Theresa May says Britain will be 'poorer' and public services 'weaker' without EU workers

First topic message reminder :

PM: Britain will be 'poorer' without EU workers
MPs debate Brexit Bill amendments
PM will refuse to offer a compromise to rebel Tory MPs
May hosts Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
Number 10 expects to win Wednesday's crunch vote
Government will not back any of the amendments
UK travellers could face higher roaming charges post Brexit
Theresa May has insisted that she will be able to get an "early agreement" on the rights of EU citizens living in Britain, as she sought to ease the concerns of rebel Tory MPs.

The Prime Minister said Britain would be "poorer" and public services "weaker" without the contribution of EU workers and that guaranteeing their rights would be a "priority" during the Brexit negotiations.

Speaking in the Commons this afternoon, Mrs May warned potential rebel MPs they will be "obstructing" the will of the people if they vote to amend the Brexit Bill.

She told MPs this afternoon that the "general view" from EU leaders during the summit in Valletta last week was that the UK and EU need to reach an agreement that applies equally to citizens of both parties.

This means that Britain taking a unilateral decision to guarantee EU nationals' status is "not the right way forward", she said.

She told MPs: I have every expectation from the good will I have seen that it will be possible to get an early agreement on this matter to give people the reassurance that they need.

"I have said before, EU citizens living in the UK make a vital contribution to our economy and our society and without them we would be poorer and our public services weaker.

"So we will make securing the reciprocal agreement that will guarantee their status a priority as soon as the negotiations begin, and I want to see this agreed as soon as possible because that is in everyone's interests."

Number 10 expects to win the crunch vote to trigger the formal exit of the EU on Wednesday, despite suggestions that as many as a dozen Tories could rebel and join with other parties to vote for "wrecking" amendments.

The changes MPs are demanding include protection for EU citizens and a vote on the final Brexit deal before it has been agreed.

Speaking this afternoon, Mrs May warned pro-Remain Tories against backing amendments seeking to ensure Parliament gets a say on the "endgame" if Brexit negotiations collapse without a deal.

The Bill is returning to the Commons today for a further three days of debate during committee stage.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/06/brexit-debate-article-50-bill-live/

Thorin wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/12063052/Mass-migration-driving-down-wages-offered-to-British-jobseekers.html


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/9740662/Theresa-May-mass-immigration-pushes-up-house-prices.html

So two opinions then?

Where is the evidence to back their claims on wages, not housing
You have care staff, cleaners and waiting staff.
Is that it?


In your own time

if you have 3 million extra people chasing the same number of properties, rents will skyrocket

Ben Reilly wrote:From what I can see, immigration drives wages down slightly for the very least skilled citizens. You can pay an immigrant marginally less to do a menial task than you can to an almost completely unskilled native. Big deal.

Immigration causes housing cost to rise by as much as 10 percent over net zero immigration -- again, something that is unlikely to cause a lot of pain to the average citizen.

The solution is probably a small increase to social welfare, not to put a stranglehold on immigration and throw the baby out with the bathwater.

not just unskilled, wages in the IT industry have also fallen.


there is a limit to how low you can go regarding pay, with the minimum wage, but once you have a minimum wage then employers will always pay the minimum.
And no matter what the minimum is it will always not be enough as other more skilled people will want the wage gap to remain the same pushing up prices.

if you pay a burger flipper £10 an hour a nurse might be pretty peeved to get the same or just slightly more. as an example.

Ben Reilly wrote:From what I can see, immigration drives wages down slightly for the very least skilled citizens. You can pay an immigrant marginally less to do a menial task than you can to an almost completely unskilled native. Big deal.

Immigration causes housing cost to rise by as much as 10 percent over net zero immigration -- again, something that is unlikely to cause a lot of pain to the average citizen.

The solution is probably a small increase to social welfare, not to put a stranglehold on immigration and throw the baby out with the bathwater.

no one is putting a stranglehold on immigration, they are putting a stop to unlimited immigration from the 300million people who are eligible to enter the UK without anyway to say no.
It's not good for the UK and it certainly is not good for the poorer country's who lose vast amounts of skilled people.

People who come to work will always be welcomed in the UK no matter where they are from. Those that come to take, not so much

Lord Foul wrote:The answer is to make sure every penny earned here is taxed here
and close all those "avoidance" loop holes....

and make certain that "the Board" and seniors in EVERY company cannot earn more than 20x the lowest wage in the company.

It also resides in a "technology tax" whereby any business replacing a worker by technology pays a stiff penalty in tax for every job lost....

It also resides in a decent citizens wage, paid for (at least in part) by that tech tax.

a partial solution and one I would agree with regards avoidance measures, however to implement that you would need to slash tax rates as well.

As to pay, a company should be free to set the pay for its employees at what ever level it chooses.

veya_victaous wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:No... the solution is a stop of mass immigration.

Why?
it's not their fault your useless

You squander life's advantages and now cry poor because you're a lazy bugger.
Or because you Don't accept globalization mean YOU HAVE TO Compete on equal terms with people around the world and that sort of mindless labor is Worth Fuck all, cause anyone can do it.


Why Do you Believe the world owes you a Living?
RW love to whine about hand outs so ....
why do you think the employers should give you free money? cause that IS what you are asking for, you are saying "an employer should give me more because I'm British" even though they can get the same or better for cheaper elsewhere. Do you buy from a shop that just charges 40% more for exactly the same products and services?    
Why do you expect employers to?

If you want communism Blame Nicko        
people like him set the precedent of shooting people that want to live in a commie nation.

the world owes no one a living, that seems to be the preserve of the left who thinks just being alive means the state has to support you.
you are a bit all over the place in your arguments there old girl.

veya_victaous wrote:@tommy
they do
My skills are on the desired skills list and allow people to migrate here. my roles CAN be advertised overseas to and people bought in on working visas, it is actually what the 457 visa system is designed for.
But I don't cry about it like a RW snowflake        

I don't care, I just do it better and add more skills.
Because YOU HAVE TO COMPETE GLOBALLY!!! what do you not understand that applies to everyone including me.
thank the old buggers for making it so, but it's not going to change now.

you dont cry about it until someone comes from overseas and does your job cheaper and you are out on your ear.
no job is secure for anyone anywhere, because that is the way of the world. The only way you can ensure you dont get fired is to create your own business and make sure it is successful.

The Devil, You Know wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:No... the solution is a stop of mass immigration.

Why?
it's not their fault your useless

You squander life's advantages and now cry poor because you're a lazy bugger.
Or because you Don't accept globalization mean YOU HAVE TO Compete on equal terms with people around the world and that sort of mindless labor is Worth Fuck all, cause anyone can do it.


Why Do you Believe the world owes you a Living?
RW love to whine about hand outs so ....
why do you think the employers should give you free money? cause that IS what you are asking for, you are saying "an employer should give me more because I'm British" even though they can get the same or better for cheaper elsewhere. Do you buy from a shop that just charges 40% more for exactly the same products and services?    
Why do you expect employers to?

If you want communism Blame Nicko        
people like him set the precedent of shooting people that want to live in a commie nation.

the world owes no one a living, that seems to be the preserve of the left who thinks just being alive means the state has to support you.
you are a bit all over the place in your arguments there old girl.

After so many years on forums you still engage in cartoony versions of your oppenents.

The left strives to ensure everyone alive simply has equality of opportunities. That is to say, a child born to a poor family in a poor area should have exactly the same access to good education and healthcare as a child born to a rich family. As it is that is usually far from the case. If people do end up lacking in education and opportunities then the state should step in to help provide those opportunities. Nothing more. It is not simply a case of a cartoon view of people getting support for the sake of it.

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:The answer is to make sure every penny earned here is taxed here
and close all those "avoidance" loop holes....

and make certain that "the Board" and seniors in EVERY company cannot earn more than 20x the lowest wage in the company.

It also resides in a "technology tax" whereby any business replacing a worker by technology pays a stiff penalty in tax for every job lost....

It also resides in a decent citizens wage, paid for (at least in part) by that tech tax.

a partial solution and one I would agree with regards avoidance measures, however to implement that you would need to slash tax rates as well.

As to pay, a company should be free to set the pay for its employees at what ever level it chooses.

and IF you had a reasonable "citizens wage" they could be free to since all restraints are removed from the labour market....If the company aint willing to pay a decent wage, no one will work for them since the citizens wage will guarantee a "reasonable standard of living"...

so the employers will be back to the old "hiring post " system where the EMPLOYER virtually auctions the job in a kind of "reverse auction"

kinda......... "OK i need a bog cleaner.....who will do it for 50p per hour....one pound an hour......two, i'm offering two pounds.....what no takers ...ok five pounds....six ....EIGHT???? ok job to the gent in green for eight pounds an hour start tomorrow at......"

veya_victaous wrote:@tommy
they do
My skills are on the desired skills list and allow people to migrate here. my roles CAN be advertised overseas to and people bought in on working visas, it is actually what the 457 visa system is designed for.
But I don't cry about it like a RW snowflake        

I don't care, I just do it better and add more skills.
Because YOU HAVE TO COMPETE GLOBALLY!!! what do you not understand that applies to everyone including me.
thank the old buggers for making it so, but it's not going to change now.

We have no desired skills list and a complete open door to 500 million people as well as hundreds of thousands from outside the eu coming in too... a complete free for all...


If we had a skills list and proper controls then we wouldn't be complaining either!!!


In fact, this is all we are arguing to have in place!!!

Eilzel wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
the world owes no one a living, that seems to be the preserve of the left who thinks just being alive means the state has to support you.
you are a bit all over the place in your arguments there old girl.

After so many years on forums you still engage in cartoony versions of your oppenents.

The left strives to ensure everyone alive simply has equality of opportunities. That is to say, a child born to a poor family in a poor area should have exactly the same access to good education and healthcare as a child born to a rich family. As it is that is usually far from the case. If people do end up lacking in education and opportunities then the state should step in to help provide those opportunities. Nothing more. It is not simply a case of a cartoon view of people getting support for the sake of it.

children born to poor families have far more opportunities under the evil baby eating tories than they ever had under the callous and self serving labour party.
Labour strive to drive people down to the lowest common denominator, whilst tories strive to drag them up to the highest.

social mobility fell to low levels under labour.

Lord Foul wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
a partial solution and one I would agree with regards avoidance measures, however to implement that you would need to slash tax rates as well.

As to pay, a company should be free to set the pay for its employees at what ever level it chooses.

and IF you had a reasonable "citizens wage" they could be free to since all restraints are removed from the labour market....If the company aint willing to pay a decent wage, no one will work for them since the citizens wage will guarantee a "reasonable standard of living"...

so the employers will be back to the old "hiring post " system where the EMPLOYER virtually auctions the job in a kind of "reverse auction"

kinda......... "OK i need a bog cleaner.....who will do it for 50p per hour....one pound an hour......two, i'm offering two pounds.....what no takers ...ok five pounds....six ....EIGHT????   ok job to the gent in green for eight pounds an hour start tomorrow at......"

free money is not free, it comes off the backs of those who work for a living. the government does not have any money, it all comes from you and me and every other citizen. Tax companies more and they make up the shortfall by increasing prices.
even the money that comes from the evil capitalist exploiters comes from the products they sell and the people who have to work for them.
give people free anything and it removes an incentive to do better. It also keeps people reliant on the state.

veya_victaous wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:No... the solution is a stop of mass immigration.

Why?
it's not their fault your useless

You squander life's advantages and now cry poor because you're a lazy bugger.
Or because you Don't accept globalization mean YOU HAVE TO Compete on equal terms with people around the world and that sort of mindless labor is Worth Fuck all, cause anyone can do it.


Why Do you Believe the world owes you a Living?
RW love to whine about hand outs so ....
why do you think the employers should give you free money? cause that IS what you are asking for, you are saying "an employer should give me more because I'm British" even though they can get the same or better for cheaper elsewhere. Do you buy from a shop that just charges 40% more for exactly the same products and services?    
Why do you expect employers to?

If you want communism Blame Nicko        
people like him set the precedent of shooting people that want to live in a commie nation.

I suppose the point is that the greater number of people who are available in the job market, the less employers will pay. They have to pay the national living wage/minimum wage legally of course, but apparently not all employers do.

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:

and IF you had a reasonable "citizens wage" they could be free to since all restraints are removed from the labour market....If the company aint willing to pay a decent wage, no one will work for them since the citizens wage will guarantee a "reasonable standard of living"...

so the employers will be back to the old "hiring post " system where the EMPLOYER virtually auctions the job in a kind of "reverse auction"

kinda......... "OK i need a bog cleaner.....who will do it for 50p per hour....one pound an hour......two, i'm offering two pounds.....what no takers ...ok five pounds....six ....EIGHT????   ok job to the gent in green for eight pounds an hour start tomorrow at......"

free money is not free, it comes off the backs of those who work for a living. the government does not have any money, it all comes from you and me and every other citizen. Tax companies more and they make up the shortfall by increasing prices.
even the money that comes from the evil capitalist exploiters comes from the products they sell and the people who have to work for them.
give people free anything and it removes an incentive to do better. It also keeps people reliant on the state.

How do those people come to work in the first place?
Based off an education they do not pay for.
Children have a free education. Collectively society pays. Which without any education, those children would be unlikely to find work as adults in many industries.
What we contribute is minuscule individually and where even more, we end up creating far more cost to things we need, than we pay into the system. Hence you get plenty of free money and you will again when you retire. As the money you made working and paid into your pension, will never equate to what you then get paid in your retirement. You will get far more money than you put in.
That is free money.

Thorin wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
free money is not free, it comes off the backs of those who work for a living. the government does not have any money, it all comes from you and me and every other citizen. Tax companies more and they make up the shortfall by increasing prices.
even the money that comes from the evil capitalist exploiters comes from the products they sell and the people who have to work for them.
give people free anything and it removes an incentive to do better. It also keeps people reliant on the state.

How do those people come to work in the first place?
Based off an education they do not pay for.
Children have a free education. Collectively society pays. Which without any education, those children would be unlikely to find work as adults in many industries.
What we contribute is minuscule individually and where even more, we end up creating far more cost to things we need, than we pay into the system. Hence you get plenty of free money and you will again when you retire. As the money you made working and paid into your pension, will never equate to what you then get paid in your retirement. You will get far more money than you put in.
That is free money.

That rather depends on how long one lives after retirement age.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


How do those people come to work in the first place?
Based off an education they do not pay for.
Children have a free education. Collectively society pays. Which without any education, those children would be unlikely to find work as adults in many industries.
What we contribute is minuscule individually and where even more, we end up creating far more cost to things we need, than we pay into the system. Hence you get plenty of free money and you will again when you retire. As the money you made working and paid into your pension, will never equate to what you then get paid in your retirement. You will get far more money than you put in.
That is free money.

That rather depends on how long one lives after retirement age.

No it does not Rags

They are being paid a retirement package, based of far greater more money, than they ever put into that pot.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

That rather depends on how long one lives after retirement age.

No it does not Rags

They are being paid a retirement package, based of far greater more money, than they ever put into that pot.

They won't get a State pension if they're dead.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


No it does not Rags

They are being paid a retirement package, based of far greater more money, than they ever put into that pot.

They won't get a State pension if they're dead.

Their partner will Rags

Still free money

Again you are missing the point.

Hence why i said the pot

If you want to be very pedantic, then they are entitled to far more money than they put in

Free money.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

They won't get a State pension if they're dead.

Their partner will Rags

Still free money

Again you are missing the point.

Hence why i said the pot

If you want to be very pedantic, then they are entitled to far more money than they put in

Free money.

Not necessarily. There are probably loads of people who die before they get to retire, and the pension goes nowhere.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Their partner will Rags

Still free money

Again you are missing the point.

Hence why i said the pot

If you want to be very pedantic, then they are entitled to far more money than they put in

Free money.

Not necessarily. There are probably loads of people who die before they get to retire, and the pension goes nowhere.

All irrelevant, they are entitled to a pot of money. That they never put all the money into that pot

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Not necessarily. There are probably loads of people who die before they get to retire, and the pension goes nowhere.

All irrelevant, they are entitled to a pot of money. That they never put all the money into that pot

They're not entitled to it if they're dead, so they might have paid in much more than they ever got out of it.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


All irrelevant, they are entitled to a pot of money. That they never put all the money into that pot

They're not entitled to it if they're dead, so they might have paid in much more than they ever got out of it.

They were entitled to this when alive, and would be able to receive that money

Hence your point is utterly and completely moot

In that pot, they paid into, it increased to more money, than they paid in.
That means, no matter if they lived or died, that money increased.
Thus part of that pot was free money.

Quite simple really, just like when you buy prescriptions. As many medicines are far more expensive that the amount you pay under the NHS.

Again free money

Your education

Again off free money.

Your health care, again formed mostly from free money, far exceeding anything you placed into the system.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

They're not entitled to it if they're dead, so they might have paid in much more than they ever got out of it.

They were entitled to this when alive, and would be able to receive that money

Hence your point is utterly and completely moot

In that pot, they paid into, it increased to more money, than they paid in.
That means, no matter if they lived or died, that money increased.
Thus part of that pot was free money.

Quite simple really, just like when you buy prescriptions. As many medicines are far more expensive that the amount you pay under the NHS.

Again free money

Your education

Again off free money.

Your health care, again formed mostly from free money, far exceeding anything you placed into the system.

They were entitled to a pension if they lived, but if they died before they got the pension, obviously they don't get it any more. They might only live for a year or two after they retire, so they may well have paid in more than they got back.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


They were entitled to this when alive, and would be able to receive that money

Hence your point is utterly and completely moot

In that pot, they paid into, it increased to more money, than they paid in.
That means, no matter if they lived or died, that money increased.
Thus part of that pot was free money.

Quite simple really, just like when you buy prescriptions. As many medicines are far more expensive that the amount you pay under the NHS.

Again free money

Your education

Again off free money.

Your health care, again formed mostly from free money, far exceeding anything you placed into the system.

They were entitled to a pension if they lived, but if they died before they got the pension, obviously they don't get it any more.  They might only live for a year or two after they retire, so they may well have paid in more than they got back.

It does not matter, when they are entitled to that pot, because the pot has more money than they paid into this
So splitting hairs over their death is irrelevant, as their pot in death, has more than they paid into.
Let alone all the other things they had based off free money, they got during life.

For a start, how much does an education cost over 14-18 years.

That alone is a child already being around £75,000 in debt to their education

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

They were entitled to a pension if they lived, but if they died before they got the pension, obviously they don't get it any more.  They might only live for a year or two after they retire, so they may well have paid in more than they got back.

It does not matter, when they are entitled to that pot, because the pot has more money than they paid into this
So splitting hairs over their death is irrelevant, as their pot in death, has more than they paid into.
Let alone all the other things they had based off free money, they got during life.

For a start, how much does an education cost over 14-18 years.

That alone is a child already being around £75,000 in debt to their education

It's not splitting hairs because nobody knows who is going to die before they reach pension age.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


It does not matter, when they are entitled to that pot, because the pot has more money than they paid into this
So splitting hairs over their death is irrelevant, as their pot in death, has more than they paid into.
Let alone all the other things they had based off free money, they got during life.

For a start, how much does an education cost over 14-18 years.

That alone is a child already being around £75,000 in debt to their education

It's not splitting hairs because nobody knows who is going to die before they reach pension age.

It is splitting hairs, when even where sadly a child dies, they have paid nothing into the system and when they have gained free money from the system whilst they have been alive. All people have not even reached adulthood, and they are vastly in debt to the system.

Raggamuffin wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

Why?
it's not their fault your useless

You squander life's advantages and now cry poor because you're a lazy bugger.
Or because you Don't accept globalization mean YOU HAVE TO Compete on equal terms with people around the world and that sort of mindless labor is Worth Fuck all, cause anyone can do it.


Why Do you Believe the world owes you a Living?
RW love to whine about hand outs so ....
why do you think the employers should give you free money? cause that IS what you are asking for, you are saying "an employer should give me more because I'm British" even though they can get the same or better for cheaper elsewhere. Do you buy from a shop that just charges 40% more for exactly the same products and services?    
Why do you expect employers to?

If you want communism Blame Nicko        
people like him set the precedent of shooting people that want to live in a commie nation.

I suppose the point is that the greater number of people who are available in the job market, the less employers will pay. They have to pay the national living wage/minimum wage legally of course, but apparently not all employers do.

Yes... the more people there are to compete for the limited number of available jobs will lower the rates of pay offered... while at the same time these extra numbers of people here will also be pushing up cost of rents/housing, as well as the impact of extra demand/costs to all other public services and infrastructure...

Ben Reilly wrote:From what I can see, immigration drives wages down slightly for the very least skilled citizens. You can pay an immigrant marginally less to do a menial task than you can to an almost completely unskilled native. Big deal.

Immigration causes housing cost to rise by as much as 10 percent over net zero immigration -- again, something that is unlikely to cause a lot of pain to the average citizen.

The solution is probably a small increase to social welfare, not to put a stranglehold on immigration and throw the baby out with the bathwater.

1. We have our own people who want and need these minimum wage jobs... but when foreigners are turning up and taking many of these available jobs instead, then the people already here are having to sign onto the dole instead and cost the taxpayer in benefits payments of up to £80 a week for food and bills plus whatever housing rents also need paying...


Our youth unemployment rates have sky rocketed over recent years... the young are suffering from being denied the opportunities they would normally have been having.

Also you are trying to claim all immigrants are unskilled... while our lefties are regularly also telling us that they are all highly skilled and we'll needed!!!

Which is it...!?

And don't you think that a huge influx of skilled workers has a detrimental effect on the opportunities and wages of those already here...!?


Maybe you could define what you mean by unskilled work/workers and skilled work/workers...?


As I am a skilled workers and have faced a very real detrimental effect on the wages I can earn... plus the compounding detrimental effect of mass immigration massively increasing my cost of living!!!


Why do you think an increase in social welfare payments and the subsequent additional tax rise on people like me is the solution...?


And why not just introduce a tight limit on immigration instead...!?


What is so wrong with having sensible immigration limits that are set to look after the interests of those already here, instead of the failed open door madness that we have had for nearly 20 years...!!!???

Unemployment is at its lowest for years Tommy

Youth unemployment has always been high, so please put up stats to back your claims it has rocketed over recent years?

Lets just start with that first fib shall we?

Next question to your false and fabricated claim.

You claim we have our own people, what ever that may be. I guess you mean born here, which then includes all Ethnic groups, yes?
Who want and needs these minimum wage jobs.

The unemployment rate is 1.60 million unemployed people (people not in work but seeking and available to work),

There are 7,993,480 foreign born

Can you do the maths Tommy?

Without those foreign born, and lets take into account, some too young, women staying at home, elderly ect. You would have at least a shortfall of 5 million jobs vacant. If these foreigners were not here Tommy?

Do you want to see the UK self implode with your irrational views on denying millions of foreigners who drive the UK economy?

Oh and another point for you Tommy.
It clearly shows that the vast massive majority of foreigners in this country are working and contributing to the uk economy.
Even more so as many never had an education here, they put far more into the system than they get back from this.
It shows that economically, immigrants vastly benefit the UK economy.

Anything else you want help on understanding here?

I will help Tommy out on youth unemployment





Massively gone up did you say Tommy?

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/feb/22/youth-unemployment-jobless-figure


And...





While...


"...At the time Poland joined the EU in 2004, the country’s unemployment rate was 19%, compared to 5% in the UK (Eurostat 2014). Furthermore, a youth unemployment rate of 40% in Poland had made employment in the UK, even in low-skilled jobs, an attractive option for young Poles. Given these numbers it is hardly surprising that migration from Eastern Europe to the UK inclined significantly after EU accession..."

https://sotonpolitics.org/2014/09/01/what-is-the-actual-impact-of-migration-from-eastern-europe-to-the-uk-a-look-at-the-evidence/

Tommy Monk wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/feb/22/youth-unemployment-jobless-figure


And...





While...


"...At the time Poland joined the EU in 2004, the country’s unemployment rate was 19%, compared to 5% in the UK (Eurostat 2014). Furthermore, a youth unemployment rate of 40% in Poland had made employment in the UK, even in low-skilled jobs, an attractive option for young Poles. Given these numbers it is hardly surprising that migration from Eastern Europe to the UK inclined significantly after EU accession..."

https://sotonpolitics.org/2014/09/01/what-is-the-actual-impact-of-migration-from-eastern-europe-to-the-uk-a-look-at-the-evidence/

So it went up  massively over one year, during the last recession in 2009

You said the last couple of years that it has sky rocketed, and your graph, shows its actually gone down from 19% in 2012 to 12.4% today, that is a massive drop Tommy



http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/youth-unemployment-rate

One moment

No... since the open door immigration to eastern Europe in 2004... there has been an undeniable rise in youth unemployment here in uk!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:No... since the open door immigration to eastern Europe in 2004... there has been an undeniable rise in youth unemployment here in uk!!!

But its down to the same levels as 2004 Tommy
It also shows youth unemployment has always been high
Which is besides the point.
You claimed there has been a massive rise in youth unemployment in recent years.

You were talking out of your arse.

Care to admit you lied?

No... the figures of unemployed benefit claimants is not the true number of those actually unemployed...


Since 2004 the unemployed rate in poland halved while our youth unemployment rate doubled... with black and other minority ethnic group rate unemployment being even higher still...

Tommy Monk wrote:No... the figures of unemployed benefit claimants is not the true number of those actually unemployed...


Since 2004 the unemployed rate in poland halved while our youth unemployment rate doubled... with black and other minority ethnic group rate unemployment being even higher still...

PMSL

So now the figures are untrue?

WTF

You said youth unemployment sky rocketed over the last few years.

It massively went down

How badly are you showing you cannot admit you were wrong?

I mean what the fuck has Polish unemployment got to do with youth unemployment going down by nearly half since 2004?

Youth unemployment may have gone down, but the law changed a couple of years ago.
If they are not being trained or in an apprenticeship they have to carry on in education till their 18th birthday.

That's a good way of manipulating youth unemployment figures.

Syl wrote:Youth unemployment may have gone down, but the law changed a couple of years ago.
If they are not being trained or in an apprenticeship they have to carry on in education till their 18th birthday.

That's a good way of manipulating youth unemployment figures.

Come again?
If they are in education then they are not in employment.
So please explain this Syl?
How can you claim unemployment benefits and then still work, unless its less than 15 hours pr week?

As far as I understand it, a person under 18 can't be classed as unemployed, so unemployment figures won't include them.

Many 16 year olds, who in the past would have left school to work full time, now have to stay in education for 2 more years, whether they want to or not....unless they have an apprenticeship to go to.

So...if youth unemployment figures have dropped, that's one reason.

Syl wrote:As far as I understand it, a person under 18 can't be classed as unemployed, so unemployment  figures won't include them.

Many 16 year olds,  who in the past would have left school to work full time, now have to stay in education for 2 more years, whether they want to or not....unless they have an apprenticeship to go to.

So...if youth unemployment figures have dropped,  that's one reason.

Okay, but can they receive other benefits Syl?
You are talking a two year gap
That is not why unemployment has dropped with youth
So again, this view you have is on foreigners, correct?
What have they done?

Thorin wrote:

Syl wrote:As far as I understand it, a person under 18 can't be classed as unemployed, so unemployment  figures won't include them.

Many 16 year olds,  who in the past would have left school to work full time, now have to stay in education for 2 more years, whether they want to or not....unless they have an apprenticeship to go to.

So...if youth unemployment figures have dropped,  that's one reason.

Okay, but can they receive other benefits Syl?
You are talking a two year gap
That is not why unemployment has dropped with youth
So again, this view you have is on foreigners, correct?
What have they done?

I don't know about benefits Thor, I was talking numbers.....Governments have ways of manipulating statistics, and keeping youngster's in education till they are 18 is one way of keeping youth unemployment figures down.

Presumably no under 18 can work full time without being in a training scheme, that would apply to foreign workers also.

Syl wrote:

Thorin wrote:

Okay, but can they receive other benefits Syl?
You are talking a two year gap
That is not why unemployment has dropped with youth
So again, this view you have is on foreigners, correct?
What have they done?

I don't know about benefits Thor, I was talking numbers.....Governments have ways of manipulating statistics, and keeping youngster's in education till they are 18 is one way  of keeping youth unemployment figures down.

Presumably no under 18 can work full time without being in a training scheme, that would apply to foreign workers also.

So as much as a respect you. You have no idea?

Thorin wrote:

Syl wrote:

I don't know about benefits Thor, I was talking numbers.....Governments have ways of manipulating statistics, and keeping youngster's in education till they are 18 is one way  of keeping youth unemployment figures down.

Presumably no under 18 can work full time without being in a training scheme, that would apply to foreign workers also.

So as much as a respect you. You have no idea?

Not about benefits, but that wouldn't affect the unemployment figures anyway .

Syl wrote:

Thorin wrote:


So as much as a respect you. You have no idea?

Not about benefits, but that wouldn't affect the unemployment figures anyway .

Sorry Syl, they dont .
I understand your frustration.
I suggest you direct your anger at those that take advantage.
I bet this is not the case?

Job seekers allowance and income support is not paid (apart from special circumstances)to under 18s.

I'm on tablet so can't c&P the link.

Syl wrote:Job seekers allowance and income support is not paid (apart from special circumstances)to under 18s.

I'm on tablet so can't c&P the link.

What circumstances?

Thorin wrote:

Syl wrote:

Not about benefits, but that wouldn't affect the unemployment figures anyway .

Sorry Syl, they dont .
I understand your frustration.
I suggest you direct your anger at those that take advantage.
I bet this is not the case?

I'm not angry or frustrated Thor, just offering an alternative reason as to one reason youth unemployment figures seem to have dropped in the last couple of years.

Off for the night...take care
x

Syl wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Sorry Syl, they dont .
I understand your frustration.
I suggest you direct your anger at those that take advantage.
I bet this is not the case?

I'm not angry or frustrated Thor, just offering an alternative reason as to one reason youth unemployment figures seem to have dropped in the last couple of years.

Off for the night...take care
x

Night Syl
 

xx

Thorin wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
free money is not free, it comes off the backs of those who work for a living. the government does not have any money, it all comes from you and me and every other citizen. Tax companies more and they make up the shortfall by increasing prices.
even the money that comes from the evil capitalist exploiters comes from the products they sell and the people who have to work for them.
give people free anything and it removes an incentive to do better. It also keeps people reliant on the state.

How do those people come to work in the first place?
Based off an education they do not pay for.
Children have a free education. Collectively society pays. Which without any education, those children would be unlikely to find work as adults in many industries.
What we contribute is minuscule individually and where even more, we end up creating far more cost to things we need, than we pay into the system. Hence you get plenty of free money and you will again when you retire. As the money you made working and paid into your pension, will never equate to what you then get paid in your retirement. You will get far more money than you put in.
That is free money.

most money you get in your pension comes from investments in the evil capitalist world and for state pensions they come from eh people who are working now. The state pension is little more than a glorified ponzi scheme which is just about getting to the point where it all collapses.
It worked when people rarely lived more than 5 years after retirement, now they can live 20 or 30 years drawing a pension, this also explains why people are being expected to work longer before getting a state pension.