British Jobs for British People

[ajstoneservices]

Some of us do care that's point.

 

[ajstoneservices]

It was to do with artificially keeping the price of corn high by not allowing foreign corn to come into the country (even though it was cheaper) because british people wanted to be able to charge whatever they wanted for their corn. This caused a lot of people in this country to over pay for their bread. It was an anti-free trade measure.

Take out 'corn' and replace with 'workers' and 'bread' for 'output'

Well it suits your position to put it that way. perhaps if you'd have said the Boss's.

A Corn Law was first introduced in Britain in 1804, when the landowners, who dominated Parliament, sought to protect their profits by imposing a duty on imported corn. During the Napoleonic Wars it had not been possible to import corn from Europe. This led to an expansion of British wheat farming and to high bread prices.

Farmers feared that when the war came to an end in 1815, the importation of foreign corn would lower prices. This fear was justified and the price of corn reached fell from 126s. 6d. a quarter in 1812 to 65s. 7d. three years later. British landowners applied pressure on members of the House of Commons to take action to protect the profits of the farmers. Parliament responded by passing a law permitting the import of foreign wheat free of duty only when the domestic price reached 80 shillings per quarter (8 bushels). During the passing of this legislation, the Houses of Parliament had to be defended by armed troops against a large angry crowd.

This legislation was hated by the people living in Britain's fast-growing towns who had to pay these higher bread prices. The industrial classes saw the Corn Laws as an example of how Parliament passed legislation that favoured large landowners. The manufacturers in particular was concerned that the Corn Laws would result in a demand for higher wages.

There was a dreadful harvest in 1816. This caused bread prices to increase rapidly. This was followed by industrial unrest as workers demanded higher wages in order to pay for the increased food prices. As well as strikes there were food riots all over Britain.

The Corn Laws had an important political impact on Manchester. It was one of the main reasons why the group of middle-class moderate reformers began meeting at the home of John Potter. It also influenced working class radicals and the Corn Laws was one of the main issues that was to be addressed at the meeting that they had organised at St. Peter's Field on 16th August, 1819.

The trouble it caused in and around the Fens led to the hanging of many farm workers.[/b]

 

[Gasman28]

My two penneth worth:

We lost it when we went in to the 'Common Market' We had a great trade with Australia, New Zealand etc, now, they prefer to deal with their nearest neighbours ( Japan, China etc ) since we shafted them.
Now, we have to deal with other countries that see us as an easy touch. We have shot ouselves in the foot - we are selling off all of our industries, airports, etc etc to foriegn companies and going down hill rapidly.
We are still seen as Little America by some people and that is a worry. We were once a great Nation, with a great pride, great industries and leading the way in innovation. Now, we are left with the indigity of selling off our assets to the highest bidder.

 

[skitzee2k]

You don't know or care.

Never claimed I did. Isn't the issue.
The fact is that no-one can understand why foreign workers are beating British workers to jobs.
Logically, on a level playing field, this can only be due to one or more of the following reasons.

British people are lazy
British people lack the skills needed
British people expect more money for the same work compared to immigrants

So what you are suggesting is that the government FORCE employers to hire people who are a) lazy b} incompetent or c) uncompetative.
...which in turn would lead to products or services produced from them either more expensive then they should costing british people more money....or less quality, meaning the quality you get for your money is lower.

If you can think of any other reasons why British people lose if foreign workers are allowed to compete on a level playing field, let me know.

 

[skitzee2k]

It was to do with artificially keeping the price of corn high by not allowing foreign corn to come into the country (even though it was cheaper) because british people wanted to be able to charge whatever they wanted for their corn. This caused a lot of people in this country to over pay for their bread. It was an anti-free trade measure.

Take out 'corn' and replace with 'workers' and 'bread' for 'output'

Well it suits your position to put it that way. perhaps if you'd have said the Boss's.

A Corn Law was first introduced in Britain in 1804, when the landowners, who dominated Parliament, sought to protect their profits by imposing a duty on imported corn. During the Napoleonic Wars it had not been possible to import corn from Europe. This led to an expansion of British wheat farming and to high bread prices.

Farmers feared that when the war came to an end in 1815, the importation of foreign corn would lower prices. This fear was justified and the price of corn reached fell from 126s. 6d. a quarter in 1812 to 65s. 7d. three years later. British landowners applied pressure on members of the House of Commons to take action to protect the profits of the farmers. Parliament responded by passing a law permitting the import of foreign wheat free of duty only when the domestic price reached 80 shillings per quarter (8 bushels). During the passing of this legislation, the Houses of Parliament had to be defended by armed troops against a large angry crowd.

This legislation was hated by the people living in Britain's fast-growing towns who had to pay these higher bread prices. The industrial classes saw the Corn Laws as an example of how Parliament passed legislation that favoured large landowners. The manufacturers in particular was concerned that the Corn Laws would result in a demand for higher wages.

There was a dreadful harvest in 1816. This caused bread prices to increase rapidly. This was followed by industrial unrest as workers demanded higher wages in order to pay for the increased food prices. As well as strikes there were food riots all over Britain.

The Corn Laws had an important political impact on Manchester. It was one of the main reasons why the group of middle-class moderate reformers began meeting at the home of John Potter. It also influenced working class radicals and the Corn Laws was one of the main issues that was to be addressed at the meeting that they had organised at St. Peter's Field on 16th August, 1819.

The trouble it caused in and around the Fens led to the hanging of many farm workers.[/b]

No, that is exaclty my point.
Protectionism isn't the way to go. Just know if you can get something cheaper, you can pass on the savings to the customer. If you artificially inflate prices due to rules against competetion (which is national socialist in nature) the person getting hit is the end consumer.

A free market encourages innovation. If it wasn't for capitalism, the industrial revolution that MADE the tiny island of Britain a major player in the world wouldn't have happened.

 

[ajstoneservices]

You don't know or care.

Never claimed I did. Isn't the issue.
The fact is that no-one can understand why foreign workers are beating British workers to jobs.
Logically, on a level playing field, this can only be due to one or more of the following reasons.

British people are lazy
British people lack the skills needed
British people expect more money for the same work compared to immigrants

So what you are suggesting is that the government FORCE employers to hire people who are a) lazy b} incompetent or c) uncompetative.
...which in turn would lead to products or services produced from them either more expensive then they should costing british people more money....or less quality, meaning the quality you get for your money is lower.

If you can think of any other reasons why British people lose if foreign workers are allowed to compete on a level playing field, let me know.

You're asking a question that you already know the answer to.
Big business wants cheap labour here and wherever else it operates.

How does it get cheaper labour in Britain? simple import it and the best bit? the British taxpayer will subsidies it with tax credits, housing benefits etc. and when this labour leaves? refund the little tax it has paid. Meanwhile the conditions and wages of the working man are driven down to that of their imported counterparts, it's brilliant
[/b]

 

[ajstoneservices]

No, that is exaclty my point.
Protectionism isn't the way to go. Just know if you can get something cheaper, you can pass on the savings to the customer. If you artificially inflate prices due to rules against competetion (which is national socialist in nature) the person getting hit is the end consumer.

But keeping prices artificially low by importing cheap labour harms the consumer in the end.

 

[skitzee2k]

No, that is exaclty my point.
Protectionism isn't the way to go. Just know if you can get something cheaper, you can pass on the savings to the customer. If you artificially inflate prices due to rules against competetion (which is national socialist in nature) the person getting hit is the end consumer.

But keeping prices artificially low by importing cheap labour harms the consumer in the end.

What is artificial about it?? It is not artificial if that is the going rate. I.e. The rate on offer if the government doesn't restrict it....and your wording that the tax credits, housing benefits only help immigrants is so stupid it doesn't deserve too much of a reply except to say, tax credits don't make a difference on who you would hire as BOTH British people and some foreign workers (after they meet more requirements than british people) get it.

 

[ajstoneservices]

What is artificial about it?? It is not artificial if that is the going rate. I.e. The rate on offer if the government doesn't restrict it.

If that labour is [/b]brought into this country with the sole aim of lowering wages then it is artificial. When work dries up in say the building industry, wages naturally drop due to supply and demand.

and your wording that the tax credits, housing benefits only help immigrants is so stupid it doesn't deserve too much of a reply except to say, tax credits don't make a difference on who you would hire as BOTH British people and some foreign workers

Doesn't seem I said that at all does it I think most people know British workers can claim those benefits too if poorly paid. The fact is, it subsidises low wages without which even cheap imported labour couldn't survive.

A couple of months ago I had to go to the local council offices to sort out my business rates. Every person in front of me was there to claim housing benefit and not one of them British.

 

[skitzee2k]

What is artificial about it?? It is not artificial if that is the going rate. I.e. The rate on offer if the government doesn't restrict it.

If that labour is [/b]brought into this country with the sole aim of lowering wages then it is artificial. When work dries up in say the building industry, wages naturally drop due to supply and demand.

and your wording that the tax credits, housing benefits only help immigrants is so stupid it doesn't deserve too much of a reply except to say, tax credits don't make a difference on who you would hire as BOTH British people and some foreign workers

Doesn't seem I said that at all does it I think most people know British workers can claim those benefits too if poorly paid. The fact is, it subsidises low wages without which even cheap imported labour couldn't survive.

A couple of months ago I had to go to the local council offices to sort out my business rates. Every person in front of me was there to claim housing benefit and not one of them British.

No, it is artificial if due to rules competition is HINDERED. I am not going to debate your redefined english language any further, but artificial is anything that isn't natural and as migration is natural...you get the point.

How does it get cheaper labour in Britain? simple import it and the best bit? the British taxpayer will subsidies it with tax credits, housing benefits etc.

You only subsidise something over the other if you pay one side something and not the other.

This has nothing to do with foreign vs british, but benefit class vs working class.
I'd rather they cut back benefits for EVERYONE, but as it is the system helps british and foreign workers so I don't see what difference it makes to british vs foreign

 

[ajstoneservices]

You really do have the cure for every cough

 

[skitzee2k]

You really do have the cure for every cough

There are a lot of points you are making which I completely agree with...ie the problems of a wellfare state to name just one...but this has nothing to do with this one point we disagree on

You say " A British person should be hired even if they are not the best person for the Job"

and I say "The employer should be able to pick the best person for their business "

I am not a national socialist and would never presume to think that my racial group has any entitlements over any other.

 

[ajstoneservices]

You say " A British person should be hired even if they are not the best person for the Job"

I never said that .I say, a job should not go to someone because he will accept less pay.

Foreign labour will accept less than would have been payed to a British worker because it is often much more than he would have earned in his own country. He can accept less pay while here because he is subsidised by the tax payer.

I am not a national socialist and would never presume to think that my racial group has any entitlements over any other.

Not sure what that means. But British jobs for British people is not about race.

 

[skitzee2k]

You say " A British person should be hired even if they are not the best person for the Job"

I never said that .I say, a job should not go to someone because he will accept less pay.

Foreign labour will accept less than would have been payed to a British worker because it is often much more than he would have earned in his own country. He can accept less pay while here because he is subsidised by the tax payer.

I am not a national socialist and would never presume to think that my racial group has any entitlements over any other.

Not sure what that means. But British jobs for British people is not about race.

a job should not go to someone because he will accept less pay.

...this is the WHOLE basis of capitalism! That is why people ask for prices for jobs, that is why supermarkets advertise go into price wars....how can you honestly think that??

If you wanted your garden mowing are you honestly saying you would pick the guy that charges £50 over the guy that charges £20? Because "a job should not go to someone because he will accept less pay. "

Ok, remove racial group and put in nationality. Makes no difference i was just saving time.

 

[ajstoneservices]

We're not going to settle this so this is my last comment.

I employ British people to work for me in Britain. I wont pay foreign labour to do the same job for less, I could, but I wont.