"No more Polish vermin"

[jjlynn27]

NorfolkInClue1 said:

Can I ask though, are you selling internationally from the U.K or are you based outside of the EU as there is a big difference, I only ask as your experience kind of goes against the experiences of a close relative of mine, who, whilst we were on holiday last year after the vote he was explaining that his company, based in the US along with himself has a nightmare dealing with EU member countries.
His company is in the software business, he is director of IT solutions and has an office in America, one in Berlin for Europe and one in tokyo for the Asian/ Australasian market. He said that 99% of the problems that the company suffers overseas comes from the Berlin office. He said its no coincidence that both offices have the same structure and objectives but the Japan office has almost half the staff but covers a much much larger territory .
Apparently the worst experiences were dealing with large European companies who themselves had offices in different parts of Europe leading to , how can I put it, different work ethics. One part of said company would be trying its hardest to implement things whilst others were slightly less organised and forward thinking.

EU sales are handled from the UK. When I said there are no issues selling to EU countries, what I meant was there are no EU induced issues. Some clients can be notoriously difficult to get the mouney out of, but we have that in UK and other markets as well.

[Jockman]

jjlynn27 said:

....(can you have a company without having an accountant?) / acc. dept....

[Eric Mc]

rscott said:

How many companies are big enough to sell software around the world yet don't have an accountant/ accounts department?
High value software usually comes with a support agreement and the resources that entails, so a company selling that will usually have the infrastructure to handle vat codes.
Low value software tends to be sold via third party digital marketplaces which handle the various vat rates for you.

You would be surprised.

HMRC introduced a supposed "One Stop Shop" for smaller businesses having to deal with the complex VAT rules introduced a couple of years ago. The system is called MOSS.

Have a read of it and tell me how easy this makes things for smaller traders -

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/register-and-use-the-v...

Some have either given up selling to other EU countries or just given up.

[Eric Mc]

Jockman said:

jjlynn27 said:

....(can you have a company without having an accountant?) / acc. dept....

Absolutely.

It may not be advisable but there is no law saying a company has to use an accountant.Indeed, HMRC prefers that companies receive no advice regarding their tax affairs.

[///ajd]

davepoth said:

///ajd said:

A website dedicated to observing migration implies some bias may be at play - UCL seems more credible, which I guess is why you chose that first.

You do know what "ox.ac.uk" means in a web address, don't you?

Did you actually read the article? It references out to the exact same Dustman/Frattini report - which is what I summarised in the first place. So you have linked to another site thinking that it proves your point when in fact it is the same basic data.

It shows that you just grab the headline and don't actually digest the contents or detail at all.

This is perfect proof of my theory that many anti-immigrant views are based on emotion and rhetoric, rather than a rationale assessment of the facts, which just bounce off or are ignored.

[davepoth]

///ajd said:

Did you actually read the article? It references out to the exact same Dustman/Frattini report - which is what I summarised in the first place. So you have linked to another site thinking that it proves your point when in fact it is the same basic data.

It shows that you just grab the headline and don't actually digest the contents or detail at all.

This is perfect proof of my theory that many anti-immigrant views are based on emotion and rhetoric, rather than a rationale assessment of the facts, which just bounce off or are ignored.

Hang on, you said that it was biased against immigration and then after reading it reversed that position, and you're telling me that I don't read properly?

OK then.

It references the study I posted earlier and points out that while wages as a whole are generally positively affected by immigration, the poorest 10% of the population see wages decrease. That study also found that the educational attainment of immigrants in any wage percentile outstripped that of the native population.

So we have got an academic study that backs up emotion and rhetoric - firstly, that immigration does hold down wages for the poorest in society; and secondly, that in many circumstances the CV of an immigrant applying for a low wage job will look much better than the CV of a native person applying for that same job, making the immigrant a more attractive employee on that basis.

Once again, those goes back to the most basic question. And if you're game I'd quite like you to answer it. What is a state for?

[///ajd]

davepoth said:

///ajd said:

Did you actually read the article? It references out to the exact same Dustman/Frattini report - which is what I summarised in the first place. So you have linked to another site thinking that it proves your point when in fact it is the same basic data.

It shows that you just grab the headline and don't actually digest the contents or detail at all.

This is perfect proof of my theory that many anti-immigrant views are based on emotion and rhetoric, rather than a rationale assessment of the facts, which just bounce off or are ignored.

Hang on, you said that it was biased against immigration and then after reading it reversed that position, and you're telling me that I don't read properly?

OK then.

It references the study I posted earlier and points out that while wages as a whole are generally positively affected by immigration, the poorest 10% of the population see wages decrease. That study also found that the educational attainment of immigrants in any wage percentile outstripped that of the native population.

So we have got an academic study that backs up emotion and rhetoric - firstly, that immigration does hold down wages for the poorest in society; and secondly, that in many circumstances the CV of an immigrant applying for a low wage job will look much better than the CV of a native person applying for that same job, making the immigrant a more attractive employee on that basis.

Once again, those goes back to the most basic question. And if you're game I'd quite like you to answer it. What is a state for?

I admit - it didn't check the references carefully the first time - I didn't think you'd post one report, which I pointed out did not support your argument, then see you post another saying "how about this one then?", and consider it would be based on the same report/data. Me not reading carefully a post you use is one thing - you not reading one you use to try and support your argument is another.

Do you think £1/month impact is material? Its in the noise.

So the immigrants are bettering themselves with education. And you think that is a bad thing? They sound like they have the skills and motivation to better themselves - the sort of immigrant that helps the economy & boosts jobs. This also neatly brings up the fallacy of the "lump of labour". The number of jobs in an economy is not fixed - immigrants can create even more jobs.

Which brings us around to your "states are for protection" point (which is I assume what you are driving at, you aren't specific).

What sort of protection do you have in mind? If immigration creates even more jobs, and 80% are paid more, then whats to protect?

[davepoth]

Both the original article and the second one suggested a wage differential of around 0.5% per 1% increase of immigrants in the workforce, which is why I questioned the use of "p" in the first one, as it may have been the p-value (which is a measure of statistical significance).

0.5% of £1036 per month:

http://voxpoliticalonline.com/2016/01/23/average-w...

Is £5 a month. Again not a massive amount of money for most people, but if you are very poor it could make all the difference. However, the UK population is 13% immigrant, and if we extrapolate that to be 13% of the working population (and in reality it will be more than that) the wages of the bottom 10% are something like 6.5% lower than if we had no immigration, which is £67. That's a significant amount of money.

While I'm not suggesting that we should have no immigration, it's important to understand that immigration does have an affect on the parts of society who are least able to do anything about it by moving to a different area, or retraining.

So you're saying "So long as most people are doing well, the poorest will be OK?" Isn't that "Trickle down economics"?

[jjlynn27]

davepoth said:

....

Is £5 a month. Again not a massive amount of money for most people, but if you are very poor it could make all the difference.

....

Just stop. Please. £5 is 1/2 hour at minimum wage. There is no scenario in which £5 could make 'all the difference'.

[s2art]

jjlynn27 said:

davepoth said:

....

Is £5 a month. Again not a massive amount of money for most people, but if you are very poor it could make all the difference.

....

Just stop. Please. £5 is 1/2 hour at minimum wage. There is no scenario in which £5 could make 'all the difference'.

He actually said £67 per month. And nobody has factored in how many cant find a job at all who would have found one if there were fewer immigrants. (again, only talking about the bottom 10% or so)

[///ajd]

jjlynn27 said:

davepoth said:

....

Is £5 a month. Again not a massive amount of money for most people, but if you are very poor it could make all the difference.

....

Just stop. Please. £5 is 1/2 hour at minimum wage. There is no scenario in which £5 could make 'all the difference'.

Indeed.

Anyone in the top 80% of earners - that's anyone earning above £14k a year - will have wages that have INCREASED due to the effect of immigration.

And immigration can CREATE more jobs than they take - there is no limit on the number of jobs - its a well known fallacy to suggest "they are taking our jobs".

How many people stay in jobs are low paid as that for their whole lives? How many people might not have that job at all if immigration had not stimulated the economy.

A bin man earns £24-32k/year depending on region.

This wage issue comes across as an convenient excuse to want to get rid of immigrants.

[SKP555]

///ajd said:

Indeed.

Anyone in the top 80% of earners - that's anyone earning above £14k a year - will have wages that have INCREASED due to the effect of immigration.

That's a glaringly statistically illiterate reading of the UCL figures you posted earlier in the thread.

The net effect may have been positive on those earning above £14k as a whole but the distribution will not be uniform across different industries, occupations and regions.

[davepoth]

///ajd said:

jjlynn27 said:

davepoth said:

....

Is £5 a month. Again not a massive amount of money for most people, but if you are very poor it could make all the difference.

....

Just stop. Please. £5 is 1/2 hour at minimum wage. There is no scenario in which £5 could make 'all the difference'.

Indeed.

Anyone in the top 80% of earners - that's anyone earning above £14k a year - will have wages that have INCREASED due to the effect of immigration.

And immigration can CREATE more jobs than they take - there is no limit on the number of jobs - its a well known fallacy to suggest "they are taking our jobs".

How many people stay in jobs are low paid as that for their whole lives? How many people might not have that job at all if immigration had not stimulated the economy.

A bin man earns £24-32k/year depending on region.

This wage issue comes across as an convenient excuse to want to get rid of immigrants.

£5 might not make a difference to powerfully built directors such as yourselves, but imagine if it made the difference between going overdrawn or not - my bank charges £80 for that privilege. Or that might force you to go to a payday lender, or a loan shark. That's even before you consider that £5 is probably just about enough to feed a person for a week if you subsist on noodles, or enough to heat your bedsit.

You seem to have very little appreciation for quite how a segment of society does live so close to the breadline that £5 can and does make the difference. I think you should both take a good look in the mirror and see if you recognise the person looking back, because it's probably Margaret Thatcher's ghost. And she will be angry with you for being mean.

[///ajd]

davepoth said:

///ajd said:

jjlynn27 said:

davepoth said:

....

Is £5 a month. Again not a massive amount of money for most people, but if you are very poor it could make all the difference.

....

Just stop. Please. £5 is 1/2 hour at minimum wage. There is no scenario in which £5 could make 'all the difference'.

Indeed.

Anyone in the top 80% of earners - that's anyone earning above £14k a year - will have wages that have INCREASED due to the effect of immigration.

And immigration can CREATE more jobs than they take - there is no limit on the number of jobs - its a well known fallacy to suggest "they are taking our jobs".

How many people stay in jobs are low paid as that for their whole lives? How many people might not have that job at all if immigration had not stimulated the economy.

A bin man earns £24-32k/year depending on region.

This wage issue comes across as an convenient excuse to want to get rid of immigrants.

£5 might not make a difference to powerfully built directors such as yourselves, but imagine if it made the difference between going overdrawn or not - my bank charges £80 for that privilege. Or that might force you to go to a payday lender, or a loan shark. That's even before you consider that £5 is probably just about enough to feed a person for a week if you subsist on noodles, or enough to heat your bedsit.

You seem to have very little appreciation for quite how a segment of society does live so close to the breadline that £5 can and does make the difference. I think you should both take a good look in the mirror and see if you recognise the person looking back, because it's probably Margaret Thatcher's ghost. And she will be angry with you for being mean.

You might want to look in your own mirror.

It is not me demonizing immigrants over some marginal wage impact that in my view you are totally exaggerating. Whats more you are ignoring the fact that immigrants don't just take jobs - they have an impact that creates jobs.

So those people you pretend to care about losing £5 might not even have any job at all if it weren't for immigration.

Now that's mean.

[Deptford Draylons]

///ajd said:

And immigration can CREATE more jobs than they take - there is no limit on the number of jobs - its a well known fallacy to suggest "they are taking our jobs".

Create more than they take. Can you define that a little further for everyone ?

[///ajd]

Deptford Draylons said:

///ajd said:

And immigration can CREATE more jobs than they take - there is no limit on the number of jobs - its a well known fallacy to suggest "they are taking our jobs".

Create more than they take. Can you define that a little further for everyone ?

Sure:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_falla...

HTH

Easyjet has over 10,000 employees. Who started that company again?

Edited by ///ajd on Saturday 18th February 21:45

[davepoth]

///ajd said:

You might want to look in your own mirror.

It is not me demonizing immigrants over some marginal wage impact that in my view you are totally exaggerating. Whats more you are ignoring the fact that immigrants don't just take jobs - they have an impact that creates jobs.

So those people you pretend to care about losing £5 might not even have any job at all if it weren't for immigration.

Now that's mean.

You've answered the question "What's the state for?" then - to grow the economy, regardless of the effects. Why do you care so little about the poor people in this country?

[///ajd]

davepoth said:

///ajd said:

You might want to look in your own mirror.

It is not me demonizing immigrants over some marginal wage impact that in my view you are totally exaggerating. Whats more you are ignoring the fact that immigrants don't just take jobs - they have an impact that creates jobs.

So those people you pretend to care about losing £5 might not even have any job at all if it weren't for immigration.

Now that's mean.

You've answered the question "What's the state for?" then - to grow the economy, regardless of the effects. Why do you care so little about the poor people in this country?

I do care. I want them to have a job - and that's going to be something supported by a strong economy, not one hobbled by hard brexit.

[davepoth]

///ajd said:

Sure:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_falla...

HTH

Easyjet has over 10,000 employees. Who started that company again?

Edited by ///ajd on Saturday 18th February 21:45

A resident of Monaco who only holds a British passport for tax purposes?

[///ajd]

davepoth said:

///ajd said:

Sure:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_falla...

HTH

Easyjet has over 10,000 employees. Who started that company again?

Edited by ///ajd on Saturday 18th February 21:45

A resident of Monaco who only holds a British passport for tax purposes?

An EU immigrant who came to study in the UK and set up a company in the UK that employs over 10,000 people, with revenues just under £5Bn. Its headquartered in Luton, UK. I don't know much it contributes to our GDP and tax, but it can't be bad for it.

If we start to make the UK unattractive to such immigrants - which brexit is having a good crack at so far - who is to say the next Easyjet won't find itself based somewhere else.