
Glenallan
---------
--
"For the stronger we our houses do build,
The less chance we have of being killed." - William Topaz McGonagall
Custos Custodum
2007-10-29 00:17:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Glenallan
Post by Custos Custodum
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 22:33:01 +0100, "Robert Peffers"
Post by Robert Peffers
Strange then that Scotland, with the highest UK employment figures, still
has a shortage of skilled workers.
Have you tried looking for a job commensurate
with your skills and experience lately? What sort of success do you
think you would have? Or put it another way: why do you think
Glenallan had to commute 200 miles over the border every weekend? Why
will I be telecommuting to Köln next week?
Let it be known that Glenallan used to love rising at 3.30 am to travel
South at the fag end of his career to work in the UK's Nuclear industry
utilising his qualifications. He loved driving through the night and then
doing a
day's work on the Monday. Flopping absolutely fucked into his hotel
on the Monday evening is just what the doctor ordered.
An then of course, this elderly Gent had to deal with his diabetic condition
to be fit for the following day's round of Engineering Type Testing of
Robotic
Apparatus, writing of Reports and Recommendations and Engineering Papers
before flopping even more fucked into his bed on the Tuesday.
Then after he had flopped even more fucked into his bed on the
Wednesday and Thursday, he was allowed to drive back home on the
Friday whereupon he flopped considerably more fucked into his marital
kip on the Friday evening, where the only thing on his mind was 'feeling
fucked',
not 'getting fucked 'until 11.00 am on the Saturday morning.
As far as I am concerned, immigrants can go and get fucked.!!!
Aw, I almost feel guilty about not having to get out of bed to do a
day's work. (I did it once to prove a point, but working at a desk is
more comfortable).
Robert Peffers
2007-10-17 22:41:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Highlander
Migrant workers earn more than British
By Philip Johnston, Telegraph Home Affairs Editor
Last Updated: 2:49am BST 17/10/2007
Immigrant workers are both higher paid and more reliable than their
British counterparts and contributed £6 billion to economic growth
last year, a Government study said yesterday.
The Home Office report on migration (pdf).
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2007/10/17/Economic_Fiscal_Impact_Immigration.pdf
The study estimated an economic contribution of £6 billion from
foreign workers in the UK
Migrants earned £424 a week on average, compared with £395 for UK
workers, and paid more in tax than they consumed in services.
However, a separate paper issued together with the study by the Home
Office admitted there were complaints about the impact of immigration
on housing and other public services. Liam Byrne, the immigration
minister, said the research showed that ''in the long run, our country
and Exchequer are better off with immigration rather than without it".
The report found that in 2006, record immigration pushed the number of
foreign workers up to 12.5 per cent – or one eighth – of the labour
force, compared to 7.4 per cent a decade ago.
Since average output growth over this period was 2.7 per cent a year
and migration contributed an estimated 15 to 20 per cent of this, the
study estimated a contribution of £6 billion from foreign workers – or
£700,000 a day.
advertisement
However, the figure does not take account of the costs of a growing
population, for instance the impact on public services such as health,
education and transport. But the overwhelmingly positive findings were
last night challenged by academics.
Robert Rowthorn, an emeritus professor of economics at Cambridge
University, warned that as well as putting pressure on services,
large-scale migration would "undermine the labour market position of
the most vulnerable sections of the local workforce". The study, the
first official attempt to establish the economic and fiscal impact of
the record levels of immigration seen in recent years, states that
''in the long run, it is likely that the net fiscal contribution of an
immigrant will be greater than that of a non-immigrant".
It also claims there is no evidence of foreign workers pushing British
people out of jobs, although it presents no firm evidence for this.
David Davis, the shadow home secretary, said: ''Labour are being
disingenuous again.
"They are equating the effect of migration on aggregate GDP with its
effect on GDP per head. They are also ignoring the fact that relying
on immigration to boost the economy is a short-term answer.
"What will they do for the million economically inactive under-25s in
the country?"
Aye! But which country is he talking about?
His claims may hold good for England, if that is the country he means, but
they do not hold good for Scotland. Scotland not only has full employment
and a host of migrant workers but is crying out for more as there is a big
shortage of skilled labour.
Then, of course, if the guy means the UK, he is just an ignorant prat. The
UK is not, "A Country", and he is, thus, making a great case for Scottish
independence by proving the Scottish economy and the English economy most
often differ in their respective needs.
--
Auld Bob Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...