Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.

buy irish..employ irish

1…89111314…18

Comments

  • #302
    O'Morris
    Closed Accounts Posts: 619 ✭✭✭O'Morris


    mountainyman wrote:
    You can't get a derogation from an EU treaty unless you get it before you sign up.

    Was the decision to allow unrestricted access part of the treaty though? I thought the government made the decision unilaterally after the defeat of the first referendum. Is it written into the Nice Treaty that Ireland, Sweden and Britain would opt out of the temporary ban that other countries had imposed on the accession countries?

    mountainyman wrote:
    I think that allowing unrestricted immigration from the new EU was madness but what's done is done. This cannot be changed.

    I'm still not convinced that this is the case. I'm sure something can be worked out that would allow us to temporarily impose the same restrictions that other European countries have in place. Immigration was supposedly a factor influencing the no vote in the Lisbon referendum so if the government is serious about getting Lisbon 2 passed they might want to consider doing something about this.

    djpbarry wrote:
    The ESRI seem to disagree:

    Disagree about what? All the ESRI are saying is that there is a decline in Ireland's attractiveness as a destination for immigrants. It's understanble considering that we're in the middle of a recession and there are fewer jobs for people to fill. That doesn't mean that people won't continue to see Ireland as an attractive destination though. As long as our average wage is higher than it is back home and as long as people are allowed free access to our labour market we will continue to see a high level of immigration in comparison with our European neighbours who have restrictions in place.

    djpbarry wrote:
    Inward migration is predicted to plummet to just 25,000 next year.

    I'm assuming that's gross immigration rather than net immigration but even 25,000 gross immigration for a year is still very high for a country with our size population. That's around the same number of people, per head of population, as Britain is taking in each year.

    The Corinthian wrote:
    No it wasn't. There was no such 'understanding'. No such clause in the agreement. Please show me where there was.

    I don't think there is a clause in the Nice treaty stating that immigration was unlikely to increase after EU enlargement. I think we voted yes to the treaty on the understanding that it wouldn't lead to a massive increase in immigration. Even if there is nothing to back it up in the treaty, I think our political leaders should acknowledge that things didn't turn out the way they led people to expect.

    It's like when America went to war in Iraq there was an understanding that it would be a quick, easily winnable war that would be over in a matter of months. Even though there wasn't much written down to back that up, America's political leaders did seem to imply that this would be the case.

    The Corinthian wrote:
    The agreement was made based upon our government's belief that we would not see a massive increase in immigration from the new accession countries

    Exactly. And they were proved wrong in that belief.

    The Corinthian wrote:
    So if anyone screwed up on this one, it was us.

    We screwed up when we voted yes to the Nice Treaty or we screwed up when our government decided to lift the restrictions on the east Europeans working here? I think we screwed up in both cases.

    The Corinthian wrote:
    Actually, it still is scaremongering.

    I never said it wasn't.

    The Corinthian wrote:
    I've repeatedly pointed out the fallacy of the protectionist approach from an economic perspective.

    Can you not see why opening our labour market to people from countries with a much lower standard of living than us might not be a good deal for the low-wage working man in this country who will have to compete with the newcomers? Do you think we should end our protectionist approach to workers from China or from South America?

    The Corinthian wrote:
    Nothing has been proven right.

    Yes it has. The scaremongers who predicted that we would see a massive increase in immigration have been proven right.

    The Corinthian wrote:
    You seem to be suffering from the delusion that kicking all the foreigners out will somehow solve our employment problems

    I never said anything about kicking all the foreigners out. I want us to focus on reducing the number of people entering the country, not on removing, or discriminating against, the people here already. I think immigration into Ireland has been far too high over the last few years and I think we're still taking in too many people for a country with our size population. Even if the ESRI is right and we only get 25,000 next year that's still as high, per head of population, as our nearest neighbour takes in during a year of normal economic growth.

    The Corinthian wrote:
    yet you have simply ignored the effect that essentially removing a significant demographic will have on the economy, or what industries will benefit or suffer.

    I haven't suggested that we should remove a significant demographic. The signs are that the significant demographic are set to remove themselves voluntarily without any help from us. Around a third of Poles questioned in a survey have said that they plan to return home within the next year. That's a good thing in my opinion as it will help ease the competition for the available jobs.

    The Corinthian wrote:
    Indeed, you've not even bothered to suggest which foreigners should be discriminated against; only those from the new accession states?

    Yes, in the short-term I think we should do what most other European countries did and impose restrictions on people from the new accession states.

    The Corinthian wrote:
    Perhaps you would extend this to all EU nationals?

    I don't think that will be necessary. We don't have the wage difference with other EU nationals that we have with the East Europeans.

    The Corinthian wrote:
    Additionally, he also admits that this would bring us into conflict with the EU - it is a clear violation of our agreement to allow freedom of movement, after all.

    I'd like to see the Germans or the French telling us that we're bad Europeans for imposing restrictions on people that they themselves are refusing to allow free access to work in their countries. At least we have already given them over three years of free access which is three years more than most of the good European countries have allowed.

    The Corinthian wrote:
    As much as Eurosceptics enjoy stirring the pot with the EU, this would come with consequences, none of which have been considered by you (or perhaps they have and you simply would prefer not to discuss them).

    Funnily enough, the big bad consequences of doing something that's unpopular with our European neighbours never seems to bother me all that much.

    The Corinthian wrote:
    Firstly, it ignores that while salaries are six times higher in Ireland than Poland, the cost of living is also significantly lower.

    Is the cost of living six times lower in Poland than it is in Ireland?


  • #303
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    asdasd wrote: »
    Fell free to read my post again. It is not about the Schengen zone which merely removes border posts, but whether the acession state members can work in Germany and France, and whether they will be able to do so in 2011.
    Yes, I got that. What I don’t get is your point? We could have opted out of the “open borders” policy that you refer to, but we didn’t. I’m not sure what that has to do with France and Germany?
    O'Morris wrote: »
    I'm sure something can be worked out that would allow us to temporarily impose the same restrictions that other European countries have in place.
    I’d be very surprised if this were possible. I don’t really see the point at this stage anyway.
    O'Morris wrote: »
    Immigration was supposedly a factor influencing the no vote in the Lisbon referendum...
    Hardly a major factor.
    O'Morris wrote: »
    All the ESRI are saying is that there is a decline in Ireland's attractiveness as a destination for immigrants. It's understanble considering that we're in the middle of a recession and there are fewer jobs for people to fill. That doesn't mean that people won't continue to see Ireland as an attractive destination though.
    But fewer people are coming to Ireland, are they not, with fewer still predicted to arrive next year. So it seems Ireland is no longer a terribly attractive country for prospective immigrants, is it?
    O'Morris wrote: »
    I'm assuming that's gross immigration rather than net immigration but even 25,000 gross immigration for a year is still very high for a country with our size population. That's around the same number of people, per head of population, as Britain is taking in each year.
    Britain takes in about 800 – 900 thousand immigrants a year – that’s about 13.1 per 1,000 head of population. If Ireland takes in 25,000 immigrants in 2009, that will equate to approximately 2.3 per thousand head of population.
    O'Morris wrote: »
    I don't think there is a clause in the Nice treaty stating that immigration was unlikely to increase after EU enlargement. I think we voted yes to the treaty on the understanding that it wouldn't lead to a massive increase in immigration.
    No we didn’t. In fact, I don’t even remember it being much of an issue.
    O'Morris wrote: »
    It's like when America went to war in Iraq there was an understanding that it would be a quick, easily winnable war that would be over in a matter of months.
    Anyone who supported the war on that basis is an idiot.
    O'Morris wrote: »
    We screwed up when we voted yes to the Nice Treaty or we screwed up when our government decided to lift the restrictions on the east Europeans working here?
    How so?
    O'Morris wrote: »
    Can you not see why opening our labour market to people from countries with a much lower standard of living than us might not be a good deal for the low-wage working man in this country who will have to compete with the newcomers?
    Well the low-wage working man better get off his arse and up-skill, or whatever else is required for him to get a job. He can’t expect the whole country to slow down to suit him, can he?
    O'Morris wrote: »
    I think immigration into Ireland has been far too high over the last few years and I think we're still taking in too many people for a country with our size population.
    How many is “too many”? What would be an acceptable number? How would this number be determined?
    O'Morris wrote: »
    I haven't suggested that we should remove a significant demographic. The signs are that the significant demographic are set to remove themselves voluntarily without any help from us.
    So why the need to impose restrictions? People come when there are jobs, people leave when there are no jobs. Migration is largely self regulating, so I fail to see the need to waste time and money regulating it.
    O'Morris wrote: »
    Yes, in the short-term I think we should do what most other European countries did and impose restrictions on people from the new accession states.
    …
    I don't think that will be necessary. We don't have the wage difference with other EU nationals that we have with the East Europeans.
    Surely if your sole concern was reducing the level of immigration into this country, you’d be screaming for restrictions on the number of British nationals coming here. The fact that you are not suggests (shock horror) an ulterior motive.


  • #304
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    O'Morris wrote: »
    I don't think there is a clause in the Nice treaty stating that immigration was unlikely to increase after EU enlargement. I think we voted yes to the treaty on the understanding that it wouldn't lead to a massive increase in immigration. Even if there is nothing to back it up in the treaty, I think our political leaders should acknowledge that things didn't turn out the way they led people to expect.
    Tough. I'd love to make agreements on the basis that they'd be to my advantage all the time and if not go back on them. Unfortunately agreements don't work that way.
    Exactly. And they were proved wrong in that belief.
    And?
    We screwed up when we voted yes to the Nice Treaty or we screwed up when our government decided to lift the restrictions on the east Europeans working here? I think we screwed up in both cases.
    Actually, you've yet to actually put forward a cogent economic argument for why freedom of movement of labour from eastern Europe is so bad, so it's premature for you to suggest that we screwed up.
    I never said it wasn't.
    So are you scaremongering now then? Or are you refusing to say it is or is not?
    Can you not see why opening our labour market to people from countries with a much lower standard of living than us might not be a good deal for the low-wage working man in this country who will have to compete with the newcomers? Do you think we should end our protectionist approach to workers from China or from South America?
    There's no 'opening' though. It's 'open'. What you are discussing is a reversal of this situation, and there is a price tag attached to this that you have blissfully ignored.
    Yes it has. The scaremongers who predicted that we would see a massive increase in immigration have been proven right.
    So what? You have yet to prove that any increase, massive or otherwise, in immigration has had a negative effect on the past or even present economy. Certainly they are taking up jobs and potentially keeping salary levels down, but they are also purchasing within this economy, kept the costs of enterprises down, paying taxes and making our tiny little market just that little bit bigger.

    You've chosen to look at the negative aspects alone, ignored the good ones and thus have not considered the overall effect this.
    I haven't suggested that we should remove a significant demographic. The signs are that the significant demographic are set to remove themselves voluntarily without any help from us. Around a third of Poles questioned in a survey have said that they plan to return home within the next year. That's a good thing in my opinion as it will help ease the competition for the available jobs.
    And have you considered the down side? I've already asked you to not simply look at one side of the equation, but to consider the interconnected nature of an economy.

    If 50,000 Poles leave, for example, what happens to the places they rented to live in if we are not allowing anyone in to replace them? Rent goes down. The owners of said apartments then either make less (or may not be able to rent at all), and end up with a decrease in disposable income.

    Now, your Irish factory worker may now be free to demand a higher salary with the competition out of the way, but the problem is people have less money and so he's laid off.
    Yes, in the short-term I think we should do what most other European countries did and impose restrictions on people from the new accession states.
    Have you worked out the implications? I keep on asking you this and you keep on avoiding the question.
    Funnily enough, the big bad consequences of doing something that's unpopular with our European neighbours never seems to bother me all that much.
    As a rule, I believe that Eurosceptics, such as yourself, look for them. The more conflict with the EU the better your cause is served.


  • #305
    mountainyman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,268 ✭✭✭mountainyman


    Ther accession treaty provides for the free movement of labour. Ireland did not seek a derogation from this element of the treaty. Other countries did seek such a derogation.

    We did not seek a derogation to build goodwill. This has been successful. The decision not to seek a derogation may or may not have been based on a false premise.


  • #306
    mountainyman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,268 ✭✭✭mountainyman


    sink wrote: »
    My family ran a few restaurants up until a few years ago and you couldn't find two decent Irish employee's to rub together. No self respecting Irish person wanted to serve tables, if it wasn't for foreigners the restaurants would've gone under. All were paid decent wages and legal.

    Obviously not decent enough wages. We are all familiar with gouging dishonest restauranteurs and rip off Ireland. Did your family ever keep the credit card tips? Tell the truth now.


  • Advertisement
  • #307
    RiverWilde
    Closed Accounts Posts: 419 ✭✭RiverWilde


    mountainyman wrote: »
    We did not seek a derogation to build goodwill.

    Goodwill my arse! We didn't seek a derogation because Irish business wanted a source of cheap labour. Such an influx allowed business here to maintain profit levels and cut labour costs. Goodwill, very funny.

    Riv


  • #308
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    mountainyman wrote: »
    Obviously not decent enough wages.
    How much would you pay someone to wait tables?


  • #309
    97i9y3941
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,616 ✭✭✭97i9y3941


    Some migrants paid €2 an hour - report
    watch Tuesday, 16 December 2008 22:16

    A new report has found that many migrant workers in the restaurant industry are being exploited.

    The study by the Migrant Rights Centre shows more than half earn less than the minimum wage and do not receive a pay slip.

    According to the report, some workers earn just €2 an hour and work up to 75 hours a week.
    Advertisement

    Co-ordinator of the Restaurant Workers Action Group Bill Abom says the Government needs to take action to stop exploitation.
    Print this page


    Story from RTÉ News:
    http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/1216/employment.html

    this has been going on for ages,every year it has been said,do you think any person cares?,no,theres money to be made,gov never got off their arse and made an attempt


  • #310
    Dob74
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,049 ✭✭✭Dob74


    djpbarry wrote: »
    How much would you pay someone to wait tables?

    8.65 AN HOUR PLUS TIPS.
    Why don't you believe in the rule of law?


  • #311
    mountainyman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,268 ✭✭✭mountainyman


    asdasd wrote: »
    The EU is a crock. It is run for the benefit of Germany and France, holding interest rates low while our property market boom ( and club med), controlling their borders while "eurosceptic" UK and Ireland open theirs, not allowing referenda, over fishing etc.

    The EU is not responsible for Ireland's property boom and bust. The MacSharry tax cuts were made possible by EU money (used to replace Irish tax money). In this way they can take some credt for the boom. But not the bust.
    The decision to open our borders was unilateral a derogation was available Iveagh house advised against it (another in what I see as a litany of incompetence from Iveagh house) and it suited the paymasters of our political parties.
    The EU does not prevent referenda on any subject.
    The monies lost from fishing don't compare to monies received from the EU.
    What do you mean by Club Med?

    MM


  • Advertisement
  • #312
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Dob74 wrote: »
    djpbarry wrote: »
    How much would you pay someone to wait tables?
    8.65 AN HOUR PLUS TIPS.
    Why don't you believe in the rule of law?
    Why do you assume that I don't?


  • #313
    O'Morris
    Closed Accounts Posts: 619 ✭✭✭O'Morris


    djpbarry wrote:
    I’d be very surprised if this were possible.

    I found an interesting article (see here) from the Sunday Business Post from back during the Nice Treaty referendum campaign. Dick Roche suggested during an exchange with Anthony Coughlan that if there wasa any huge increase increase in im after EU enlargement that there are legal mechanisms under existing EU law that would allow the government to ask the commission to take special measures.
    Dick Roche wrote:
    The Commission will monitor it and see how it develops. We, as a member state, can go to the Commission and ask it to take special measures. Those special measures exist under existing law, and have nothing whatsoever to do with the Nice Treaty . . .

    djpbarry wrote:
    I don’t really see the point at this stage anyway.

    You don't see the point of trying to reduce the competition for jobs at a time when we have over 250,000 people out of work?

    djpbarry wrote:
    Hardly a major factor.

    A guarantee to do something about immigration would be almost certain to see the next Lisbon Referendum pass.

    djpbarry wrote:
    But fewer people are coming to Ireland, are they not, with fewer still predicted to arrive next year. So it seems Ireland is no longer a terribly attractive country for prospective immigrants, is it?

    Maybe it isn't. Maybe there isn't any need for us to intervene in a process that will work itself out naturally. Maybe we should just throw open our borders to the whole world and assume that because we're in a recession that nobody will bother coming here.

    djpbarry wrote:
    Britain takes in about 800 – 900 thousand immigrants a year

    Where did you get this from? I thought they were taking in between 250 to 300 thousand people a year.

    djpbarry wrote:
    Well the low-wage working man better get off his arse and up-skill or whatever else is required for him to get a job.

    Including working for a lower wage than he would get if the level of immigration wasn't as high? It goes back to the question I asked previously about why make things more difficult for people than it need be. What are the economic benefits of immigration that it's worth letting low-wage workers in this country should be made to accept a lower standard of living than they have come to expect?

    djpbarry wrote:
    How many is “too many”?

    Well over 90% of the Irish population was made up of Irish people just five or six years ago. I've heard talk that that percentage has fallen to just 86-87% today. That's "too many".

    djpbarry wrote:
    What would be an acceptable number?

    An acceptable number would be a number that's not likely to result in the percentage of the Irish population made up of Irish people falling any further.

    djpbarry wrote:
    How would this number be determined?

    I don't know how many exactly but it would need to be a lot lower then it is currently. We should aim to see immigration reduced to the absolute minimum possible.

    djpbarry wrote:
    So why the need to impose restrictions?

    To prevent large numbers of people entering the country at a time of high unemployment and competing with our boys for a shrinking number of available jobs.

    djpbarry wrote:
    People come when there are jobs, people leave when there are no jobs.

    So does that mean that people will only stop coming here when there are no jobs left in the economy?

    djpbarry wrote:
    Migration is largely self regulating,

    If immigration was self-regulating then we wouldn't need to have any immigration controls on any country. We could just let the entire world move and work wherever they want without any restrictions. I'm sure that wouldn't be a problem for a citizen-of-the-world like yourself but I'd be surprised if you find many economists agreeing with you.

    djpbarry wrote:
    so I fail to see the need to waste time and money regulating it.

    It will make life less difficult for people at the bottom. It will be much easier for people on the dole to get back into employment and that will mean that less of our taxes will be spent supporting those people.

    djpbarry wrote:
    Surely if your sole concern was reducing the level of immigration into this country, you’d be screaming for restrictions on the number of British nationals coming here.

    British people are our neighbours and our ethnic cousins and there has always been movement of people between the two islands. If we take any action against the British they could retaliate and restrict access to people from Ireland. We can afford to risk retaliation from Eastern Europe as the average wage in Eastern Europe is much lower than it is here. We can't afford to restrict access to people from Britain.

    djpbarry wrote:
    The fact that you are not suggests (shock horror) an ulterior motive.

    It's all about the purity of the bloodline old boy! Purity of the bloodline!

    Wisdom of the blood of the gael of the true race of Israel.

    The Corinthian wrote:
    Actually, you've yet to actually put forward a cogent economic argument for why freedom of movement of labour from eastern Europe is so bad

    It's bad because it drives down wages for the working man and it makes it more difficult for people on the dole to get back into employment. The competition for scarce jobs is greater than it would be without the same levels of immigration. The taxpayer has to bear the cost of supporting those people on the dole.

    The Corinthian wrote:
    You have yet to prove that any increase, massive or otherwise, in immigration has had a negative effect on the past or even present economy.

    If there weren't so many people in the country and entering the country the people on the dole would have an easier time finding work and that would lead to a reduction in the amount of money that we would have to spend supporting those people. We wouldn't have to spend as much money supporting the immigrants on the dole either.

    The Corinthian wrote:
    Certainly they are taking up jobs and potentially keeping salary levels down

    Minor issues. Nothing to get worked up about out.

    The Corinthian wrote:
    but they are also purchasing within this economy,

    They're also sending much of their disposable income back home and so they're not purchasing as much in this economy as an Irish worker would in the same position.

    The Corinthian wrote:
    kept the costs of enterprises down

    And is this leading to lower prices for the consumer? Or are the savings being turned into bigger profits for the employers?

    The Corinthian wrote:
    paying taxes

    And consuming public resources.

    The Corinthian wrote:
    You've chosen to look at the negative aspects alone, ignored the good ones and thus have not considered the overall effect this.

    I believe the negatives outweigh the positives. I can't think of any positive that outweighs the negative of thousands of Irish people being out of work because they're finding it much more difficult to find jobs than they would if there weren't so many people in the country.

    The Corinthian wrote:
    If 50,000 Poles leave, for example,

    According to this article in the economist, if 20,000 Poles leave we could see a 1% fall in unemployment. If 50,000 left the fall in unemployment would be even greater.

    The Corinthian wrote:
    what happens to the places they rented to live in if we are not allowing anyone in to replace them? Rent goes down.

    Well feck it anyway! Nobody benefits from lower rents.

    The Corinthian wrote:
    The owners of said apartments then either make less (or may not be able to rent at all), and end up with a decrease in disposable income.

    And the labouring classes end up with an increase in disposable income as they'll have to spend less money on rent. It all balances out nicely. There's no decrease in money, it's just some of it is redistributed from the landlords to their tenants.

    The Corinthian wrote:
    Now, your Irish factory worker may now be free to demand a higher salary with the competition out of the way, but the problem is people have less money and so he's laid off.

    What do you mean people we will have less money? Why would people have less money?

    The Corinthian wrote:
    Have you worked out the implications?

    I have. I did what Robinson Crusoe did when he was on the island and I wrote down the pros and cons of the situation. I found that the pros outweighed the cons.


  • #314
    mountainyman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,268 ✭✭✭mountainyman


    O'Morris your arguments are becoming quite cogent.
    However dickroach was lying when he claimed that we could get a post nice opt out. Anthony Coughlan's points are good.


  • #315
    OK-Cancel-Apply
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,528 ✭✭✭OK-Cancel-Apply


    So, what you're saying, OP, is basically that we should put signs in windows saying, "No Polish Need Apply"? Hmm, now what does that remind me of...


  • #316
    whitser
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,038 ✭✭✭whitser


    sink wrote: »
    My family ran a few restaurants up until a few years ago and you couldn't find two decent Irish employee's to rub together. No self respecting Irish person wanted to serve tables, if it wasn't for foreigners the restaurants would've gone under. All were paid decent wages and legal.
    i think the reports out today show why your family restraunt was so keen on foreign labour...76% eateriers are exploiting foreign workers. 2 euro an hour in some cases, although donegalfella and oscar bravo would see nothing wrong with that. "its a free market" and if somne one is happy to work for that then good luck to the employer.


  • #317
    whitser
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,038 ✭✭✭whitser


    OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »
    So, what you're saying, OP, is basically that we should put signs in windows saying, "No Polish Need Apply"? Hmm, now what does that remind me of...
    think my original point was that people with long term ties to the country should have preference to economic migrants only here for short term.


  • #318
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,859 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    whitser wrote: »
    2 euro an hour in some cases, although donegalfella and oscar bravo would see nothing wrong with that.
    Provide evidence to show that I would see nothing wrong with the illegal exploitation of immigrants, or withdraw the allegation, please.


  • #319
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #320
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    O'Morris wrote: »
    It's bad because it drives down wages for the working man and it makes it more difficult for people on the dole to get back into employment. The competition for scarce jobs is greater than it would be without the same levels of immigration. The taxpayer has to bear the cost of supporting those people on the dole.
    I said a cogent economic argument, not one that seeks to examine only a small part of the problem and arrive at a simplistic (and suspiciously inducted) conclusion.
    If there weren't so many people in the country and entering the country the people on the dole would have an easier time finding work and that would lead to a reduction in the amount of money that we would have to spend supporting those people. We wouldn't have to spend as much money supporting the immigrants on the dole either.
    Again, you have failed to look at the wider picture; such as the larger market that immigrants represent and the effect on profitability (and thus jobs) that keeping wages down has - just to name two factors.
    Minor issues. Nothing to get worked up about out.
    Not at all. While lower salaries are often not translated to the consumer, they are often the difference between a company surviving and going bust, especially in a recession.
    They're also sending much of their disposable income back home and so they're not purchasing as much in this economy as an Irish worker would in the same position.
    And many Irish are putting much of their disposable income in the bank, which also essentially takes it out of circulation. But on the topic of remittances - do you have any facts or figures to back up your claim?
    And is this leading to lower prices for the consumer? Or are the savings being turned into bigger profits for the employers?
    Was that a question or an opinion?
    And consuming public resources.
    Again, I would request facts or figures to back up this assumption.
    I believe the negatives outweigh the positives. I can't think of any positive that outweighs the negative of thousands of Irish people being out of work because they're finding it much more difficult to find jobs than they would if there weren't so many people in the country.
    And, TBH, I don't believe you have looked at this objectively and have concentrated on the negative aspects alone, largely (perhaps completely) ignoring the other factors that would offset them so as to arrive at a conclusion that you sought from the onset.
    According to this article in the economist, if 20,000 Poles leave we could see a 1% fall in unemployment. If 50,000 left the fall in unemployment would be even greater.
    I wouldn't take the Economist as gospel. Most of their articles tend to push one or other slants rather than objectively assessing issues, and so they've been wrong as often as they have been right.
    Well feck it anyway! Nobody benefits from lower rents.
    Those depending upon rental incomes to pay the mortgage do. And you know what? They're Irish.
    And the labouring classes end up with an increase in disposable income as they'll have to spend less money on rent. It all balances out nicely. There's no decrease in money, it's just some of it is redistributed from the landlords to their tenants.
    Depends on what you mean by the labouring classes. Penetration of home ownership in Ireland is very high by European standards and it is those same labouring classes who own them. If they live in them drops in rent make little difference, but if they rent them (or rooms) out, then they'll quickly start to feel the pinch. As for those 'labouring classes' in council housing - no change there.

    The maths are not difficult to understand; when I left Ireland (not so long ago) a two double-bed apartment in Smithfield would cost around €1,400 p.m., yesterday (after a quick look on Daft), I found that you'd have little trouble finding one for €1,200 p.m. and €200 p.m. less to pay towards the mortgage is not nice.

    Of course there are winners; those who rent and don't own will benefit, as will those foreigners remaining here (as they tend to rent rather than buy). Given you want to encourage the latter to leave, I can't imagine that the former group will realistically be able to save the economy with their savings.
    What do you mean people we will have less money? Why would people have less money?
    See above.
    I have. I did what Robinson Crusoe did when he was on the island and I wrote down the pros and cons of the situation. I found that the pros outweighed the cons.
    Except that's not how economics work. Any stimulus on the system will have often numerous consequence, and often one must consider a complex series of dependencies before arriving at a conclusion.

    If you target a demographic for discrimination, other than encouraging migration and thus 'freeing up jobs', you also will affect population, which in turn affects the market size and consumption. Additionally, you need to look at what demographic you're affecting - foreigners are not spread out evenly throughout the labour market (meaning that not everyone will benefit) and also their loss will affect industries and markets (such as rental) that relies upon them.

    And all this before you consider the political ramifications of imposing restrictions, and how these will affect trade and agreements with other nations (with whom we need to deal, like it or not).

    So while your observations may be sufficient for Leaving Cert or even Freshman economics, they are otherwise dangerously simplistic.


  • #321
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    whitser wrote: »
    think my original point was that people with long term ties to the country should have preference to economic migrants only here for short term.
    What if someone comes to Ireland with the intention of developing those long term ties? Are you not essentially blocking them from doing so?


  • Advertisement
  • #322
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »
    So, what you're saying, OP, is basically that we should put signs in windows saying, "No Polish Need Apply"? Hmm, now what does that remind me of...
    Reminds me of the guy earlier in this thread who was complaining about foreigners taking all the jobs, while planning (in another thread) to do the same as them in Australia.

    There's a fair bit of self-serving hypocrisy being bandied about on this subject, I've noticed.


  • #323
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    Depends how many hours are worked.


  • #324
    asdasd
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,185 ✭✭✭asdasd


    Reminds me of the guy earlier in this thread who was complaining about foreigners taking all the jobs, while planning (in another thread) to do the same as them in Australia.

    There's a fair bit of self-serving hypocrisy being bandied about on this subject, I've noticed.

    Probably he would have to apply for a visa in Australia, and certainly in Canada/US. If he gets one ( in the US for instance) it would be a work visa and be tied to the work he is doing. He would then have to leave after the work visa finishes. The H1B visa allows about 60,000 a year, the entire population is 300 million, about eighty times Ireland. That is equivalent to bout 800 immigrants a year to Ireland.

    If this was the case in Ireland, and if immigration is controlled, then there would be no problem.

    The real hypocrisy in this issue is the attitude of the self-righteous middle classes. I notice that the dentistry forum here has discussions on whether to go to Hungary or not for procedures. Why do they have to? why are dentists costs not decreasing here to the level ofHungarians or lower, why do we not have Chinese Dentists? The free market is fantastic, sure, but why does it not apply to everyone?
    Yes, I do support a free market—but why would someone work for €2 an hour when they can receive significantly more than that on social welfare?

    I can only assume the immigrants can't i.e. they are from outside the EU. This would probably explain why Irish people are not doing those jobs.The blarney about how Irish people wont do those jobs needs to have the addition at those prices. Or course not.


  • #325
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    asdasd wrote: »
    That is equivalent to bout 800 immigrants a year to Ireland.

    If this was the case in Ireland, and if immigration is controlled, then there would be no problem.
    You think restricting immigration into Ireland to just 800 people per year will meet our needs?

    Why do so many people hold the immigration policies of the US and Australia in such high regard? It's not like they're model societies to which we should aspire.


  • #326
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #327
    OK-Cancel-Apply
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,528 ✭✭✭OK-Cancel-Apply


    Migrant workers come here to do just that - work. They don't piss about on the dole. Not only are there huge skill shortages here (e.g. construction) but there are jobs out there that only migrant workers seem willing to do. With the economy the way it is, we should be hoping they decide to stay.


  • #328
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    asdasd wrote: »
    Probably he would have to apply for a visa in Australia, and certainly in Canada/US. If he gets one ( in the US for instance) it would be a work visa and be tied to the work he is doing. He would then have to leave after the work visa finishes. The H1B visa allows about 60,000 a year, the entire population is 300 million, about eighty times Ireland. That is equivalent to bout 800 immigrants a year to Ireland.

    If this was the case in Ireland, and if immigration is controlled, then there would be no problem.
    I think you're missing the irony of someone who is an economic migrant complaining about economic migrants.

    Additionally, where do you arrive at this conclusion that "if immigration is controlled, then there would be no problem". I think at this stage I have, repeatedly, demonstrated that immigration control in the Irish economy are in no way a simple, magic wand, solution.
    The real hypocrisy in this issue is the attitude of the self-righteous middle classes.
    Certainly there's hypocrisy amongst the middle classes. Of course, in reality, a lot of people who hold traditionally 'working class' jobs are actually middle class too, by today's standards.


  • #329
    whitser
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,038 ✭✭✭whitser


    hey came on on and complained that irish couldnt compete with people who'll work for less and was told basicly tough. its a fee market. employers will use the cheapest labour available, ie migrants. "its a free market".


  • #330
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    O'Morris wrote: »
    I found an interesting article (see here) from the Sunday Business Post from back during the Nice Treaty referendum campaign. Dick Roche suggested during an exchange with Anthony Coughlan that if there wasa any huge increase increase in im after EU enlargement that there are legal mechanisms under existing EU law that would allow the government to ask the commission to take special measures.
    I’m not sure that’s what he’s saying at all. In fact, I’m not entirely sure what it is he was saying. Perhaps you could explain these "legal mechanisms"?
    O'Morris wrote: »
    You don't see the point of trying to reduce the competition for jobs at a time when we have over 250,000 people out of work?
    That’s not what I said, but anyway, I don’t think reducing competition for jobs is necessarily a good thing, no. One has to consider the consequences of such a move.
    O'Morris wrote: »
    A guarantee to do something about immigration would be almost certain to see the next Lisbon Referendum pass.
    Based on what? If I recall correctly, only about 1% of ‘No’ voters cited immigration as a reason for voting ‘No’.
    O'Morris wrote: »
    Where did you get this from? I thought they were taking in between 250 to 300 thousand people a year.
    From 2002 – 2007, average inward migration into the UK was about 550k per annum (source).
    O'Morris wrote: »
    Including working for a lower wage than he would get if the level of immigration wasn't as high? It goes back to the question I asked previously about why make things more difficult for people than it need be.
    I never said we should make things more difficult for anyone. If someone is having difficulty securing a job, then the obvious solution is to help them learn new skills to make them more attractive to prospective employers. Reducing “the competition”, which effectively “dumbs down” the workforce, would be very short-sighted and economically damaging in the long run. It’s not a bad thing to provide an incentive to people to improve themselves.
    O'Morris wrote: »
    Well over 90% of the Irish population was made up of Irish people just five or six years ago. I've heard talk that that percentage has fallen to just 86-87% today. That's "too many".
    …
    An acceptable number would be a number that's not likely to result in the percentage of the Irish population made up of Irish people falling any further.
    …
    I don't know how many exactly but it would need to be a lot lower then it is currently. We should aim to see immigration reduced to the absolute minimum possible.
    Exactly the sort of vague nonsense I was expecting.
    O'Morris wrote: »
    To prevent large numbers of people entering the country at a time of high unemployment and competing with our boys for a shrinking number of available jobs.
    We don’t have large numbers of people entering the country at present and it is highly unlikely that we will in the near future. You are advocating that we prevent something that is not happening.
    O'Morris wrote: »
    So does that mean that people will only stop coming here when there are no jobs left in the economy?
    You know full well what it means and there are plenty of statistics (most of which I have already provided) to back it up.
    O'Morris wrote: »
    If immigration was self-regulating then we wouldn't need to have any immigration controls on any country. We could just let the entire world move and work wherever they want without any restrictions. I'm sure that wouldn't be a problem for a citizen-of-the-world like yourself but I'd be surprised if you find many economists agreeing with you.
    Philippe Legrain is an advocate of free international migration. I doubt he’s the only one.
    O'Morris wrote: »
    British people are our neighbours and our ethnic cousins and there has always been movement of people between the two islands.
    …
    It's all about the purity of the bloodline old boy! Purity of the bloodline!
    And that’s essentially all your argument boils down to; Brits are ok because they’re like us, but other immigrants are too different and they’ll “pollute” the gene pool.


  • Advertisement
  • #331
    mike4819
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25 ✭mike4819


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    How do the crime statistics in Sweden and the UK say that?

    Sounds like you got it more from reading a goat's entrails.


    That sounds like an attempt at sarcasm:rolleyes:

    No not goat entrails "cor", just plenty of evidence on the net (most especially on you tube). From the Bradford riots, and tributes to violent crimes in the U.K.; to violent attacks on fireman in Malmo, Sweden. So much so that police protection is needed on alarms in certain (cough)neighborhoods. (Oh, the joys of forced multi-culturalism).
    Thankfully, these videos can still be shown, and these opinions can still be expressed. But, who knows for how long? (We don't realize how precious these freedoms of speech and expression are until they stifiled with political correctness). Oh the "joys" of E.U. membership! And the almost infinite wisdom and justice of it's leaders and courts!:p
    And their INTEGRITY, ( You're going to be forced to vote again no? Whats that, keep voting till you get it right? FUNNY!
    What matter if something is true or not, If the wrong people are offended (perish forbid) SILENCE MUST BE IMPOSED!
    "Big Brother" E.U. knows what they are about. Flood European countries with immigrants from Africa, Eastern Europe, Asia, etc... to aid the agenda of Eroding any sense of patriotism, Ethnicity, or National pride, With the carrot and stick approach of economic gains for all. Thereby hastening the dawn of the "glorious" ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT.
    Anyone who voices opposition is of course branded as "Nazi", "Racist", or "Facist":P The tragedy of this is that it seems to be working!
    Oh well what matter as long the broadband improves, (bread and circus, don't ya know)


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement