Source

So... Three children of Eastern European descent have been removed from their foster family due to their parent's supporting the United Kingdom Independence Party.
A speaker for the local council said that due to the party opposing multiculturalism in the UK, it wasn't in the best interests for the children to remain with the family. The parents however advocated the children speaking their own language and learning about their history.

Thoughts on the matter Dakka? Is there something to be gleaned from this other than it just being politically charged rabble rousing?

I think the parents should have been allowed to keep the children.

 Wyrmalla wrote:
Source

So... Three children of Eastern European descent have been removed from their foster family due to their parent's supporting the United Kingdom Independence Party.
A speaker for the local council said that due to the party opposing multiculturalism in the UK, it wasn't in the best interests for the children to remain with the family. The parents however advocated the children speaking their own language and learning about their history.

Thoughts on the matter Dakka? Is there something to be gleaned from this other than it just being politically charged rabble rousing?

Yeah, I don't think being raised in an anti-multiculturalism environment is healthy for a child's mind, In Canada it is common courtesy to be open and kind to other cultures (although you don't have to agree with everything they do either, like female genital mutilation which is practiced by

certain African societies I feel that is absolutely appalling).

The UKIP are not particularly nice people but this is absurd.
Especially since they were advocating that the children learn more about their heritage...

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Wyrmalla wrote:
Source

So... Three children of Eastern European descent have been removed from their foster family due to their parent's supporting the United Kingdom Independence Party.
A speaker for the local council said that due to the party opposing multiculturalism in the UK, it wasn't in the best interests for the children to remain with the family. The parents however advocated the children speaking their own language and learning about their history.

Thoughts on the matter Dakka? Is there something to be gleaned from this other than it just being politically charged rabble rousing?

Yeah, I don't think being raised in an anti-multiculturalism environment is healthy for a child's mind

Nor do I, but they were encouraging the children to learn about their own history and learn their own languages.

If simple political affiliation now decides whether or not someone is alowed to adopt, then how can they let Conservative families adopt, since the cuts to the Police forces are potentially going to endanger the lives of their children later on. How can they let Labourites adopt based on how, in areas with labour councils, services for old people are declining rapidly in quality; they're going to be raising their children in a world that'll make them suffer later on. How can they let Liberals adopt when they're Liberals?

Really, unless the family has shown this anti-multiculturalism, and shown that they accept all these negative morals, can anyone justify taking kids away and putting them through yet more trauma? Are the kids being fed? Yes. Are they happy? Yes. Do they go to school? Yes. Is the household stable? Yes. Are they suffering in any way, shape or form? No. What is the problem?

The problem is that UKIP are a single issue party, that issue is immigration. It takes a certain type of mind to think immigration is more important than the economy, education, health, defence, crime and foreign policy combined, and in recent years UKIP has been taking votes from the BNP.

In this instance I think the council has been a bit heavy handed and should have investigated properly, but I can see their point in that socialising children in a family unit which might very well loathe the culture and heritage of the children would be bad for them.

As a bit of background the children were only there on a temporary basis, and a judge had previously chastised the council for not taking into account the children's cultural needs.

 Cheesecat wrote:

Yeah, I don't think being raised in an anti-multiculturalism environment is healthy for a child's mind

That's a worrying statement. It's pretty rich to tell people that they're no longer allowed a nation state.

 Avatar 720 wrote:
Really, unless the family has shown this anti-multiculturalism

I agree with the majority of your post, but would just like to raise the point about anti-multiculturalism, it is UKIP's raison d'etre, they are against multiculturalism and promote uniculturalism, i.e. if you are in Britain you WILL ascribe to British culture. This however, sits against the actual actions of the parents, hence they should have been investigated rather than just had the children taken away.

 Testify wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

Yeah, I don't think being raised in an anti-multiculturalism environment is healthy for a child's mind

That's a worrying statement. It's pretty rich to tell people that they're no longer allowed a nation state.

I don't understand why people would think multiculturalism would be bad for national identity.

 purplefood wrote:
The UKIP are not particularly nice people but this is absurd.
Especially since they were advocating tnhat the children learn more about their heritage...

It's odd, why would they foster eastern descent kids if they think they shouldn't be allowed in?

They either were going to be horrible foster parents and fill their heads with patriot nonsense, or more likely they losely hold UKIP beliefs and think they're a breath of fresh air from the usual suspects.

 Avatar 720 wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Wyrmalla wrote:
Source

So... Three children of Eastern European descent have been removed from their foster family due to their parent's supporting the United Kingdom Independence Party.
A speaker for the local council said that due to the party opposing multiculturalism in the UK, it wasn't in the best interests for the children to remain with the family. The parents however advocated the children speaking their own language and learning about their history.

Thoughts on the matter Dakka? Is there something to be gleaned from this other than it just being politically charged rabble rousing?

Yeah, I don't think being raised in an anti-multiculturalism environment is healthy for a child's mind

Nor do I, but they were encouraging the children to learn about their own history and learn their own languages.

If simple political affiliation now decides whether or not someone is alowed to adopt, then how can they let Conservative families adopt, since the cuts to the Police forces are potentially going to endanger the lives of their children later on. How can they let Labourites adopt based on how, in areas with labour councils, services for old people are declining rapidly in quality; they're going to be raising their children in a world that'll make them suffer later on. How can they let Liberals adopt when they're Liberals?

Really, unless the family has shown this anti-multiculturalism, and shown that they accept all these negative morals, can anyone justify taking kids away and putting them through yet more trauma? Are the kids being fed? Yes. Are they happy? Yes. Do they go to school? Yes. Is the household stable? Yes. Are they suffering in any way, shape or form? No. What is the problem?

This is a good point, I think I agree with this more.

I do not understand where the natural parents are, or why the children could not be fostered in their own country and culture, or how native British parents would be able to foster foreign children in the foreign culture whatever their political affiliation.

You cannot naturally learn your native language without being in the presence of native speakers.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I do not understand where the natural parents are, or why the children could not be fostered in their own country and culture, or how native British parents would be able to foster foreign children in the foreign culture whatever their political affiliation.

You cannot naturally learn your native language without being in the presence of native speakers.

Parents immigrate here are deemed unfit and the kids get put into our system.

On the last part I would agree, but you could take them on holiday to immerse them in the culture.

On another note the adoption system here is probably better than there native countries.

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Testify wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

Yeah, I don't think being raised in an anti-multiculturalism environment is healthy for a child's mind

That's a worrying statement. It's pretty rich to tell people that they're no longer allowed a nation state.

I don't understand why people would think multiculturalism would be bad for national identity.

Because if a group of people from another culture form an enclave in a city, that city is no longer a part of its parent country's culture.

Something about the story doesn't add up, it just doesn't seem enough to take foster kids away, they say that they support UKIP but apparently more than respect the kids backgrounds when looking after them.

What will an investigation into the motives of the local authority turn up? If the decision to remove them from fostering does just hinge solely on them supporting UKIP thats going to be difficult to defend.

UKIP is not the BNP. You can be anit-immigration without being a screaming facist, however to the dogmatic admitting that is a no no.

They aren't bend over backwards PC, so that means they must be evil.

This isn't too different than the idiots who lost their kids that they named after Hitler and Himmler. They made a name for themselves when a local bakery refused to make a cake for their kid Adolf Hitler.

I'm not a fan of government intrusion, but foster kids are technically wards of the state. If you have dangerous tendencies, they should be able to take the kids back.

 Testify wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Testify wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

Yeah, I don't think being raised in an anti-multiculturalism environment is healthy for a child's mind

That's a worrying statement. It's pretty rich to tell people that they're no longer allowed a nation state.

I don't understand why people would think multiculturalism would be bad for national identity.

Because if a group of people from another culture form an enclave in a city, that city is no longer a part of its parent country's culture.

I disagree, for example Montreal has a large Anglophone population (about 30%) but a lot of people would still say that it's still part of Quebec's culture or Richmond, BC 45% of the population is Chinese but I still consider it a Canadian city.

 Orlanth wrote:
UKIP is not the BNP. You can be anit-immigration without being a screaming facist, however to the dogmatic admitting that is a no no.

They aren't bend over backwards PC, so that means they must be evil.

Noone has suggested they are fascist, just racist, and when, regardless of the question asked, Farage starts spouting some drivel about immigration you can see where people get the idea that he might be a bit of a xenophobe.

purplefood wrote:The UKIP are not particularly nice people but this is absurd.
Especially since they were advocating that the children learn more about their heritage...

Learn from who? Here is an admittedly hyperbolic example: would you trust a neo-nazi to educate Jewish kids about their heritage?

Cheesecat wrote:

 Testify wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

Yeah, I don't think being raised in an anti-multiculturalism environment is healthy for a child's mind

That's a worrying statement. It's pretty rich to tell people that they're no longer allowed a nation state.

I don't understand why people would think multiculturalism would be bad for national identity.

Fear of the 'other'.

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Testify wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Testify wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

Yeah, I don't think being raised in an anti-multiculturalism environment is healthy for a child's mind

That's a worrying statement. It's pretty rich to tell people that they're no longer allowed a nation state.

I don't understand why people would think multiculturalism would be bad for national identity.

Because if a group of people from another culture form an enclave in a city, that city is no longer a part of its parent country's culture.

I disagree, for example Montreal has a large Anglophone population (about 30%) but a lot of people would still say that it's still part of Quebec's culture or Richmond, BC 45% of the population is Chinese but I still consider it a Canadian city.

11.3% of Montreal is Anglo, not 30%. It's funny how the RoC seems to like inflating their presence in Montreal. There's more Allophone in Montreal than Anglo.

And a lot of people would say that there's enough noted differences between Anglo's and Franco's values to say that we're two different cultures. You know, the two loneliness often mentionned... Anyhow, it's fair to assume that it's a sticky issue.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 azazel the cat wrote:
Fear of the 'other'.

That's beyond reductive. If you live in a culture that has a set of value that has driven other's to seek to come to that culture, it's pretty normal to wish that said immigrants do not also export the set of values that have made them wish they didn't live in their original culture either.

 Orlanth wrote:
UKIP is not the BNP.

They are the elderly middle english equivilent, basically the kind of person who buys the Daily Express is their natural supporter. I find it very worrying that they are described as a "mainstream political party" to tell you the truth. At least it will dilute the tory vote.

Something doesn't seem right here. Either there is more going on that isn't in the BBC article or someone was really incompetent.

Cheesecat wrote:
I disagree, for example Montreal has a large Anglophone population (about 30%) but a lot of people would still say that it's still part of Quebec's culture or Richmond, BC 45% of the population is Chinese but I still consider it a Canadian city.

You can speak for your own country I'm sure. Suffice that to say I find it weird going to work, sitting in the canteen and hearing no English whatsoever. It can be isolating, even though people are friendly enough many don't even have the basic English skills to communicate. And there are entire communities like this.

Is it seriously "dangerous" to want to live in a country full of people who speak the same language of me, and with the same social etiquettes? That is more or less the point of nation states.

Cheesecat wrote:
Fear of the 'other'.

Which is an entirely natural part of our nature. You could argue that you can't have a sense of "us" without a sense of "them".

 Testify wrote:
You could argue that you can't have a sense of "us" without a sense of "them".

Which is uniformly dangerous. 'Us and them' only works in times of conflict, unfortunately it is the single biggest cause of conflict.

Palindrome wrote:

 Testify wrote:
You could argue that you can't have a sense of "us" without a sense of "them".

Which is uniformly dangerous. 'Us and them' only works in times of conflict, unfortunately it is the single biggest cause of conflict.

Certainly not. If you identify yourself to certain values, then by necessity you take position against the values that are antagonistic to them. You can't be a feminist without being anti-sexist, for exemple. Defining an 'us' delimits an 'other'.

Of course, you can still find community in shared caracteristics, like human integrity, hopes for a happy life, etc, etc...

 Testify wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Testify wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

Yeah, I don't think being raised in an anti-multiculturalism environment is healthy for a child's mind

That's a worrying statement. It's pretty rich to tell people that they're no longer allowed a nation state.

I don't understand why people would think multiculturalism would be bad for national identity.

Because if a group of people from another culture form an enclave in a city, that city is no longer a part of its parent country's culture.

Which has happened in every city ever since time immemorial. Almost every major city on the east coast has certain parts that are predominately Irish, or predominately Italian, Puerto Rican, etc. Ever heard of China Town? It's nothing new, nor has it ever threatened our country's identity.

Kovnik Obama wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
Fear of the 'other'.

That's beyond reductive. If you live in a culture that has a set of value that has driven other's to seek to come to that culture, it's pretty normal to wish that said immigrants do not also export the set of values that have made them wish they didn't live in their original culture either.

And that's beyond irony.

It's rarely a 'culture' that drives others to immigrate. Nobody actually decides to move to New York because they like pizza and profanity. Most moves tend to revolve around labour and economic reasons, which I would argue are not really cultural facets.

Seems queer to take away someone's children for something like that. It's not like they were putting the children in danger by having their opinions...

I fear that excessive multiculturalism will lead to a brittle society. Everything will be more or less fine as long as times of relative peace and plenty abound, but when the gak hits the fan - the aliens/asteroid/super plague are dropping ninety percent of your city, without a shared culture, a certain level of homogeny, you will lack the level of unstinting trust in your neighbors necessary to pull through as a functional whole.

 rubiksnoob wrote:
Which has happened in every city ever since time immemorial. Almost every major city on the east coast has certain parts that are predominately Irish, or predominately Italian, Puerto Rican, etc. Ever heard of China Town? It's nothing new, nor has it ever threatened our country's identity.

Emphasis mine - in the US, it actually IS our country's identity. I think we're doing OK for it.

 dæl wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
UKIP is not the BNP. You can be anit-immigration without being a screaming facist, however to the dogmatic admitting that is a no no.

They aren't bend over backwards PC, so that means they must be evil.

Noone has suggested they are fascist, just racist, and when, regardless of the question asked, Farage starts spouting some drivel about immigration you can see where people get the idea that he might be a bit of a xenophobe.

Actually the boot is on the other foot.

Unless you spout the inclusivity BS you are accused of being a bigot. Any form of moderation against is considered an extremist view.

There are problems with immigration policy, if you don't believe that then ask why England of all places is seen as an Islamists recruiting ground. How about companies that openly stated to the Gordon Brown government that they only hire Poles because 'they work harder'. One would have thought that would be a bigoted view, but no.

'multiculturalism' is a beatstick that has come into political useage over the last 50 or so years.

Tony Blair and his Labour government cranked up its use through Labours' spell in office. A buzzword designed to be latched onto, with supposed substance and direction. In essence it is a phantom.

I live in Birmingham, A 'multicultural' city. This is the famous city where a personal definition of multiculturalism almost led to Christmas not being celebrated.

Multiculturalism has ended up being WASP fear to tread.

 Orlanth wrote:

 dæl wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
UKIP is not the BNP. You can be anit-immigration without being a screaming facist, however to the dogmatic admitting that is a no no.

They aren't bend over backwards PC, so that means they must be evil.

Noone has suggested they are fascist, just racist, and when, regardless of the question asked, Farage starts spouting some drivel about immigration you can see where people get the idea that he might be a bit of a xenophobe.

Actually the boot is on the other foot.

Unless you spout the inclusivity BS you are accused of being a bigot. Any form of moderation against is considered an extremist view.

There are problems with immigration policy, if you don't believe that then ask why England of all places is seen as an Islamists recruiting ground. How about companies that openly stated to the Gordon Brown government that they only hire Poles because 'they work harder'. One would have thought that would be a bigoted view, but no.

There absolutely needs to be a proper debate on immigration without anyone being called a racist, but Farage and his party are not the people to have that debate because we also need to have a debate on the economy and other subjects, and UKIP have no idea what they are on about on anything other than EU membership and immigration. Seriously if you were a waiter in a restaurant and asked him if he was ready to order he'd start shouting at you about a referendum on leaving the EU, it's almost comedic his turning of every question into the one he wants to answer.

The reason Britain has become the recruiting ground for Islamic extremism has far more to do with the Covenant of Security (where we allow extremists to live here and plot terror campaigns as long as they don't attack us) than it has to immigration, But UKIP won't talk about things like this because it doesn't further their blinkered view.

 dæl wrote:
As a bit of background the children were only there on a temporary basis, and a judge had previously chastised the council for not taking into account the children's cultural needs.

Do you have more data/an article covering the above? This incident is troubling to me, but if it was a temporary placement, and another home was available, it might cast a somewhat different light on the situation.

Bromsy wrote:I fear that excessive multiculturalism will lead to a brittle society. Everything will be more or less fine as long as times of relative peace and plenty abound, but when the gak hits the fan - the aliens/asteroid/super plague are dropping ninety percent of your city, without a shared culture, a certain level of homogeny, you will lack the level of unstinting trust in your neighbors necessary to pull through as a functional whole.

I take it you're not a fan of steel, then are you? It's the multicultural metal- Iron for structure, and carbon, tungsten, manganese & chromium for hardness.

 Mannahnin wrote:

 dæl wrote:
As a bit of background the children were only there on a temporary basis, and a judge had previously chastised the council for not taking into account the children's cultural needs.

Do you have more data/an article covering the above? This incident is troubling to me, but if it was a temporary placement, and another home was available, it might cast a somewhat different light on the situation.

Absolutely, here you go.

Joyce Thacker, the strategic director of children and young people's services at Rotherham council claimed the children were only placed with the couple as an emergency, and the placement was not a long-term arrangement.

"Also the fact of the matter is I have to look at the children's cultural and ethnic needs. The children have been in care proceedings before and the judge had previously criticised us for not looking after the children's cultural and ethnic needs, and we have had to really take that into consideration with the placement that they were in," she told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

 azazel the cat wrote:

Kovnik Obama wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
Fear of the 'other'.

That's beyond reductive. If you live in a culture that has a set of value that has driven other's to seek to come to that culture, it's pretty normal to wish that said immigrants do not also export the set of values that have made them wish they didn't live in their original culture either.

And that's beyond irony.

It's rarely a 'culture' that drives others to immigrate. Nobody actually decides to move to New York because they like pizza and profanity. Most moves tend to revolve around labour and economic reasons, which I would argue are not really cultural facets.

Marx would argue that there is nothing else to a culture than labour and economy...

culture is pretty much what happens when a group of people live together.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

Kovnik Obama wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
Fear of the 'other'.

That's beyond reductive. If you live in a culture that has a set of value that has driven other's to seek to come to that culture, it's pretty normal to wish that said immigrants do not also export the set of values that have made them wish they didn't live in their original culture either.

And that's beyond irony.

It's rarely a 'culture' that drives others to immigrate. Nobody actually decides to move to New York because they like pizza and profanity. Most moves tend to revolve around labour and economic reasons, which I would argue are not really cultural facets.

Marx would argue that there is nothing else to a culture than labour and economy...

As much as I respect Marx and his ideas, I don't think he got out and about much.

I suspect there is more to it than is currently being reported and that what there is to it is being blown out of proportion by the UK's poisonous right wing gutter press.

 dæl wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

Kovnik Obama wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
Fear of the 'other'.

That's beyond reductive. If you live in a culture that has a set of value that has driven other's to seek to come to that culture, it's pretty normal to wish that said immigrants do not also export the set of values that have made them wish they didn't live in their original culture either.

And that's beyond irony.

It's rarely a 'culture' that drives others to immigrate. Nobody actually decides to move to New York because they like pizza and profanity. Most moves tend to revolve around labour and economic reasons, which I would argue are not really cultural facets.

Marx would argue that there is nothing else to a culture than labour and economy...

As much as I respect Marx and his ideas, I don't think he got out and about much.

Marx (and Engels) argued that everything was reductible to labour and economy, basically. He wasn't blind to the existence of other facets of human life, just that he thought that they were only historically and socially relevant in their relation to the forces of productions. He thought that the scientific endeavour, for exemple, was understandable as nothing else but the process of industry being given new means. Art was reductible to a mean of validation of the leading class (the group controlling the means of production), etc...

While I think it's reductive, it's a good example to show that all aspects of a culture are somewhat linked to the economy of that culture.

There's also plenty of examples on the relation between cultural values and economy that can be given that do not appeal to academic texts. Who could argue that there hasn't been a significant change in the economy of western countries since women have started to pursue careers?

Kovnik Obama wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

Kovnik Obama wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
Fear of the 'other'.

That's beyond reductive. If you live in a culture that has a set of value that has driven other's to seek to come to that culture, it's pretty normal to wish that said immigrants do not also export the set of values that have made them wish they didn't live in their original culture either.

And that's beyond irony.

It's rarely a 'culture' that drives others to immigrate. Nobody actually decides to move to New York because they like pizza and profanity. Most moves tend to revolve around labour and economic reasons, which I would argue are not really cultural facets.

Marx would argue that there is nothing else to a culture than labour and economy...

Marx would be wrong in practice, as usual.

There is a large chasm that must be crossed before you can assume "related to culture" and "the focus of culture" are the same thing.

 azazel the cat wrote:
Marx would be wrong in practice, as usual.

There is a large chasm that must be crossed before you can assume "related to culture" and "the focus of culture" are the same thing.

What does that even mean? You are the one who suggested that economy is unrelated to culture, or not to be included under. Again, can you really say that feminism throughout the 19e and 20e has had no impact on economy? Can you really say that feminist values are not part (or at the least gaining a place) of western culture, or are unrelated to culture?

If we have an economy that appeal to others, it's because of the culture in which it exists. Change the culture, you'll change the economy.

The idea that there is nothing else to culture beyond labor and economy is nonfunctional. Of course I respect your right to enjoy debate for its own sake, but I think this digression is a bit indulgent and in danger of derailing the thread.

 Mannahnin wrote:
The idea that there is nothing else to culture beyond labor and economy is nonfunctional. Of course I respect your right to enjoy debate for its own sake, but I think this digression is a bit indulgent and in danger of derailing the thread.

I actually don't think everything is reductible to economy, but that at least everything is tied to it. If the debate on multiculturalism is on-topic, I was simply hoping to show that immigrants bringing certain cultural values with them might have a negative impact on the very thing that made them come here.

If you say it's getting OP, then I'll submit myself to the Lord of the Banhammer.

Immigration boosts the UK economy massively, in boon times we import a vast amount of labour to help with growth that exceeds what our workforce can service.

Those are reasonable points, KO. I just thought the digression into the rather extreme position you described Marx has holding invited argument on that extreme position, which would be kind of outside the topic.

 dæl wrote:
Immigration boosts the UK economy massively, in boon times we import a vast amount of labour to help with growth that exceeds what our workforce can service.

I think that's now the rule for every western country. Autarcy doesn't have much currency these days.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mannahnin wrote:
Those are reasonable points, KO. I just thought the digression into the rather extreme position you described Marx has holding invited argument on that extreme position, which would be kind of outside the topic.

Noted

You're going all over the place, and using some faulty logic as well. I'm going to try to bring this back on-topic, if it's possible.

Kovnik Obama wrote:Marx would argue that there is nothing else to a culture than labour and economy...

KovnikObama wrote:While I think it's reductive, it's a good example to show that all aspects of a culture are somewhat linked to the economy of that culture.

This is you moving the goalposts.

Kovnik Obama wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
Marx would be wrong in practice, as usual.

There is a large chasm that must be crossed before you can assume "related to culture" and "the focus of culture" are the same thing.

You are the one who suggested that economy is unrelated to culture, or not to be included under.

Quote me or else stop building a straw man.

I said it's the conomy, rather than the culture, that generally drives immigration.

KovnikObama wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:

KovnikObama wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:

Cheesecat wrote:

 Testify wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

Yeah, I don't think being raised in an anti-multiculturalism environment is healthy for a child's mind

That's a worrying statement. It's pretty rich to tell people that they're no longer allowed a nation state.

I don't understand why people would think multiculturalism would be bad for national identity.

Fear of the 'other'.

That's beyond reductive. If you live in a culture that has a set of value that has driven other's to seek to come to that culture, it's pretty normal to wish that said immigrants do not also export the set of values that have made them wish they didn't live in their original culture either.

And that's beyond irony.

It's rarely a 'culture' that drives others to immigrate. Nobody actually decides to move to New York because they like pizza and profanity. Most moves tend to revolve around labour and economic reasons, which I would argue are not really cultural facets.

If we have an economy that appeal to others, it's because of the culture in which it exists. Change the culture, you'll change the economy.

By that logic, the Arabian Peninsula ought to be devoid of Western workers. Yet its not. So either every ExxonMobile employee must be Dark-Ages-style misogynistic, of you're wrong, and culture and economy can be mutually exclusive. Likewise, if I were a miner, there would be a good chance that I'd move to Quebec. But that does not mean that I love poutine (I do) and it does not mean that I enjoy speaking French (I don't). It merely means there might be a job for me there. And the presence of that job has nothing to do with the French Canadian culture, outside of a willingness to exploit a natural resource, which, if it exists as a cultural zeitgeist, only does so at such a generalized macro level that it is pointless to this discussion.

So while I'll willingly admit that culture and economy influence one another (claiming otherwise is obtuse); my point is that immigration is typically influenced by economy and not culture (barring hyperbolic anywhere-but-here anomalies, such as a homosexual emigrating from Nigeria, etc. to avoid persecution).

I can tell that this discussion hits close to home and no doubt resonates with the general xenophobia commonplace to Quebec (this is fact, not opinion. "distinct society" is evidence of such). Montreal's Francophone culture isn't what the rest of Canada finds appealing about Montreal: it's the cheap rent and pretty girls.

 azazel the cat wrote:
You're going all over the place, and using some faulty logic as well. I'm going to try to bring this back on-topic, if it's possible.

Kovnik Obama wrote:Marx would argue that there is nothing else to a culture than labour and economy...

KovnikObama wrote:While I think it's reductive, it's a good example to show that all aspects of a culture are somewhat linked to the economy of that culture.

This is you moving the goalposts.

No, that's me limiting my adherence to a position commonly held in high regard. I am not Marx. I can give his opinions, and then moderate them. Anything else I need to explain?

 azazel the cat wrote:
Quote me or else stop building a straw man.

I said it's the conomy, rather than the culture, that generally drives immigration.

Oki.

Most moves tend to revolve around labour and economic reasons, which I would argue are not really cultural facets.

There, happy?

Hey, let's try to keep it friendly. No need to be nasty or dispectful toward folks' home provinces.

I thought KO moderated his comments and made clear that he was arguing that the two are linked, rather than Marx's more extreme position.

There are certainly plenty of historical examples of people moving in part due to culture, such as many folks who fled repressive Communist countries for the West during the Cold War. Greater economic opportunities were no doubt nice too, but wanting to be in a less-repressive society where their kids could have more freedom and more opportunities (beyond just economic) were oft-cited.

 azazel the cat wrote:
By that logic, the Arabian Peninsula ought to be devoid of Western workers. Yet its not. So either every ExxonMobile employee must be Dark-Ages-style misogynistic, of you're wrong, and culture and economy can be mutually exclusive.

No, just that there's not enough of them as citizen of those states to really have an influence...

I can tell that this discussion hits close to home and no doubt resonates with the general xenophobia commonplace to Quebec (this is fact, not opinion. "distinct society" is evidence of such). Montreal's Francophone culture isn't what the rest of Canada finds appealing about Montreal: it's the cheap rent and pretty girls.

That's cheap. And wrong, considering that most that emigrates to Quebec comes from francophone countries.

Western (and Pakistani and Philipino) workers in Dubai have little intention of settling there. They are simply attracted by better work and pay than they can get at home.

This is not to deny a cultural component to migration, but I do not think it is the essential motive in the case of Dubai, as is shown by people going back at the end of their tour, which is not true migration.

Kovnik Obama wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
By that logic, the Arabian Peninsula ought to be devoid of Western workers. Yet its not. So either every ExxonMobile employee must be Dark-Ages-style misogynistic, of you're wrong, and culture and economy can be mutually exclusive.

No, just that there's not enough of them as citizen of those states to really have an influence...

Right, so tell me again how those workers migrated there because they were attracted to the local culture? Because the point I was making is that it's not the culture that draws them there.

 azazel the cat wrote:

Kovnik Obama wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
By that logic, the Arabian Peninsula ought to be devoid of Western workers. Yet its not. So either every ExxonMobile employee must be Dark-Ages-style misogynistic, of you're wrong, and culture and economy can be mutually exclusive.

No, just that there's not enough of them as citizen of those states to really have an influence...

Right, so tell me again how those workers migrated there because they were attracted to the local culture? Because the point I was making is that it's not the culture that draws them there.

Do we really need to drag this on? My point is that a culture shapes an economy, not that the psychology behind immigration is solely directed by cultural envy... If it attracts enough people that the culture changes radically, then you might see the economy change.

Canada as many values, for exemple, equality of right between the sexes, that have a direct impact on the economy. If enough people came from a different culture and reintroduced machism, it would have serious economical impacts, which would run counter to their point in coming here.

 dæl wrote:
Immigration boosts the UK economy massively, in boon times we import a vast amount of labour to help with growth that exceeds what our workforce can service.

No. Immigration drives down the wages and conditions of unskilled work. You know how many English people work in factories in England? Virtually none.

English people have a nasty tendancy of forming unions, not putting up with terrible working conditions, and reporting bosses who casually grope women on the assembly line. No I'm not making it up, and no I don't think it would happen if everyone who worked there was English. Certainly it doesn't happen in the warehouse where there are far more English staff.

Given the huge surplus of unskilled labour in this country, the argument that importing even more of it will boost economic growth is moot. You can't just add up all the wealth generated by foreign-born people and say that's how much immigration benefits us when it's bs. If wages rose in line with productivity we'd need very little unskilled labour.

Note that skilled labour is something different entirely, and should be permitted as and when shortages in the UK arise.

 Testify wrote:

 dæl wrote:
Immigration boosts the UK economy massively, in boon times we import a vast amount of labour to help with growth that exceeds what our workforce can service.

No. Immigration drives down the wages and conditions of unskilled work. You know how many English people work in factories in England? Virtually none.

English people have a nasty tendancy of forming unions, not putting up with terrible working conditions, and reporting bosses who casually grope women on the assembly line. No I'm not making it up, and no I don't think it would happen if everyone who worked there was English. Certainly it doesn't happen in the warehouse where there are far more English staff.

Given the huge surplus of unskilled labour in this country, the argument that importing even more of it will boost economic growth is moot. You can't just add up all the wealth generated by foreign-born people and say that's how much immigration benefits us when it's bs. If wages rose in line with productivity we'd need very little unskilled labour.

Note that skilled labour is something different entirely, and should be permitted as and when shortages in the UK arise.

Minimum wage legislation prevents wages being driven lower than what they actually are for the majority of unskilled work.

Here is an interesting study entitled THE IMPACT OF IMMIGRATION ON THE BRITISH LABOUR MARKET

Their conclusion-

we find little evidence of overall adverse effects of immigration on native outcomes. If there is evidence of negative effects on employment in any group, then it is for those with intermediate education levels, but this is offset in the aggregate by positive effects on employment among the better qualified. Estimated wage effects, based on a shorter run of data, are if anything positive but statistically poorly determined

 dæl wrote:

Minimum wage legislation prevents wages being driven lower than what they actually are for the majority of unskilled work.

Here is an interesting study entitled THE IMPACT OF IMMIGRATION ON THE BRITISH LABOUR MARKET

Their conclusion-

we find little evidence of overall adverse effects of immigration on native outcomes. If there is evidence of negative effects on employment in any group, then it is for those with intermediate education levels, but this is offset in the aggregate by positive effects on employment among the better qualified. Estimated wage effects, based on a shorter run of data, are if anything positive but statistically poorly determined

The minimum wage is higher than the real value of labour because there is such an over-abundance of it, due to mass migration. If 90% of people in a factory are migrants, they are obviously jobs that could be held by local English people.

 Testify wrote:

 dæl wrote:

Minimum wage legislation prevents wages being driven lower than what they actually are for the majority of unskilled work.

Here is an interesting study entitled THE IMPACT OF IMMIGRATION ON THE BRITISH LABOUR MARKET

Their conclusion-

we find little evidence of overall adverse effects of immigration on native outcomes. If there is evidence of negative effects on employment in any group, then it is for those with intermediate education levels, but this is offset in the aggregate by positive effects on employment among the better qualified. Estimated wage effects, based on a shorter run of data, are if anything positive but statistically poorly determined

The minimum wage is higher than the real value of labour because there is such an over-abundance of it, due to mass migration. If 90% of people in a factory are migrants, they are obviously jobs that could be held by local English people.

They are and at times like this of mass unemployment it would be nice if they were, but a lot of the British workforce (wrongly imho) think those jobs beneath them, and in times of boom our economic growth would suffer without immigration.

That is tory bollocks. People don't turn down or ignore jobs, not in the real world. There is a real stigma out there against the unemployed.

You could have £55 a week on the dole, or £250 a week in a job. What you gonna do?

 Testify wrote:
That is tory bollocks. People don't turn down or ignore jobs, not in the real world. There is a real stigma out there against the unemployed.

You could have £55 a week on the dole, or £250 a week in a job. What you gonna do?

Never been called a tory before, need a shower now...

I absolutely agree there is real stigma against the unemployed, its getting worse too with constant media campaign against "scroungers." Perhaps most disgustingly hate crimes against the disabled are on the rise.

I would say that there is this odd sense of entitlement among some which makes people think themselves above some types of work, which needs to be remedied.

And yeah, I never understood about the "better off on benefits" argument, you swap 70quid JSA for 250quid pay packet, and keep Housing, Council and Child Benefit if you are on low wages.

Yet...you still think these people can't figure out that work pays better?

English people would love to have many of the jobs that immigrants take, and for the same wages too - the main issue is conditions. English people simply don't stand for gak the way that foreign workers will.

 Testify wrote:
Yet...you still think these people can't figure out that work pays better?

English people would love to have many of the jobs that immigrants take, and for the same wages too - the main issue is conditions. English people simply don't stand for gak the way that foreign workers will.

Even during an economic boom we had masses of unemployed, they could have walked into jobs with their eyes closed, but didn't. Why was that?

 dæl wrote:

 Testify wrote:
Yet...you still think these people can't figure out that work pays better?

English people would love to have many of the jobs that immigrants take, and for the same wages too - the main issue is conditions. English people simply don't stand for gak the way that foreign workers will.

Even during an economic boom we had masses of unemployed, they could have walked into jobs with their eyes closed, but didn't. Why was that?

Because employers favour foreigners? The idea that you could stick up a sign in a jobcentre saying "factory operatives wanted" and not receive hundreds of applicants is alien to me. When I applied for a shelf stacking job last year through the jobcentre, there were about 2 applicants for every place - and they were the ones that jobcentre had chosen to put forward, it wasn't open to the public.

 Avatar 720 wrote:
If simple political affiliation now decides whether or not someone is alowed to adopt,

It isn't adoption, its fostering and the difference is massive.

 Testify wrote:

 dæl wrote:

 Testify wrote:
Yet...you still think these people can't figure out that work pays better?

English people would love to have many of the jobs that immigrants take, and for the same wages too - the main issue is conditions. English people simply don't stand for gak the way that foreign workers will.

Even during an economic boom we had masses of unemployed, they could have walked into jobs with their eyes closed, but didn't. Why was that?

Because employers favour foreigners? The idea that you could stick up a sign in a jobcentre saying "factory operatives wanted" and not receive hundreds of applicants is alien to me. When I applied for a shelf stacking job last year through the jobcentre, there were about 2 applicants for every place - and they were the ones that jobcentre had chosen to put forward, it wasn't open to the public.

At the moment its a shock there were only two for every place, I've heard stories of fifty per place and such.

Kovnik Obama wrote:not that the psychology behind immigration is solely directed by cultural envy... If it attracts enough people that the culture changes radically, then you might see the economy change.

Canada as many values, for exemple, equality of right between the sexes, that have a direct impact on the economy. If enough people came from a different culture and reintroduced machism, it would have serious economical impacts, which would run counter to their point in coming here.

This, I can generally agree with, despite the extremely outlandish example.

 azazel the cat wrote:

Kovnik Obama wrote:not that the psychology behind immigration is solely directed by cultural envy... If it attracts enough people that the culture changes radically, then you might see the economy change.

Canada as many values, for exemple, equality of right between the sexes, that have a direct impact on the economy. If enough people came from a different culture and reintroduced machism, it would have serious economical impacts, which would run counter to their point in coming here.

This, I can generally agree with, despite the extremely outlandish example.

Well, yeah, it's outlandish, but there's been a few request to start Sharia-based family courts in Montreal, for exemple. Needless to say, they weren't well received (contrarily to the same request for jewish family court, which were approved).

But the important part is that defending the values that you think made your country great (which isn't equivalent to opposing immigration, anyhow) is not the same as 'fear of the other', and can be a legitimate concern.

 Testify wrote:

 dæl wrote:

 Testify wrote:
Yet...you still think these people can't figure out that work pays better?

English people would love to have many of the jobs that immigrants take, and for the same wages too - the main issue is conditions. English people simply don't stand for gak the way that foreign workers will.

Even during an economic boom we had masses of unemployed, they could have walked into jobs with their eyes closed, but didn't. Why was that?

Because employers favour foreigners? The idea that you could stick up a sign in a jobcentre saying "factory operatives wanted" and not receive hundreds of applicants is alien to me.

I rather doubt that employers favor foreigners. That's never been my experience. The only places I've seen anything like it are employers specifically looking for multilingual people.

If you replace "factory operatives wanted" with "fast food workers wanted" and "janitorial staff wanted", and the like, you're talking more accurately about the kind of jobs people on unemployment choose not to apply for or take.

 Mannahnin wrote:

 Testify wrote:

 dæl wrote:

 Testify wrote:
Yet...you still think these people can't figure out that work pays better?

English people would love to have many of the jobs that immigrants take, and for the same wages too - the main issue is conditions. English people simply don't stand for gak the way that foreign workers will.

Even during an economic boom we had masses of unemployed, they could have walked into jobs with their eyes closed, but didn't. Why was that?

Because employers favour foreigners? The idea that you could stick up a sign in a jobcentre saying "factory operatives wanted" and not receive hundreds of applicants is alien to me.

I rather doubt that employers favor foreigners. That's never been my experience. The only places I've seen anything like it are employers specifically looking for multilingual people.

So most employers are more than happy to put up with the hassle of a unionised workforce demanding higher pay, better conditions and an end to casual abuse of power by management, when thy could employ foreigners who wouldn't do such things?

 Mannahnin wrote:

If you replace "factory operatives wanted" with "fast food workers wanted" and "janitorial staff wanted", and the like, you're talking more accurately about the kind of jobs people on unemployment choose not to apply for or take.

Citation needed. Jobs like that are in high demand, around here anyway.

Workers of foreign origin are still subject to the same worker protection laws as local-born workers. You've got to be talking about illegal sweatshops in the first place to think it's a realistic practice for employers to preferentially hire foreigners because they won't know they can complain; even one worker who knows or finds out about the worker protection laws and the jig is up.

Fast food jobs are in high demand? Only in desperate economic times. Maybe things are that bad where you are, but when I was unemployed during the recession I still wasnt applying at McDonald's.

 Mannahnin wrote:
Workers of foreign origin are still subject to the same worker protection laws as local-born workers.

That is...naive. The very first day of my job I witnessed a line manager walk up to a girl on the assembly line (spreading cheese on pizzas for 8 hours a day, win), and casually grope her ass and breasts, then the deputy came up and did the same...then when I was moved somewhere else whenever I glanced back there was a manager or someone either standing behind her or groping her. And that happens all the time.

Now if they permit that to happen, what other rights do you think the (foreign) workers really have? English people simply wouldn't put up with that.

 Mannahnin wrote:

Fast food jobs are in high demand? Only in desperate economic times. Maybe things are that bad where you are, but when I was unemployed during the recession I still wasnt applying at McDonald's.

I would have killed for a job at McDonald's when i was unemployed. Hell it's better than other jobs, at least it keeps you busy and you get to work with other people.
Many others would, too. Point is, there is *no* job that is not grossly over-subscribed with applicants.

 Testify wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
Workers of foreign origin are still subject to the same worker protection laws as local-born workers.

That is...naive. The very first day of my job I witnessed a line manager walk up to a girl on the assembly line (spreading cheese on pizzas for 8 hours a day, win), and casually grope her ass and breasts, then the deputy came up and did the same...then when I was moved somewhere else whenever I glanced back there was a manager or someone either standing behind her or groping her. And that happens all the time.

Now if they permit that to happen, what other rights do you think the (foreign) workers really have? English people simply wouldn't put up with that.

Now who's being naive? Clearly you did. And if the job situation is as desperate as you describe, no doubt English women do too.

I don't even know what that means. If an English dude saw an English girl he knew being felt up he'd beat the gak out of the manager. Hence why at work they tend to leave the English girls alone.

Was talking to an old timer the other day...said he'd never let his daughter or wife work there, and one day one of those managers would get the gak beaten out of him. And do you know, I'm sure all the people around would mysteriously have a memory black out.

Mannahnin wrote:Workers of foreign origin are still subject to the same worker protection laws as local-born workers. You've got to be talking about illegal sweatshops in the first place to think it's a realistic practice for employers to preferentially hire foreigners because they won't know they can complain; even one worker who knows or finds out about the worker protection laws and the jig is up.

For what it's worth, this was actually a pretty commonplace occurance in Germany; I do not know if it is still the case.

 Testify wrote:
I don't even know what that means. If an English dude saw an English girl he knew being felt up he'd beat the gak out of the manager. Hence why at work they tend to leave the English girls alone.

I mean that you seem to be saying that you put up with it with the woman you saw get mistreated. If an English dude saw a foreign-born girl get treated that way and reacted substantially differently to how he would have reacted to an English girl being treated that way, then that's a sad statement about him as a man.

 Mannahnin wrote:

 Testify wrote:
I don't even know what that means. If an English dude saw an English girl he knew being felt up he'd beat the gak out of the manager. Hence why at work they tend to leave the English girls alone.

I mean that you seem to be saying that you put up with it with the woman you saw get mistreated. If an English dude saw a foreign-born girl get treated that way and reacted substantially differently to how he would have reacted to an English girl being treated that way, then that's a sad statement about him as a man.

That I'm not willing to be embaressed in front of 100 people and lose my job? Sure.

I'm obviously not talking about you. You didn't say you would beat up a guy who mistreated an English girl.

My point, before this digression, is that it just takes one person on the workforce willing to speak up when they see a worker mistreated for something to get investigated and potentially fixed. If you didn't speak up, that may be understandable, but that doesn't mean everyone keeps their mouth shut when they see bad things.

I happily would. I think most men would.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mannahnin wrote:

My point, before this digression, is that it just takes one person on the workforce willing to speak up when they see a worker mistreated for something to get investigated and potentially fixed. If you didn't speak up, that may be understandable, but that doesn't mean everyone keeps their mouth shut when they see bad things.

Imagine all the line managers in your workplace are from the same part of Asia, all speak the same language (with barely any English). Now imagine all *their* bosses speak that language, and are from that area.

What do you think's going to happen if you complain?

Sadly it's like this in a lot of the country. Migrants miss-treating migrants, while the English unemployed go without jobs.

 Mannahnin wrote:

 Testify wrote:

 dæl wrote:

 Testify wrote:
Yet...you still think these people can't figure out that work pays better?

English people would love to have many of the jobs that immigrants take, and for the same wages too - the main issue is conditions. English people simply don't stand for gak the way that foreign workers will.

Even during an economic boom we had masses of unemployed, they could have walked into jobs with their eyes closed, but didn't. Why was that?

Because employers favour foreigners? The idea that you could stick up a sign in a jobcentre saying "factory operatives wanted" and not receive hundreds of applicants is alien to me.

I rather doubt that employers favor foreigners. That's never been my experience. The only places I've seen anything like it are employers specifically looking for multilingual people.

If you replace "factory operatives wanted" with "fast food workers wanted" and "janitorial staff wanted", and the like, you're talking more accurately about the kind of jobs people on unemployment choose not to apply for or take.

Really? Thats not your experience? You've not known any contractors then. My neighbor is quite successful construction contractor (yes even now days). He never hires US natives. They are too lazy. The construction industry in the South and California is completely utterly dominated by non-natives.

Thats the problem with an open border. Employers can get harder workers who work in more poor conditions. This puts pressure on other unskilled labor, thus driving down wages and working conditions.

Its just like outsourcing, except the outsourcees are here, and they work harder than you. And they can make better food than you too.

 Frazzled wrote:


Its just like outsourcing, except the outsourcees are here, and they work harder than you. And they can make better food than you too.

So what you are saying is that they make perfect wives?

Edit: nothing to see here.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:


Its just like outsourcing, except the outsourcees are here, and they work harder than you. And they can make better food than you too.

So what you are saying is that they make perfect wives?

Yes actually.

 Frazzled wrote:
Really? Thats not your experience? You've not known any contractors then. My neighbor is quite successful construction contractor (yes even now days). He never hires US natives. They are too lazy. The construction industry in the South and California is completely utterly dominated by non-natives.

Thats the problem with an open border. Employers can get harder workers who work in more poor conditions. This puts pressure on other unskilled labor, thus driving down wages and working conditions.

Its just like outsourcing, except the outsourcees are here, and they work harder than you. And they can make better food than you too.

I agree with the summary, but to be perfectly honest I've never really been able to see the problem. I mean, how many protections should we put in place for people who are unskilled and don't work that hard?

 sebster wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Really? Thats not your experience? You've not known any contractors then. My neighbor is quite successful construction contractor (yes even now days). He never hires US natives. They are too lazy. The construction industry in the South and California is completely utterly dominated by non-natives.

Thats the problem with an open border. Employers can get harder workers who work in more poor conditions. This puts pressure on other unskilled labor, thus driving down wages and working conditions.

Its just like outsourcing, except the outsourcees are here, and they work harder than you. And they can make better food than you too.

I agree with the summary, but to be perfectly honest I've never really been able to see the problem. I mean, how many protections should we put in place for people who are unskilled and don't work that hard?

Thats a remarkably right wing viewpoint.

Train them, and fire them if they don't work, simples.

 Frazzled wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Really? Thats not your experience? You've not known any contractors then. My neighbor is quite successful construction contractor (yes even now days). He never hires US natives. They are too lazy. The construction industry in the South and California is completely utterly dominated by non-natives.

Thats the problem with an open border. Employers can get harder workers who work in more poor conditions. This puts pressure on other unskilled labor, thus driving down wages and working conditions.

Its just like outsourcing, except the outsourcees are here, and they work harder than you. And they can make better food than you too.

I agree with the summary, but to be perfectly honest I've never really been able to see the problem. I mean, how many protections should we put in place for people who are unskilled and don't work that hard?

Thats a remarkably right wing viewpoint.

To my recollection Seb is right wing. Although that means slightly different things in different countries.

I suppose we can put contracting on the list, although as far as I can tell (with rather limited experience), what you're describing is regional. Anyway, we've discussed before that there are jobs Americans just don't want to do. And sometimes that means they might be willing to take one, but not want to work hard and do them well.

They released a statement the gist was they're ignorant of politics and only voted them because they want out of the EU.

I agree with the summary, but to be perfectly honest I've never really been able to see the problem. I mean, how many protections should we put in place for people who are unskilled and don't work that hard?

Because they're citizens and their employment should be a concern of the state. People are only "lazy" compared to people who'll work in far worse conditions. I find the idea that westerners have spontaniously decided to stop working very difficult to believe. Despite what the media tell you, it is fething difficult if not impossible to live on state handouts. There's no way someone would turn down a paid full time job in favour of benefits. It just doesn't happen, people don't want to live in abject poverty.

Mannahnin wrote:
To my recollection Seb is right wing. Although that means slightly different things in different countries.

Some Americans may find it hard to believe that in the rest of the world, it's possible to be right-wing and remain a reasonable human being.

I thought america was right further right and extreme right?
Confused

 Frazzled wrote:
Thats a remarkably right wing viewpoint.

Thing is, I believe in competition, and in the market. I know enough about economics to know that government involvement is needed in many areas to produce the best possible market, and so to a lot of people that makes me to the left of Mao. But ultimately I'm a big believer in open competition.

InquisitorVaron wrote:I thought america was right further right and extreme right?
Confused

Pretty much. It's all social constructivism, and much of America is still living in something akin to Thatcher's regime.

In America, screaming, "SOCIALIST" is considered a valid political argument.

 LoneLictor wrote:
In America, screaming, "SOCIALIST" is considered a valid political argument.

In many countries around the world, shooting people in the face is just as valid.

djones520 wrote:
In many countries around the world, shooting people in the face is just as valid.

And on Grobnar IV all political disputes are resolved in ritual jelly wrestling combats between the finest Grobnarian women.

What's your point?

djones520 wrote:

 LoneLictor wrote:
In America, screaming, "SOCIALIST" is considered a valid political argument.

In many countries around the world, shooting people in the face is just as valid.

Well, there's always something worse, ain't there?

 Mannahnin wrote:

 Testify wrote:

 dæl wrote:

 Testify wrote:
Yet...you still think these people can't figure out that work pays better?

English people would love to have many of the jobs that immigrants take, and for the same wages too - the main issue is conditions. English people simply don't stand for gak the way that foreign workers will.

Even during an economic boom we had masses of unemployed, they could have walked into jobs with their eyes closed, but didn't. Why was that?

Because employers favour foreigners? The idea that you could stick up a sign in a jobcentre saying "factory operatives wanted" and not receive hundreds of applicants is alien to me.

I rather doubt that employers favor foreigners. That's never been my experience.

It's never been your experience because it's borderline racist rubbish. I've worked in low-skill, low-pay jobs for years before graduating - I was a cleaning supervisor during my studies, for example. The fact is, non-immigrants don't tend to apply for jobs like that. It was certainly the case in the company I worked for. I was told that explicitly by management. Young British people don't see themselves as cleaners. That's not the fault of immigrants, or their employers.

 Albatross wrote:
Young British people don't see themselves as cleaners. That's not the fault of immigrants, or their employers.

To be honest I don't either. I worked all kinds of minimum wage crap jobs and as I knew that I could do much better I was never enthusiastic nor motivated by these jobs. With the result that I was less than a model employee, in fairness its hard to be motived by washing dishes for 9 hours a day. I knew that I could do much better though and I have.

If I had no prospects of finding a better job I would have been more diligent, I would still have hated those kinds of jobs though. In 2003, so in the middle of the boom, I was unemployed for 9 months, despite applying for dozens of jobs. I know just how difficult it is to live on benefits alone; there is no way that I could have sustained that for years.

 Albatross wrote:
It's never been your experience because it's borderline racist rubbish. I've worked in low-skill, low-pay jobs for years before graduating - I was a cleaning supervisor during my studies, for example. The fact is, non-immigrants don't tend to apply for jobs like that. It was certainly the case in the company I worked for. I was told that explicitly by management. Young British people don't see themselves as cleaners. That's not the fault of immigrants, or their employers.

Pretty much, yeah. In addition to a lot of people simply not considering work in fields like cleaning, there's also the issue that when you give young people a lot of opportunities to develop a skilled career (either through higher education or an apprenticeship), then the ones that fail to take those opportunities will, frankly, tend towards being lazy (that doesn't mean all local people who never developed a skill are lazy, there's plenty of people who went through some form of training and then couldn't get a job out of it, who then find it difficult to retrain as something else, but as a general rule it seems to me to hold true for a hell of a lot of unskilled labour).

And so when you're looking for workers for jobs that need unskilled people who are willing to work really hard, they'll tend to be pretty thin on the ground unless you start looking for workers from other countries.

Palindrome wrote:

 Albatross wrote:
Young British people don't see themselves as cleaners. That's not the fault of immigrants, or their employers.

To be honest I don't either. I worked all kinds of minimum wage crap jobs and as I knew that I could do much better I was never enthusiastic nor motivated by these jobs. With the result that I was less than a model employee, in fairness its hard to be motived by washing dishes for 9 hours a day. I knew that I could do much better though and I have.

If I had no prospects of finding a better job I would have been more diligent, I would still have hated those kinds of jobs though. In 2003, so in the middle of the boom, I was unemployed for 9 months, despite applying for dozens of jobs. I know just how difficult it is to live on benefits alone; there is no way that I could have sustained that for years.

This is all part of the special snowflake society that we have become. We are told that class is dead and we can be anything we want to be. Some will take this so literally as being any job except that of soapstar or multi billionaire is beneath them.

We still have a big ho ha over apprenticeships. Chatting to my father in law the other day he was astounded at what apprenticeships have become. He was an engraver, and spent his apprenticeship working his way up, from sweeping, to setting tools out, lifting and carrying, along the way he was taught the basics, then got his own station doing minor work, to prove himself, eventually becoming a full fledged engraver. It was a job and something he had to do, but he took pride in his work. I fou were good enough you progressed, if you were lazy or didn't fit the bill you found something else.

Now, apprenticeships have changed, to all intents and purposes being either a fast track scheme or an avenue for companies offering apprenticeships to exploit your labour and to milk funding. It is assumed that these modern apprenticeships will lead to jobs, they don't always do so and I think that lot of apprentices are there because they are told to be as part of a back to work programme. In a lot of cases there is no interest in working hard.

 Mr. Burning wrote:


This is all part of the special snowflake society that we have become.

Actually in my case, and probably most peoples, it was because the work was gak. Truly gak.

Have you ever spent 48ish hours a week washing dishes? 40+ hours a week doing what is essentially house work? Getting up in the dark to shovel gak all day? I did that for about 6 years and it is not something that I ever wish to do again.

Some people like to blame 'entitlement' for the reason why people don't want to do those jobs when in reality they are simply terrible jobs. If I was still doing that kind of thing when I am 40 I would probably be an alcoholic.

 Mr. Burning wrote:
Now, apprenticeships have changed, to all intents and purposes being either a fast track scheme or an avenue for companies offering apprenticeships to exploit your labour and to milk funding. It is assumed that these modern apprenticeships will lead to jobs, they don't always do so and I think that lot of apprentices are there because they are told to be as part of a back to work programme. In a lot of cases there is no interest in working hard.

Thing is, if there's no interest in working hard, no training program is going to fix that.

That's kind of why I'm not really that bothered by that portion of the long term unemployed who are, frankly, long term unemployed for a reason (as opposed to the long term unemployed who are genuinely trying to find work). If they don't really want a decent working life for themselves, then guiding them through training programs and giving them subsidised apprenticeship after apprenticeship is frankly kind of pointless.

Cheaper and easier for everyone to send them a cheque for however few dollars welfare pays, and bring in some folk who are hungry to do some work.

sebster wrote:Cheaper and easier for everyone to send them a cheque for however few dollars welfare pays, and bring in some folk who are hungry to do some work.

I'm glad you used the "hungry" metaphor, because it's amazing the kind of terrible, hazardous, low-paying job a starving man will do. Just gotta make sure that there's lots of starving people, and then you can *really* get 'em to work for cheap.

Or, y'know, someone with either an education or else skills training can have some pride and decide not to shovel gak for minimum wage because it really is beneath him, as either an educated and/or skilled worker.

 azazel the cat wrote:

sebster wrote:Cheaper and easier for everyone to send them a cheque for however few dollars welfare pays, and bring in some folk who are hungry to do some work.

I'm glad you used the "hungry" metaphor, because it's amazing the kind of terrible, hazardous, low-paying job a starving man will do. Just gotta make sure that there's lots of starving people, and then you can *really* get 'em to work for cheap.

Which is why you have an extensive range of protections in place covering pay and working conditions.

Or, y'know, someone with either an education or else skills training can have some pride and decide not to shovel gak for minimum wage because it really is beneath him, as either an educated and/or skilled worker.

And so he's welcome to keep looking for better work. And when that leaves a shortage of hardworking, unskilled people, as it inevitably will, then it makes sense to look to fill those jobs with immigrants.

Palindrome wrote:

 Mr. Burning wrote:


This is all part of the special snowflake society that we have become.

Actually in my case, and probably most peoples, it was because the work was gak. Truly gak.

Have you ever spent 48ish hours a week washing dishes? 40+ hours a week doing what is essentially house work? Getting up in the dark to shovel gak all day? I did that for about 6 years and it is not something that I ever wish to do again.

Some people like to blame 'entitlement' for the reason why people don't want to do those jobs when in reality they are simply terrible jobs. If I was still doing that kind of thing when I am 40 I would probably be an alcoholic.

You know those little labels on fruit, like apples. You'd think a machine would stick them on wouldn't you? Done that and I have had my hands shredded through ripping potati sacks open to put them on a convyeor belt. All for minimum wage. Those jobs paid for me to stay in college.

Work is gak, it's very rare people do something they actually like, let alone following a dream.

 Mr. Burning wrote:

Work is gak, it's very rare people do something they actually like, let alone following a dream.

I like my job as it happens.

Not all work is gak by any means. Minimum wages jobs though tend to be and its just this sort of job that people are reluctant to do. If the work itself is poor and the wages aren't good its no suprise that people don't want to do it.

Yep, I like my job too. Hell, it meant I flew to Nashville last week, all expenses paid. I fething LOVE my job!

 Albatross wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:

 Testify wrote:

 dæl wrote:

 Testify wrote:
Yet...you still think these people can't figure out that work pays better?

English people would love to have many of the jobs that immigrants take, and for the same wages too - the main issue is conditions. English people simply don't stand for gak the way that foreign workers will.

Even during an economic boom we had masses of unemployed, they could have walked into jobs with their eyes closed, but didn't. Why was that?

Because employers favour foreigners? The idea that you could stick up a sign in a jobcentre saying "factory operatives wanted" and not receive hundreds of applicants is alien to me.

I rather doubt that employers favor foreigners. That's never been my experience.

It's never been your experience because it's borderline racist rubbish. I've worked in low-skill, low-pay jobs for years before graduating - I was a cleaning supervisor during my studies, for example. The fact is, non-immigrants don't tend to apply for jobs like that. It was certainly the case in the company I worked for. I was told that explicitly by management. Young British people don't see themselves as cleaners. That's not the fault of immigrants, or their employers.

You're British. If you were in the US and me, you would have lived to see the displacement of domestic workers in a mass variety of industries.
Agriculture
Construction
Restaurants
skilled and unskilled trades
manufacturing.

 Mr. Burning wrote:


Now, apprenticeships have changed, to all intents and purposes being either a fast track scheme or an avenue for companies offering apprenticeships to exploit your labour and to milk funding. It is assumed that these modern apprenticeships will lead to jobs, they don't always do so and I think that lot of apprentices are there because they are told to be as part of a back to work programme. In a lot of cases there is no interest in working hard.

I'm going to have to disagree on this slightly, straight from school I went to a college offering apprenticeships, and at the end of the year, as you say, they didn't find any kind of job at the end of it as they'd promised (5 job positions between 80 apprentinces... And they claimed to have a success rate above 90% ). I went to another college the next year, doing another course and did get a job out of it at the end (Everyone on the course got a job this time, bar one, who had planned on going to Uni instead). I've now advanced to a third college doing higher education, in conjunction with work. My experience of the people in the colleges have been mixed. In the first college there were a fair few that seemed to fit your description, most of these had left or been kicked out well before the end, although a few remained. In the other colleges I've been to, especially the current one, there is no-one with that attitude at all, the vast majority want to be there, they want to get the qualifications and they work hard to complete assignments etc.

I know this is all anecdotal, and obviously others may have different experiences with different colleges or companies apprenticeships schemes, but I personally think apprenticeships in colleges are the way to go for people leaving school. Most of my friends have gone to various universities around the country, and while they are having a great time, and will come out with degrees, they will also be coming out with about £20,000 debt or more... Some of the courses are £9,000 a term... I mean, feth... How the hell can someone afford that after coming out of school?

Going the apprenticeship route, and assuming you get a bit lucky and get a decent job at the end is the way to go. I've never been in debt, I enjoy work (mostly ) and they're paying for my higher education. I may be missing out on all the fun uni shenanigans, but I'm certain not regretting my choice.