Brian Lenihan blames euro and Eastern cheap labour for recession

DublinWriter

airhorn wrote: »

These immigrants need to return home now,

Yes, those pesky immigrants who pay Irish taxes and Irish landlords!

Part of the real problem is that we Irish have become bone-idle and refuse to do jobs that we consider are beneath us.

But of course maybe you don't see the delicious irony of Irish people complaining about immigration?

If you don't believe immigration works, then take a swift look at the United States of America.

The Celtic Tiger was the worst thing that ever happened to the country? Were you even here in the 70's and 80's?

AuRevoir

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/fraudsters-flew-in-to-claim-dole-payments-1801725.html

''NON-national dole cheats defrauded millions of euro from the Exchequer by flying into the country once a month to sign on.

New figures obtained by the Irish Independent show thousands of foreign benefit claimants were investigated by the Department of Social and Family Affairs between October 2007 and February last year.

In a first trawl of suspected benefit fraudsters, 776 non-national cases were examined, of which 76 were found to be permanently living outside of the State.

Officials were so alarmed they ordered residency checks on a further 3,665 non-nationals, and found that 403 (11pc) of these were living outside the State and flying in once a month to collect their benefit.

The vast majority of the claimants were from Eastern European countries.

Both investigations between them yielded savings of more than €4m -- or up to €10,000 per dole cheat -- for the cash-strapped Exchequer.

The fraudsters had been getting the cash wired to bank accounts in Ireland, while flying here once a month to sign on at their local dole office.

Even with the deduction of flight costs, each claimant took home nearly €1,000 a month.

The revelation raised questions about the full extent of the fraud, which has still to be fully quantified.

Urgent nationwide residency checks were introduced for all non-Irish claimants on jobseekers' benefits after evidence of the widespread fraud became apparent last year.

The revelation comes as gloomy new figures confirmed that record numbers are now signing on the Live Register.''

I suppose all the liberals think this is acceptable too.

asdasd

When you think that many accession state migrants worked in construction (lowering house prices), and that they tended to be cheaper than Irish workers (lowering house prices),

During the boom, the effect of external contruction workers was to lower wages, but not house prices. This is empirically the case.

Part of the real problem is that we Irish have become bone-idle and refuse to do jobs that we consider are beneath us.

But of course maybe you don't see the delicious irony of Irish people complaining about immigration?

If you don't believe immigration works, then take a swift look at the United States of America.

Almost every point there is the typical PC bull that has been repudicated a number of times in any number of threads.

The US is not Europe. It is still largely empty - Cornwall has a population slightly smaller than Montana - which is few times bigger than the UK. Ireland is highly populated compared to the US, where immigration has caused quite a lot of problems int the last twenty years.

The "Irish wont do the jobs" is bourgeois claptrap, generally posted by people in protected jobs ( like journalism). The Irish used to do these jobs, plenty of Irish are now unemployed, and would do them if they were available. It is hardly likely that the Irish unskilled workforce lost the will to work when immigrants came in, what happened was their wages were undercut, or - as in the case of a relative of mine - they were replaced by cheaper workers.

O'Morris

The Economist wrote:

Are you just speaking your own opinion, or can you find any published report or academic anywhere in the entire world to back that up?

I'm just speaking my own opinion but it's an opinion that I feel confident asserting as though it was an established fact. The decision to throw open our borders led to a massive influx of low-wage eastern Europeans and this led to an increase in the demand for housing and it led to an increased supply of cheap labour. This contributed to our over-reliance on the housing and construction sector in providing jobs, consumption and government revenue.

Of the factors that contributed to the size of the housing bubble of the last few years and the problems that have now resulted from that bubble, the increase in our population due to the massive increase in immigration was one of the major contributory factors.

The Economist wrote:

Their actual impact on housing supply, demand and price hasn't been asserted on this thread

I linked to an article at the start of the thread pointing to a quote from one estate agent showing a massive increase in the demand for housing among the non-national population. According to this article, non-nationals accounted for more than a quarter of new home sales from the Month of January to November in 2005

HOK has reported that, so far this year, almost 30 percent of new homes sales were made to non-nationals, up from under 5 percent just two years ago.

Even if this was just one estate agent and it isn't representative of the country as a whole, it's still very strong anecdotal evidence pointing to a serious increase in the demand for housing around the time that we opened our borders to the east-Europeans.

The Economist wrote:

but O'Morris seems happy to place a considerable amount of blame on them.

I wouldn't place blame on immigrants for wanting to work here or to own homes here any more than I would place blame on Irish people for wanting to work and own homes here.

The Economist wrote:

I'm not denying that. That's perfectly logical. "[D]emand for housing would not have been as great and the supply of labour to build all the houses would have been more limited" was what O'Morris said, followed soon after by calling them a "major contributory factor" to the housing boom.

You seem to be reacting as though I said immigration was a major causal factor rather than a contributory factor. When I said immigration was a major contributory factor I didn't mean that immigration was one of the factors that caused the housing bubble. It was one of the factors that helped contribute to the problem. If I had said (like wikipedia) that demographics was one of the major contributory factors you probably wouldn't have taken any notice. But because I pointed out that most of the growth in the population over the last few years was related to the increase in immigration you went into the typical "look he's blaming immigrants for our problems" mode and tried to make it seem as though I claimed something I didn't.

There's a difference between something causing a problem and something contributing to a problem. Immigration didn't cause the housing bubble but it did contribute to the problem, and relative to the other contributory factors, I think it was one of the major ones.

The Economist wrote:

What logic doesn't tell is the actual effect of these guys on house prices. How much were they responsible? 1%? 3%? 6%?

I never said that immigrants had a major effect on house prices. I do have this quote from David McWilliams though if it's of any relevance

David McWilliams wrote:

If the immigrants go, the brunt of their absence will be felt in the housing market. This is because immigrants, by expanding the labour force, drive the price of houses or rents higher than they would be had the immigrants not arrived. They also drive workers’ wages lower than they would have been had the immigrants not been competing in the jobs market.

The Economist wrote:

and that they tended to be cheaper than Irish workers (lowering house prices),

Do you have any evidence that the cheaper immigrant labour resulted in lower houses prices rather than in incresed profits for the developers?

and tended not to buy but to rent (only an indirect increase on house prices),

The article I linked to above seems to suggest that immigrants were as likely as Irish people to buy rather than rent

Irish nationals prefer to own their own homes, rather than rent. New arrivals to Ireland appear to have the same preference, with one estate agent reporting that non-national buyers represent up to 30 percent of new homes sales.

Scofflaw wrote:

Here's a graph of Irish house prices since 1996.

http://www.statusireland.com/data/ch...Since-1996.jpg

Note the huge acceleration in house prices associated with immigration? No, because there isn't one. The trend remains exactly the same.[/quote]

I would have expected house prices to rise more steeply following the start of mass immigration in 2004 but there are other factors that determine house prices besides demand. As I've pointed out above, there is strong anecdotal evidence showing an increase in demand among non-nationals following EU enlargement in 2004. Maybe the increase in demand among non-nationals was just an increase relative to the entire population and that there was no overall increase in demand.

djpbarry wrote:

I’m pretty sure there was a referendum or two involved.

I think there was a referendum or two on the Nice treaty but I don't think the decision to lift the restrictions was one of the things we voted on. The Nice treaty didn't require us to immediately open our borders to the new accession states. I might be wrong but I think the decision to lift the restrictions was made independently by the government in the aftermath of second referendum result. We were assured at time that we had nothing to worry about and that anyone who suggested otherwise was just a scaremongering xenophobe.

airhorn

DublinWriter wrote: »

Yes, those pesky immigrants who pay Irish taxes and Irish landlords!

Part of the real problem is that we Irish have become bone-idle and refuse to do jobs that we consider are beneath us.

But of course maybe you don't see the delicious irony of Irish people complaining about immigration?

If you don't believe immigration works, then take a swift look at the United States of America.

The Celtic Tiger was the worst thing that ever happened to the country? Were you even here in the 70's and 80's?

Again we would'nt have all these houses / landlords if it was'nt for the immigrants & Celtic Tiger era,
Opening our borders was the worst thing full stop, as in how many of immigrants are signing on to day, yes they might have helped the economy, but them being here is'nt helping it now. Why are they here now, im talking about the ones thats signing on?

Sand

Jesus wept - immigrants didnt run Ireland into the ground with a series of fiscally foolish budgets. Fianna Fail did that. With broad support too from the public.

Of all the excuses the "bloody immigrants!" one is the stupidest.

airhorn

We were a soft / easy target for them during the Celtic Tiger, & **** me but we're a soft / easy target for them after the Celtic Tiger,

The dole que's would be less than halved if they went home in they morning, some people need to wake up,

dresden8

Sand wrote: »

Jesus wept - immigrants didnt run Ireland into the ground with a series of fiscally foolish budgets. Fianna Fail did that. With broad support too from the public.

Of all the excuses the "bloody immigrants!" one is the stupidest.

Indeed, you'd wonder what Lenihan is up to, trying to convince us to vote yes to Lisbon and then turning around and blaming the ECB and the "bloody immigrants!" for our current mess.

FF well on track to fnck up Lisbon 2.

Thanks Brian

airhorn

Bottom line is if the border was'nt opened up, all these empty / unfinished housing estates around the country that when looked at under the micro-scope is the main reason for our economic crises been worse than alot of other countries around us today.

People thats in favour of them are clearly not people who are in debt up to their neck, with no job, & a family to support,

With the ones currently living here, the vast majority of them working in construction is'nt paying tax, just look up your local paper, hire a polish painter, he'll be paid in cash & still get his 2/3 hundred euros on signing on day.

Throw into that then the ones thats fleecing us by flying in once a month to sign on, jesus christ.... cop on will ye

Mena

airhorn wrote: »

Throw into that then the ones thats fleecing us by flying in once a month to sign on, jesus christ.... cop on will ye

I really could not be arsed ripping apart your rather ill-informed rant, but I will highlight this one point.

They cannot "fly in" once a month to sign on. They need to physically collect their cheque at a post office, once a week. Work out the logistics of this. It's not economically viable.


If they can afford to fly-in once a week to do this, and they're entitled to the JB (as to be entitled, they'd have worked here and paid PRSI for more than two years), then frankly, I don't see a problem.

Time Magazine

asdasd wrote: »

During the boom, the effect of external contruction workers was to lower wages, but not house prices. This is empirically the case.

Link? The issue here is the appropriate counter-factual -- what would house prices have been had construction workers not come in. The fact that house prices rose ignores all other factors.

immigrants came in, what happened was their wages were undercut, or - as in the case of a relative of mine - they were replaced by cheaper workers.

You complain about people in "protected" industries voicing their opinion but then make clear you have your own little tear-jerker to bear. Immigrants undercutting Irish wages are a good thing. Had more of that happened we'd more internationally competitive today, and it lowers prices for the consumer. Just as I'll buy my electronics and CDs from China rather than being ripped off in Dublin, Irish wages being undercut keeps our inflation down.

O'Morris wrote: »

I'm just speaking my own opinion but it's an opinion that I feel confident asserting as though it was an established fact.

Thank you. Your opinion, asserted as though it was an established fact. Once we're all clear about that.

If you have hard evidence to call things "major contributory factors" then that's great. If you don't, please stop asserting them as though they are facts.

And causal and contributory are the same. Correlation and causation are not the same, but causation and contributory are.

The decision to throw open our borders led to a massive influx of low-wage eastern Europeans and this led to an increase in the demand for housing and it led to an increased supply of cheap labour. This contributed to our over-reliance on the housing and construction sector in providing jobs, consumption and government revenue.

You talk about cheap labour as if it were a bad thing. Would you be happier had they demanded higher wages? Besides, you continue to say it was contributory but this is just your opinion.

Of the factors that contributed to the size of the housing bubble of the last few years and the problems that have now resulted from that bubble, the increase in our population due to the massive increase in immigration was one of the major contributory factors.

Again, this is your opinion stated as fact.

I linked to an article at the start of the thread pointing to a quote from one estate agent showing a massive increase in the demand for housing among the non-national population. According to this article, non-nationals accounted for more than a quarter of new home sales from the Month of January to November in 2005

And I can link to anecdotal evidence from the country's largest mortgage brokers over the same period that finds less than 2,000 non-nationals even enquired about getting a mortgage. Anecdotal evidence is not fact, either.

Even if this was just one estate agent and it isn't representative of the country as a whole, it's still very strong anecdotal evidence pointing to a serious increase in the demand for housing around the time that we opened our borders to the east-Europeans.

Yet again your burden of proof for "very strong evidence" is particularly low.

You seem to be reacting as though I said immigration was a major causal factor rather than a contributory factor. When I said immigration was a major contributory factor I didn't mean that immigration was one of the factors that caused the housing bubble. It was one of the factors that helped contribute to the problem. If I had said (like wikipedia) that demographics was one of the major contributory factors you probably wouldn't have taken any notice. But because I pointed out that most of the growth in the population over the last few years was related to the increase in immigration you went into the typical "look he's blaming immigrants for our problems" mode and tried to make it seem as though I claimed something I didn't.

Again, you're making assertions with no basis. I have seen evidence that demographics was a major contributory factor, though I will lift my hands now and say I can't be sure of that as it was a couple of years ago. You claimed, without backing it up, that immigration was a major causal/contributory factor to the bubble. You did not state "This is just my opinion, but it seems to me..." or anything of the sort. I claimed you were making fact-like assertions without backing them up. You've admitted that.

There's a difference between something causing a problem and something contributing to a problem.

No there isn't. If it contributed 1% of it, it caused it 1%.

Immigration didn't cause the housing bubble but it did contribute to the problem, and relative to the other contributory factors, I think it was one of the major ones.

Once you stick in your "this is my opinion"/"I'm not backing this up with any facts" proviso into that so that anyone reading this is aware of this, then that's fine.

I never said that immigrants had a major effect on house prices. I do have this quote from David McWilliams though if it's of any relevance

McWilliams isn't relevant, he's a journalist who I've already had a go at on this thread.

Do you have any evidence that the cheaper immigrant labour resulted in lower houses prices rather than in incresed profits for the developers?

No. Not blindly agreeing with one side of an argument is not the same thing as accepting the other side. You claimed one thing without backing it up and I put forward the arguments for the other side. You seem oblivious to the fact that the increased supply of cheap labour will tend to lower end product prices, but yet you toss cheap labour up as a cause of the bubble without any proof. You're making the assertion; the onus of proof is on you, not me.

The article I linked to above seems to suggest that immigrants were as likely as Irish people to buy rather than rent

I will check with the CSO on Monday, but I really think you're wrong about this.

AuRevoir

Mena wrote: »

I really could not be arsed ripping apart your rather ill-informed rant, but I will highlight this one point.

They cannot "fly in" once a month to sign on. They need to physically collect their cheque at a post office, once a week. Work out the logistics of this. It's not economically viable.

They have been flying in once a month to collect benefits. Did you read this? http://www.independent.ie/national-news/fraudsters-flew-in-to-claim-dole-payments-1801725.html

''NON-national dole cheats defrauded millions of euro from the Exchequer by flying into the country once a month to sign on.

New figures obtained by the Irish Independent show thousands of foreign benefit claimants were investigated by the Department of Social and Family Affairs between October 2007 and February last year.

In a first trawl of suspected benefit fraudsters, 776 non-national cases were examined, of which 76 were found to be permanently living outside of the State.

Officials were so alarmed they ordered residency checks on a further 3,665 non-nationals, and found that 403 (11pc) of these were living outside the State and flying in once a month to collect their benefit.

The vast majority of the claimants were from Eastern European countries.

Both investigations between them yielded savings of more than €4m -- or up to €10,000 per dole cheat -- for the cash-strapped Exchequer.

Time Magazine

Au Revoir, it's a disgrace and they should not be claiming if they are not resident in the State, but 403 of them out of 4.3m people = 0.01%.

Let's spin that another way, 99.99% of people in the country are not non-nationals flying in to collect dole.

asdasd

Immigrants undercutting Irish wages are a good thing. Had more of that happened we'd more internationally competitive today, and it lowers prices for the consumer. Just as I'll buy my electronics and CDs from China rather than being ripped off in Dublin, Irish wages being undercut keeps our inflation down.

Immigrants undercutting wages are a good thing for you, maybe. Try and appreciate that the people who compete for those wages would see it to be a bad thing, even if it is good for you.

BTW, the logic of this position is a fully open borders movement from China, or India ( or anywhere). Clearly people would migrate until it made no economic sense to do so, so you are effectively arguing for the collapse of unskilled working class wages to the global subsistance level.

Wage deflation did not lead to lower inflation, because we continued to borrow to finance the spiraling housing costs. There are other reasons why lower wages may not lead to deflation (besides the obvious fact that a lot of workers are in protected industries). The service industry hardly got cheaper, as the wages fell, partly because the cost of rent went up everywhere for most service orientated businesses. The higher the footfall on Grafton Street, for instance, led to higher rents and thus Grafton street became the 5th most expensive shopping street in the workd ( for rent).

kevteljeur

The Economist wrote: »

Au Revoir, it's a disgrace and they should not be claiming if they are not resident in the State, but 403 of them out of 4.3m people = 0.01%.

Let's spin that another way, 99.99% of people in the country are not non-nationals flying in to collect dole.

I wouldn't mind seeing figures on how many Irish people are doing this too. I know that it definitely happens, but I'd like to know exactly how many.


Airhorn and O'Morris: The largest group of immigrants in this country are in fact from the UK. That's a verifiable fact from the CSO. That group which has caused the woes you describe are in the largest part from our nearest neighbour, with which we have had freedom of movement across borders for the best part of, what, 800 years? So, the quickest solution to the problem would be to prevent people from the UK working in Ireland, right? How would we do that?

If we could just send all the immigrants from the UK home within weeks, would the UK then send home Irish immigrants from the UK?



.

asdasd

So, the quickest solution to the problem would be to prevent people from the UK working in Ireland, right? How would we do that?

If we could just send all the immigrants from the UK home within weeks, would the UK then send home Irish immigrants from the UK?

Strawman. Given the historical ties, both actions would be stupid. In fact getting rid of immigrants would be stupid. Restricting future immigrants from outside the EU, and the NAS would make sense, or imposing a points system on the new States.

Of course this would have to done across the EU.

BTW I am pretty sure that Germany is not going to open it's borders to it's East - The German East is still poorer, and subject to right -wing violence. With open borders between Poland and Germany - and a good train system - the Polish worker can work in Germany (East) and live in Poland. Its a commute.

That has to bring German wages down. It could bring them down to Polish levels, although Polish levels may rise a bit.

But Germans so protect their service workers they dont have the shopping culture the rest of us have -even though opening up their restrictions of openning hours would have reduced unemplyment they did not do it, as they feared an exploitative "Anglo-Saxon" race to the bottom.

Time Magazine

asdasd wrote: »

Immigrants undercutting wages are a good thing for you, maybe. Try and appreciate that the people who compete for those wages would see it to be a bad thing, even if it is good for you.

I do compete in an international labour market. Some guy from the UK who can do my job lowers my wage down and that means I can't haggle so well with my employer. But it does benefit the UK guy, it benefits my boss and ultimately my customers. Not everyone benefits from competition, but the sum of the benefits exceed the sum of the costs.

BTW, the logic of this position is a fully open borders movement from China, or India ( or anywhere).

No it doesn't. Does your position imply we should block off all imports that might affect low-paid jobs? Of course it doesn't

Clearly people would migrate until it made no economic sense to do so, so you are effectively arguing for the collapse of unskilled working class wages to the global subsistance level.

No I'm not.

Wage deflation did not lead to lower inflation, because we continued to borrow to finance the spiraling housing costs. <snip>

Just because prices are rising doesn't mean competition failed to lower inflation. Again this is the problem with the wrong counterfactual. You say "Inflation was consistently at 4% so migrant labour had no effect", I say "Inflation would have been 5% otherwise".

kevteljeur

asdasd wrote: »

Strawman. Given the historical ties, both actions would be stupid. In fact getting rid of immigrants would be stupid. Restricting future immigrants from outside the EU, and the NAS would make sense, or imposing a points system on the new States.

Of course this would have to done across the EU.

BTW I am pretty sure that Germany is not going to open it's borders to it's East - The German East is still poorer, and subject to right -wing violence. With open borders between Poland and Germany - and a good train system - the Polish worker can work in Germany (East) and live in Poland. Its a commute.

That has to bring German wages down. And Germans so protect their service workers they dont have the shopping culture the rest of us have -even though opening up their restrictions of openning hours would have reduced unemplyment they did not do it, as they feared an exploitative "Anglo-Saxon" race to the bottom.

My point was, that the largest group of immigrants have been from the UK; the largest group by far. This is true in all of the areas where the 'damned invading foreigner' is blamed, and puts a lie to many of the supposed facts about Eastern European immigrants. There are also few facts available right now about return migration, and the FUD merchants will mention those issues much less.



.

asdasd

and puts a lie to many of the supposed facts about Eastern European immigrants.

Come now. People will complain if they ahve reason too. immigrants from higher income countries would not come here to take cheaper jobs than they could get at home ( in general), so people do not resent immigration from high income countries. The competition is at an even keel.

Time Magazine

asdasd wrote: »

Come now. People will complain if they ahve reason too. immigrants from higher income countries would not come here to take cheaper jobs than they could get at home ( in general), so people do not resent immigration from high income countries. The competition is at an even keel.

Put the shoe on the other foot. If I am as qualified as a yank for a job that's based in New York, and would be willing to work for less than him, should I not get the job because I'm Irish?

asdasd

Just because prices are rising doesn't mean competition failed to lower inflation. Again this is the problem with the wrong counterfactual. You say "Inflation was consistently at 4% so migrant labour had no effect", I say "Inflation would have been 5% otherwise".

Your counter-counter factual has no weight either. What we do know is that deflation, or low inflation, did not correlate with high immigration. That's it as far as evidence goes.

You are assuming some moderation of inflation because of immigration. On the other hand you have no evidence of that whatsoever. I think you wrong because the increases in people available to buy, in what is a limited retail space, increased the cost of rents greater than the savings in the wage bill - I mean something had to. What else caused the inflation?


Does economics have an mathematics on positive feedback, or is it subsumed into other theories?

i feel the mechanism was something like this

Cheap Credit encouraged house buying and loans for general consumerism; the former encouraged construction, who hired more workers, who were often immigrants , who rented and bought more housing and drew out loans, pushing up housing, thus we needed more immigrants, which needed more housing...

The latter increased demand for service workers, who bought more service products, increasing the demand for services etc.

( And both interplayed with each other).

The second thing for study would be this: what happens in the economy if we add more money into the economy using existing workers ( a 10% increase in wages) vs employing more people so that wages stay the same but industry is paying out 10% more.

Is the latter more inflationary because people are less likely to save lower wages.

I think itprobably would be.

asdasd

and would be willing to work for less than him, should I not get the job because I'm Irish?

WEll obviously you cant. You need to get a green card.

K-9

O'Morris wrote: »

I linked to an article at the start of the thread pointing to a quote from one estate agent showing a massive increase in the demand for housing among the non-national population. According to this article, non-nationals accounted for more than a quarter of new home sales from the Month of January to November in 2005.

At least it does away with the non-nationals on minimum wage and pay no taxes line.

asdasd

At least it does away with the non-nationals on minimum wage and pay no taxes line.

Any other strawmen?

K-9

kevteljeur wrote: »

I wouldn't mind seeing figures on how many Irish people are doing this too. I know that it definitely happens, but I'd like to know exactly how many.


Airhorn and O'Morris: The largest group of immigrants in this country are in fact from the UK. That's a verifiable fact from the CSO. That group which has caused the woes you describe are in the largest part from our nearest neighbour, with which we have had freedom of movement across borders for the best part of, what, 800 years? So, the quickest solution to the problem would be to prevent people from the UK working in Ireland, right? How would we do that?

If we could just send all the immigrants from the UK home within weeks, would the UK then send home Irish immigrants from the UK?

.

It's the damn Northerners. Sure didn't Hannafin blame them?

asdasd

Any other strawmen?

It's the damn Northerners. Sure didn't Hannafin blame them?

So, yes then.

K-9

asdasd wrote: »

Any other strawmen?

LOLZ, The whole thread is full of strawmen.

And yes, when we are often told Immigrants contributed little to the economy but we then find 30% of them paid Stamp Duty, Property Vat Etc. I find it very insightful.

I will fully expect O'Morris in his favourite threads to be linking to his source he has linked to here.

K-9

mikemac wrote: »

Oh I've heard this line a lot.
And left college and the only job I could get was a hotel porter as I had experience in it. Night porter at that, working nights sucks.
Yep, I wondered why I was competing with Ivan and Ivana for a service sector job and hoping I would get more then minimum wage.
This was 2004, boom times indeed. Not for my college degree it wasn't though everyone gets a better job after a few months.

It's easy Dublinwriter to list the benefits of immigration if you are in a protected profession.
Go compete for a job in your local Centra and then tell me that Irish are "bone-idle"

£1 an hour was what I got in 1990.

Scofflaw

K-9 wrote: »

£1 an hour was what I got in 1990.

Most of us just left the country then, of course - went and stole other people's jobs in their countries.

reminiscently,
Scofflaw

K-9

Scofflaw wrote: »

Most of us just left the country then, of course - went and stole other people's jobs in their countries.

reminiscently,
Scofflaw

All 100% legally of course, hence our righteous indignation.