Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2016 19:26:17 GMT
The key to understanding this report is on page 2 New evidence in this Report shows that the areas of the UK with large increases in EU immigration did not suffer greater falls in the jobs and pay of UK-born workers. The big falls in wages after 2008 are due to the global financial crisis and a weak economic recovery, not to immigration.
And this is almost certainly true and the report gives us empirical evidence to support this conclusion. The end of it? Of course not, because what this tells us what has happened not what would have happened. Immigrants have on the whole gone to areas with more employment opportunities, obviously, they've come to work. Areas with more employment - or more employers competing for workers - have seen lower falls than areas with fewer employers. Obvious. Has their been less workers chasing the jobs in all areas, wages would have fallen less. The overall conclusion of that line - the financial crisis is the cause of depressed wages is correct. The answer to this particular conundrum is available with or without Brexit - Organise. Join a union and fight to maintain conditions and (as a mate of mine has been doing at a meat processing plant in Scotland) that might mean that you need to get English language courses sorted out for Romanian colleagues. With or without immigration though, wages would have fallen. The malaise facing capitalism is far more complex than a racist in a lorry doing deliveries will ever be capable of understanding. I don't know about a rascist in a lorry,I've had to read it several times.
|
|
|
Post by tadworth on May 13, 2016 22:05:29 GMT
Student Gwant is off on one again. Didn't take long to play the racist card this time. We can only hope he flounces off here as well.
|
|
|
Post by sabcat on May 13, 2016 22:36:45 GMT
The key to understanding this report is on page 2 New evidence in this Report shows that the areas of the UK with large increases in EU immigration did not suffer greater falls in the jobs and pay of UK-born workers. The big falls in wages after 2008 are due to the global financial crisis and a weak economic recovery, not to immigration.
And this is almost certainly true and the report gives us empirical evidence to support this conclusion. The end of it? Of course not, because what this tells us what has happened not what would have happened. Immigrants have on the whole gone to areas with more employment opportunities, obviously, they've come to work. Areas with more employment - or more employers competing for workers - have seen lower falls than areas with fewer employers. Obvious. Has their been less workers chasing the jobs in all areas, wages would have fallen less. The overall conclusion of that line - the financial crisis is the cause of depressed wages is correct. The answer to this particular conundrum is available with or without Brexit - Organise. Join a union and fight to maintain conditions and (as a mate of mine has been doing at a meat processing plant in Scotland) that might mean that you need to get English language courses sorted out for Romanian colleagues. With or without immigration though, wages would have fallen. The malaise facing capitalism is far more complex than a racist in a lorry doing deliveries will ever be capable of understanding. I don't know about a rascist in a lorry,I've had to read it several times. The LSE study is basically correct and it's based on empirical evidence - the depression of wages has been caused by the economic crash is an absolute fact - but the evidence they have doesn't mean that immigration hasn't depressed wages from a point they may have been at both now and pre crash. They point out that areas with higher immigration haven't experienced a higher depression of wages but fail to account for the fact that areas with higher immigration also have higher levels of employment to begin with - immigrants go where the work is. The racist lorry driver quip was just me amusing myself, I like it when he tells us where he's been in his lorry and what he's seen as though it means anything at all. Seems he has rape fantasies about mothers as well. Gotta love stereotype, I bet he's fat as well.
|
|
|
Post by sabcat on May 13, 2016 22:42:17 GMT
Student Gwant is off on one again. Didn't take long to play the racist card this time. We can only hope he flounces off here as well. I loved Student Grant. And there's no "this time" our (probably fat) friend in the lorry is a racist waste of skin and none too bright, free from the constraints of over sensitive moderation (the only reason I left CWDF) I'll refer to him as that apropos nothing. You can like it or you can lump it, it doesn't bother me either way, whoever you are.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on May 14, 2016 16:55:30 GMT
I don't know about a rascist in a lorry,I've had to read it several times. The LSE study is basically correct and it's based on empirical evidence - the depression of wages has been caused by the economic crash is an absolute fact - but the evidence they have doesn't mean that immigration hasn't depressed wages from a point they may have been at both now and pre crash. They point out that areas with higher immigration haven't experienced a higher depression of wages but fail to account for the fact that areas with higher immigration also have higher levels of employment to begin with - immigrants go where the work is. The racist lorry driver quip was just me amusing myself, I like it when he tells us where he's been in his lorry and what he's seen as though it means anything at all. Seems he has rape fantasies about mothers as well. Gotta love stereotype, I bet he's fat as well. Yes I am, but (I posted the link to your Facebook page on CWDF, including your photo, remember?) nowhere near as fat as you. Your mother.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on May 14, 2016 18:07:49 GMT
Comedy Gold!
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on May 14, 2016 18:19:07 GMT
Comedy Gold! To be honest, I probably am a bit fat, but it's all comparative really. I'm certainly nowhere near as fat as this random photo of a fat, stupid person I found on the internet.
|
|
|
Post by Delta9 on May 14, 2016 18:27:51 GMT
I've removed the photo. No personal info due to laws and shit.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2016 18:44:20 GMT
I've removed the photo. No personal info due to laws and shit. Well done we don't need that carry on.Iconoclast we don't do greenies here so get your arse on the stool
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2016 18:48:50 GMT
We should adopt the stool concept for errant posters that earn our displeasure.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on May 14, 2016 18:55:22 GMT
We should adopt the stool concept for errant posters that earn our displeasure. I thought the lack of moderation was the whole point of this forum? I certainly don't see any legal problem with posting a photo of a member who suggests in another post that a member is "fat", especially when the person making the suggestion is clearly 6-7 stone heavier than the person he is making the suggestion about?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2016 19:50:06 GMT
We have to respect each others privacy,I don't know what shit people have in their lives if any, but I don't want to add to it.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on May 14, 2016 19:59:59 GMT
If you stand as a candidate in a General Election, then you aren't exactly "privacy-seeking", are you?
It's interesting to note that while the UKIP candidate at Lichfield received 8,082 votes, our friend Sabcat received 120.
|
|
|
Post by Delta9 on May 14, 2016 20:26:44 GMT
If you stand as a candidate in a General Election, then you aren't exactly "privacy-seeking", are you? It's interesting to note that while the UKIP candidate at Lichfield received 8,082 votes, our friend Sabcat received 120. Which is 120 more than he was aiming for...
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on May 14, 2016 20:32:05 GMT
If you stand as a candidate in a General Election, then you aren't exactly "privacy-seeking", are you? It's interesting to note that while the UKIP candidate at Lichfield received 8,082 votes, our friend Sabcat received 120. Which is 120 more than he was aiming for... Might have been cheaper and easier not to have stood as a candidate and thrown £500 away then?
|
|