Home Secretary announces points-based immigration system
Discussion
Stay in Bed Instead said:
Mobile Chicane said:
I work part time as a chef in a gastropub. We struggle to recruit kitchen staff as it is due to systemic issues in the industry, not helped by a rural location.
Of these 9 million economically inactive, how many of those are going to hack a ten hour shift in a kitchen that's 45C in the height of summer? How many of those will want to live in, in the @rse end of nowhere?
It's certainly going to be 'interesting' once the EU option is no longer available.
Pay them £30,000 pa and they will.Of these 9 million economically inactive, how many of those are going to hack a ten hour shift in a kitchen that's 45C in the height of summer? How many of those will want to live in, in the @rse end of nowhere?
It's certainly going to be 'interesting' once the EU option is no longer available.
By 'decent' I don't mean molecular gastronomy; basic chef skills like making pastry, stocks, sauces, boning meat, etc.
Murph7355 said:
The stick is coming - radical shake up of the benefits system. Maybe not this year - way too many bear traps to navigate this year. But I would bet a large amount of money that it's coming.
I look forward- I've always believed that benefits should be a safety net & no more. I accept that some genuinely can't work but the majority should always be in a position where they're better off working, regardless of their lifestyle choices.R Mutt said:
Mobile Chicane said:
We do pay that. Still can't get anyone decent.
By 'decent' I don't mean molecular gastronomy; basic chef skills like making pastry, stocks, sauces, boning meat, etc.
Someone does these jobs.By 'decent' I don't mean molecular gastronomy; basic chef skills like making pastry, stocks, sauces, boning meat, etc.
Mobile Chicane said:
You'd be surprised at the number of 'chefs' we get through the door who can't make béchamel, can't whip cream, have no idea what a demi-glace is.
Some things never change. Finding half decent chefs that knew one end of a knife from the other was always a headache. Pay rates have gone up though, I did 18 hour days for £3/hr back when I were a lad 
JagLover said:
FiF said:
One observation I encountered yesterday.
2015-2019 There is absolutely no evidence that wages have been depressed by migration of low skilled workers.
Same person now says
2020 Well you're going to have to pay more for your coffee because of proposed immigration system.
2015-2019 There is absolutely no evidence that wages have been depressed by migration of low skilled workers.
Same person now says
2020 Well you're going to have to pay more for your coffee because of proposed immigration system.
Even more fun if you spot how many who are supposedly "left wing" who denounce this measure that might potentially raises wages for the low paid.
Under normal circumstances the wage is a function of supply and demand. However (with the current system) no matter how many immigrants move to the UK, the wage can never be below the NLW. There’s an artificial limit on how far wages can be depressed.
If you reduced supply by stopping migration but there was surplus indigenous labour to meet the shortfall then wages wouldn’t rise.
However you now have a combination of limits on immigration and full employment so wages will HAVE to rise. The problem is that Employers are chasing the same limited pool of labour and it could potentially end up with spiralling wage inflation as people jump from job to job. It’s definitely going to be a good thing for those on low skilled/semi skilled jobs.
Agammemnon said:
Murph7355 said:
The stick is coming - radical shake up of the benefits system. Maybe not this year - way too many bear traps to navigate this year. But I would bet a large amount of money that it's coming.
I look forward- I've always believed that benefits should be a safety net & no more. I accept that some genuinely can't work but the majority should always be in a position where they're better off working, regardless of their lifestyle choices.A friend of my wife’s is on benefits. Hubby dumped her and her kids for a newer model. AIUI the amount that she gets is peanuts, certainly less than minimum wage....
Countdown said:
I wonder if somebody could help me out. How does somebody on “benefits” get more money than somebody “in work” [Unless they’re working cash in hand jobs on the side]?
A friend of my wife’s is on benefits. Hubby dumped her and her kids for a newer model. AIUI the amount that she gets is peanuts, certainly less than minimum wage....
It might be less than minimum wage, but if your friend had to work a minimum wage job and pay for childcare she could be worse off.A friend of my wife’s is on benefits. Hubby dumped her and her kids for a newer model. AIUI the amount that she gets is peanuts, certainly less than minimum wage....
Countdown said:
Agammemnon said:
Murph7355 said:
The stick is coming - radical shake up of the benefits system. Maybe not this year - way too many bear traps to navigate this year. But I would bet a large amount of money that it's coming.
I look forward- I've always believed that benefits should be a safety net & no more. I accept that some genuinely can't work but the majority should always be in a position where they're better off working, regardless of their lifestyle choices.A friend of my wife’s is on benefits. Hubby dumped her and her kids for a newer model. AIUI the amount that she gets is peanuts, certainly less than minimum wage....
I suppose some people might think that if benefits come without doing any work, then spending 40 hours a week working to get slightly more than benefits doesn't justify the work involved, but to say black and white that it is possible to be better off on jobseekers than in work, even on minimum wage, is complete b
ks. Condi said:
They don't, but it fits the point some people are trying to make and facts are of secondary importance. What is entirely wrong with the world today.
I suppose some people might think that if benefits come without doing any work, then spending 40 hours a week working to get slightly more than benefits doesn't justify the work involved, but to say black and white that it is possible to be better off on jobseekers than in work, even on minimum wage, is complete bks.
In the posts you quoted, nobody seemed to be doing that...I suppose some people might think that if benefits come without doing any work, then spending 40 hours a week working to get slightly more than benefits doesn't justify the work involved, but to say black and white that it is possible to be better off on jobseekers than in work, even on minimum wage, is complete b
ks. As you note, "better off" isn't always entirely economic. And benefits do not stop at job seekers allowance.
Regardless, a large chunk of our expenditure is on benefits. And we spend a lot more than we gather. Something has to give.
Condi said:
They don't, but it fits the point some people are trying to make and facts are of secondary importance. What is entirely wrong with the world today.
I suppose some people might think that if benefits come without doing any work, then spending 40 hours a week working to get slightly more than benefits doesn't justify the work involved, but to say black and white that it is possible to be better off on jobseekers than in work, even on minimum wage, is complete bks.
There were a number of households affected by a benefits cap of £26K which is a lot more than net pay on the minimum wage. I suppose some people might think that if benefits come without doing any work, then spending 40 hours a week working to get slightly more than benefits doesn't justify the work involved, but to say black and white that it is possible to be better off on jobseekers than in work, even on minimum wage, is complete b
ks. Countdown said:
I wonder if somebody could help me out. How does somebody on “benefits” get more money than somebody “in work” [Unless they’re working cash in hand jobs on the side]?
A friend of my wife’s is on benefits. Hubby dumped her and her kids for a newer model. AIUI the amount that she gets is peanuts, certainly less than minimum wage....
I am sure you will earn more on minimum wage than you will on benefits. Although you do need to look at all benefits. Housing and council tax benefits can be quite large.A friend of my wife’s is on benefits. Hubby dumped her and her kids for a newer model. AIUI the amount that she gets is peanuts, certainly less than minimum wage....
What matters is the marginal benefit of working once you have taken about all the costs of working, child care, travel, clothes.
I knew some one a while a go in this situation. They took home about £50 more a week by working than they would by not working. That's £50 for a 45 hour week, 40 working and 5 travel.
Their marginal tax rate (i.e the amount of tax and NI paid plus loss of in work benefits) was about 80%.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff