Immigration - Should we let people vote with their wallets?
Discussion
We seem to have something of an irreconcilable problem in this country at the moment resulting from three opposing points.
1. A lot of people are opposed to immigration. Some completely opposed, others not 100% opposed, but wanting to see much tighter limits.
2. People don't generally want to work longer than they have to, and pensioners certainly don't want to return to the workplace.
3. We aren't having enough children in the West, and haven't been for a long time. Over the next 15 years, a little over a million more people are likely to retire and leave the workforce than there are children to reach adulthood and enter it.
Presumably everyone can agree that this is quite a significant issue, and it's one that is exacerbated by the fact that for some time the increase in life expectancy has been far outstripping healthy life expectancy, meaning that the long term plan for the NHS would see the share of the total workforce employed by the NHS would increase from 1 in 17 currently to 1 in 11 over the next decade, and the projection is only being kept that low by using projected increases in staff efficiency which are around 2-3x that historically seen in the NHS.
In short, unless we can encourage people here to have a lot more babies (which even then would obviously take 2+ decades to start having an impact) we either need to import a lot more people or we need a lot more people here to work a lot longer.
With neither of these things being attractive to government because they'd both potentially lose them votes, we end up with the current messy situation which doesn't really work for anybody, so it got me thinking. Why not have a hybrid solution?
Every 5 years, the government could tell us how many immigrants are going to be required to fill the labour gap for the following 5 years and then put it to a vote...
If you're happy to accept your share of immigration then you vote Yes and carry on.
If you don't want to accept your share of immigration, then you can vote No, the government reduces the quota to reflect your desire, and they extend by 12 months the age at which you can claim your state pension and access your personal pension funds or, if you're already retired, simply suspend access for 12 months whilst you go back to work.
If every voter can choose individually between allowing immigration or working longer to fill the employment gap resulting from population ageing without immigration, wouldn't that be a fairer way for all to ensure that the country can continue to operate?
1. A lot of people are opposed to immigration. Some completely opposed, others not 100% opposed, but wanting to see much tighter limits.
2. People don't generally want to work longer than they have to, and pensioners certainly don't want to return to the workplace.
3. We aren't having enough children in the West, and haven't been for a long time. Over the next 15 years, a little over a million more people are likely to retire and leave the workforce than there are children to reach adulthood and enter it.
Presumably everyone can agree that this is quite a significant issue, and it's one that is exacerbated by the fact that for some time the increase in life expectancy has been far outstripping healthy life expectancy, meaning that the long term plan for the NHS would see the share of the total workforce employed by the NHS would increase from 1 in 17 currently to 1 in 11 over the next decade, and the projection is only being kept that low by using projected increases in staff efficiency which are around 2-3x that historically seen in the NHS.
In short, unless we can encourage people here to have a lot more babies (which even then would obviously take 2+ decades to start having an impact) we either need to import a lot more people or we need a lot more people here to work a lot longer.
With neither of these things being attractive to government because they'd both potentially lose them votes, we end up with the current messy situation which doesn't really work for anybody, so it got me thinking. Why not have a hybrid solution?
Every 5 years, the government could tell us how many immigrants are going to be required to fill the labour gap for the following 5 years and then put it to a vote...
If you're happy to accept your share of immigration then you vote Yes and carry on.
If you don't want to accept your share of immigration, then you can vote No, the government reduces the quota to reflect your desire, and they extend by 12 months the age at which you can claim your state pension and access your personal pension funds or, if you're already retired, simply suspend access for 12 months whilst you go back to work.
If every voter can choose individually between allowing immigration or working longer to fill the employment gap resulting from population ageing without immigration, wouldn't that be a fairer way for all to ensure that the country can continue to operate?
I am not sure the hundreds of thousands of economic migrants who are being put up in hotels for years are actually contributing much to the country. If once they are allowed to stay they just decide to stay on benefits instead, how is that going to help?
How are you going to force the immigrants to do the low paid jobs that nobody else seems to want to do as they prefer to be "long term disabled"?
Also isn't there a salary where below that you are actually a drain on the economy of this country? I doubt these immigrants are going to get above this level on the whole, they are just potential cheap labour for the fat cats so they can make more money.
How are you going to force the immigrants to do the low paid jobs that nobody else seems to want to do as they prefer to be "long term disabled"?
Also isn't there a salary where below that you are actually a drain on the economy of this country? I doubt these immigrants are going to get above this level on the whole, they are just potential cheap labour for the fat cats so they can make more money.
Joey Deacon said:
I am not sure the hundreds of thousands of economic migrants who are being put up in hotels for years are actually contributing much to the country. If once they are allowed to stay they just decide to stay on benefits instead, how is that going to help?
How are you going to force the immigrants to do the low paid jobs that nobody else seems to want to do as they prefer to be "long term disabled"?
Also isn't there a salary where below that you are actually a drain on the economy of this country? I doubt these immigrants are going to get above this level on the whole, they are just potential cheap labour for the fat cats so they can make more money.
All of that is irrelevant. How are you going to force the immigrants to do the low paid jobs that nobody else seems to want to do as they prefer to be "long term disabled"?
Also isn't there a salary where below that you are actually a drain on the economy of this country? I doubt these immigrants are going to get above this level on the whole, they are just potential cheap labour for the fat cats so they can make more money.
Without immigration, over the next 15 years a million more people will leave the workforce than join it.
Increased automation and the like may replace a small proportion of that million, but history suggests it won't be a vast number, so who is going to fill those vacancies?
1. More immigrants.
2. Indigenous people working longer.
Any discussion about individual roles and salaries is irrelevant. When you retire, you're still going to need people to do low paid jobs for you.
Joey Deacon said:
I am not sure the hundreds of thousands of economic migrants who are being put up in hotels for years are actually contributing much to the country. If once they are allowed to stay they just decide to stay on benefits instead, how is that going to help?
How are you going to force the immigrants to do the low paid jobs that nobody else seems to want to do as they prefer to be "long term disabled"?
Also isn't there a salary where below that you are actually a drain on the economy of this country? I doubt these immigrants are going to get above this level on the whole, they are just potential cheap labour for the fat cats so they can make more money.
Also, people being "put up in hotels" aren't allowed to work.How are you going to force the immigrants to do the low paid jobs that nobody else seems to want to do as they prefer to be "long term disabled"?
Also isn't there a salary where below that you are actually a drain on the economy of this country? I doubt these immigrants are going to get above this level on the whole, they are just potential cheap labour for the fat cats so they can make more money.
Chainsaw Rebuild said:
Constant population growth isn't sustainable, or environmentally sound. The world is a finite size.
I am anti immigration, certainly I would be in favour of much tighter restrictions. And chucking anyone not born here out, if they commit a crime.
Population doesn't have to grow, but it does need to be stable, or you end up with the situation we have now. The proportion of the population too old to work becoming an increasingly unbearable load on those who can.I am anti immigration, certainly I would be in favour of much tighter restrictions. And chucking anyone not born here out, if they commit a crime.
The last time women had more than 2 children on average in this country was in 1972.
We have plenty of people, they just arent working.
Heres a better idea.
Make prisioners do jobs instead of sitting in a comfy cell. Mobilse the army inbetween training exercises, conscript everyone aged 18-60 to do a basic st johns course then do a months (paid work) for the NHS/ Carehomes ( Porters, low level medical triage etc) every 5 years.
If you are sat at home 'looking for work', you get sent to the nearest care home for a few hours each day while your doing that, thats how you earn your job seekers.
Heres a better idea.
Make prisioners do jobs instead of sitting in a comfy cell. Mobilse the army inbetween training exercises, conscript everyone aged 18-60 to do a basic st johns course then do a months (paid work) for the NHS/ Carehomes ( Porters, low level medical triage etc) every 5 years.
If you are sat at home 'looking for work', you get sent to the nearest care home for a few hours each day while your doing that, thats how you earn your job seekers.
A500leroy said:
We have plenty of people, they just arent working.
Heres a better idea.
Make prisioners do jobs instead of sitting in a comfy cell. Mobilse the army inbetween training exercises, conscript everyone aged 18-60 to do a basic st johns course then do a months (paid work) for the NHS/ Carehomes ( Porters, low level medical triage etc) every 5 years.
If you are sat at home 'looking for work', you get sent to the nearest care home for a few hours each day while your doing that, thats how you earn your job seekers.
But... human rights innitHeres a better idea.
Make prisioners do jobs instead of sitting in a comfy cell. Mobilse the army inbetween training exercises, conscript everyone aged 18-60 to do a basic st johns course then do a months (paid work) for the NHS/ Carehomes ( Porters, low level medical triage etc) every 5 years.
If you are sat at home 'looking for work', you get sent to the nearest care home for a few hours each day while your doing that, thats how you earn your job seekers.
Didn't you see the furore that last time the government proposed making people work for their bennies, talking about minimum wage breaches etc.
Avoid that by getting them to do a couple of hours a day so that their benefit is the equivalent of minimum wage, with plenty of time to find work
And for those who say that benefits aren't a choice - I live in a council house despite me and the other half both working (both previously divorced and left in the hole financially). There's plenty of perfectly capable here doing nothing, but who all have newer cars than us and go on holiday more often.
We could fill that hole in the working population quite easily if those who choose a life milking the system had that option taken away
High quality immigration - engineers, Doctors, nurses etc. I have no issue with. But paying out more overall to imported "cheap" labour sees us double paying for both economic migrants, and the inherently work-shy that are already on the books of DWP Plc
Why should those who have worked for 50 years be punished further than they already have been?
A500leroy said:
We have plenty of people, they just arent working.
Why would they bother, it is more stick than carrot these days. You can see why people would rather be on benefits because they are "long term sick" rather than bother doing some minimum wage job where the company want their pound of flesh.I almost think that the people who don't do this and work in average paid jobs are the stupid ones. If you get a mortgage then you are essentially agreeing to work for the man for the foreseeable future just to pay for it.
Prices are so high because there are so many people with so much money that you are never going to be able to compete. They pay cash, you end up paying double back over 25 years from some overpriced tiny house due to competition.
Then if you do try and earn more money they tax you on it so much that it is barely worth the bother.
Personally I am trying to pay my mortgage off as soon as possible so I can get into a situation where I won't be working anymore, it's just not worth the bother.
A500leroy said:
We have plenty of people, they just arent working.
Heres a better idea.
Make prisioners do jobs instead of sitting in a comfy cell. Mobilse the army inbetween training exercises, conscript everyone aged 18-60 to do a basic st johns course then do a months (paid work) for the NHS/ Carehomes ( Porters, low level medical triage etc) every 5 years.
If you are sat at home 'looking for work', you get sent to the nearest care home for a few hours each day while your doing that, thats how you earn your job seekers.
Okay, I'm all for having prisoners working. I doubt they'll be as productive as people on the outside, but for the moment let's assume they are. You've accounted for 89,000 of that million gap. Yay!Heres a better idea.
Make prisioners do jobs instead of sitting in a comfy cell. Mobilse the army inbetween training exercises, conscript everyone aged 18-60 to do a basic st johns course then do a months (paid work) for the NHS/ Carehomes ( Porters, low level medical triage etc) every 5 years.
If you are sat at home 'looking for work', you get sent to the nearest care home for a few hours each day while your doing that, thats how you earn your job seekers.
The Armed Forces one is a bit odd, as it seems as though you think they only have any work to do when they're on training exercises? You don't think they might have to maintain equipment, gain new skills, practice marksmanship and all that sort of stuff as well? All the same, let's say you can have a third of the forces stacking shelves in Tesco at any given time. That's roughly an extra 45,000 off the million! Double Yay!
Only around 850k to go, so where shall we find them?
The job seeker one is interesting. A little bit Fascist - in fact something that Franco's government in Spain used to do! The only slight problem with it was always what job you got them to do? It was a little easier in 1950s Spain, as they still required huge amounts of manual labour for things like road building and agriculture. Not so sure here?
Kermit power said:
Also, people being "put up in hotels" aren't allowed to work.
Indeed, it strikes me that this is a big falling down point, I don't know much about the immigration situation but to my very simplistic view it can't be beneficial for anyone to simply house those entering into hotels and just leave them there doing nothing. Would it not be more beneficial all round to give these people some kind or work whilst their asylum claims are processed?
Maybe i'm missing something glaringly obvious though
valiant said:
Demographics are changing.
We are getting older and leaving the workforce and are not being replaced by the young in sufficient numbers so we either have more babies or import our labour.
But then we have a country that is over crowded and that is detrimental to everyone. The infrastructure cannot cope with the millions of people you claim need to work to pay for the elderly.We are getting older and leaving the workforce and are not being replaced by the young in sufficient numbers so we either have more babies or import our labour.
That is assuming they work and don't just decide to go on benefits life everyone else.
Pieman68 said:
A500leroy said:
We have plenty of people, they just arent working.
Heres a better idea.
Make prisioners do jobs instead of sitting in a comfy cell. Mobilse the army inbetween training exercises, conscript everyone aged 18-60 to do a basic st johns course then do a months (paid work) for the NHS/ Carehomes ( Porters, low level medical triage etc) every 5 years.
If you are sat at home 'looking for work', you get sent to the nearest care home for a few hours each day while your doing that, thats how you earn your job seekers.
But... human rights innitHeres a better idea.
Make prisioners do jobs instead of sitting in a comfy cell. Mobilse the army inbetween training exercises, conscript everyone aged 18-60 to do a basic st johns course then do a months (paid work) for the NHS/ Carehomes ( Porters, low level medical triage etc) every 5 years.
If you are sat at home 'looking for work', you get sent to the nearest care home for a few hours each day while your doing that, thats how you earn your job seekers.
Didn't you see the furore that last time the government proposed making people work for their bennies, talking about minimum wage breaches etc.
Avoid that by getting them to do a couple of hours a day so that their benefit is the equivalent of minimum wage, with plenty of time to find work
And for those who say that benefits aren't a choice - I live in a council house despite me and the other half both working (both previously divorced and left in the hole financially). There's plenty of perfectly capable here doing nothing, but who all have newer cars than us and go on holiday more often.
We could fill that hole in the working population quite easily if those who choose a life milking the system had that option taken away
High quality immigration - engineers, Doctors, nurses etc. I have no issue with. But paying out more overall to imported "cheap" labour sees us double paying for both economic migrants, and the inherently work-shy that are already on the books of DWP Plc
Why should those who have worked for 50 years be punished further than they already have been?
It takes the piss when someone on benefits say they get paid. They don't, they get given a handout. As above, they should all be made to do some vocational training, and then made to do some work for the community to earn their benefits, then they can say they get paid.
Most of us work our arses off for the minority to just sponge off us.
Joey Deacon said:
But then we have a country that is over crowded and that is detrimental to everyone. The infrastructure cannot cope with the millions of people you claim need to work to pay for the elderly.
That is assuming they work and don't just decide to go on benefits life everyone else.
I’m sure you’ll enjoy a retirement without a pension. That is assuming they work and don't just decide to go on benefits life everyone else.
Pieman68 said:
But... human rights innit
Didn't you see the furore that last time the government proposed making people work for their bennies, talking about minimum wage breaches etc.
Avoid that by getting them to do a couple of hours a day so that their benefit is the equivalent of minimum wage, with plenty of time to find work
And for those who say that benefits aren't a choice - I live in a council house despite me and the other half both working (both previously divorced and left in the hole financially). There's plenty of perfectly capable here doing nothing, but who all have newer cars than us and go on holiday more often.
We could fill that hole in the working population quite easily if those who choose a life milking the system had that option taken away
High quality immigration - engineers, Doctors, nurses etc. I have no issue with. But paying out more overall to imported "cheap" labour sees us double paying for both economic migrants, and the inherently work-shy that are already on the books of DWP Plc
Why should those who have worked for 50 years be punished further than they already have been?
There are 297,000 people in the UK who have been out of work for more than 12 months and are claiming benefits. Where are the additional 700k+ milking a life on benefits?Didn't you see the furore that last time the government proposed making people work for their bennies, talking about minimum wage breaches etc.
Avoid that by getting them to do a couple of hours a day so that their benefit is the equivalent of minimum wage, with plenty of time to find work
And for those who say that benefits aren't a choice - I live in a council house despite me and the other half both working (both previously divorced and left in the hole financially). There's plenty of perfectly capable here doing nothing, but who all have newer cars than us and go on holiday more often.
We could fill that hole in the working population quite easily if those who choose a life milking the system had that option taken away
High quality immigration - engineers, Doctors, nurses etc. I have no issue with. But paying out more overall to imported "cheap" labour sees us double paying for both economic migrants, and the inherently work-shy that are already on the books of DWP Plc
Why should those who have worked for 50 years be punished further than they already have been?
Also, who are these people who've who've worked for 50 years and are being punished?
Most people retiring today will have worked maybe 45-47 years and can expect to live another 21 years on average in retirement. Unfortunately, far from being "punished", the vast majority of them simply have not paid enough in to retire for that long, especially if there aren't enough working people in the country to support them both fiscally and with their labour.
Joey Deacon said:
valiant said:
Demographics are changing.
We are getting older and leaving the workforce and are not being replaced by the young in sufficient numbers so we either have more babies or import our labour.
But then we have a country that is over crowded and that is detrimental to everyone. The infrastructure cannot cope with the millions of people you claim need to work to pay for the elderly.We are getting older and leaving the workforce and are not being replaced by the young in sufficient numbers so we either have more babies or import our labour.
That is assuming they work and don't just decide to go on benefits life everyone else.
It may need to increase in the short term though, because increasing life expectancy and failure of retirement age to keep pace with it has meant that more people have been retiring than dying, but life expectancy won't keep increasing indefinitely.
Then, setting aside the ludicrous notion that "everyone else" is on benefits, it would be relatively cheap to just set up a government overseas recruitment agency to ensure that the immigrants coming in have jobs to go to.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff