Immigration to the UK - do you have concerns?

[dshl]

We usually do not know who people are on social media.

We could imagine an exchange between physicists about the nature of Black Holes. Someone could be making claims that are at variance with what most physicists believe. If the others think that this person is also a physicist, they may give these claims serious consideration, because they know that they will likely come from someone who knows what they are talking about. However, that person could be very ignorant, and just spouting things with no real basis.

I think that the same also applies to politics. I saw someone claiming a while ago that Starmer would be out by the end of the year and the Labour Party would go to the left. That is simply an assertion with no evidence to back it up. If someone with some knowledge of the topic was to say a similar thing, I would want to know more. I would not bother engaging with someone who I did not know who made such a claim.

It seems to me that all points of view are not equal. Some come from knowledge and consideration, others are based on little or no knowledge or thought.

If person A uses ‘unequal’ as synonymous with ‘It’s my opinion that it’s less likely to be true as mainstream academics say X, it doesn’t account for Y, I view it as sourced from those uneducated folk or those with little experience of the subject, it’s citing people I consider unreliable, etc.’ All of that is fine to my mind, as the definition remains within the realms of their own perceptions, assessments and arguments, and makes ‘unequal’ synonymous with ‘I think it’s wrong/more likely to be wrong'.

Of course, person B will also have their own set of assessments that arrive at the reverse conclusion (some may be very different and some may even be very similar to person A). The trouble is there’s no way of getting outside of the two parties to make an objective hierarchy where some opinions are less equal than others. In absence of this what we’re left with is: All opinions are equal but are thought not to be considered as equal by the parties involved.

Group A may get their way and create societal laws/conventions to treat group B’s opinions unequally or vice versa, but I don’t believe there can be an objective test for such disagreement. And, as a side note, I personally don’t believe in the utility of it in the context of wider society. I think it can backfire. I also question it ethically. None of this is a consequence of any specific opinion I hold on any specific subject, tbh. Rather, I simply believe it’s better to state your reasons why something is wrong rather than point to some subversive and ethereal notion of ‘unequal opinions’.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Well, rather than taking for granted the various problematisations of the event (i.e., 'declining population') that is posed through a capitalist lens (which frames it in terms of market dynamics, the employment of resources and growth), I would rather look at each problematic as the outcome of a system in its own right.

To put that another way, what, specifically, is the "difficult situation" that you are referring to?

I think this is really about whether or not you accept the 'there are too many people' argument as the correct jumping-off point.

The way humans currently operate is unsustainable. That, imo, should be the jumping-off point. It can only be addressed by measures that produce sustainable livings for humanity collectively. To achieve this requires a range of changes that include increased social and economic justice globally - after all, it is a minority of people that live ultra-unsustainably who are the central problem. Those changes are needed whatever the number of people there are in existence. Those kinds of changes will also result in a lowering of birth rates globally as an inevitable consequence, but this should not be the primary aim.

 

[Edie]

I think the French fella that was on the news (and myself previously on this thread) had a point. Our well-developed grey and black economies make the UK a destination for a lot of people with little hope of working productively anywhere else.

This would seem like a really good place to start?

 

[kabbes]

As I'm sure you already know, I am looking at the situation through a neoliberal, capitalist lense. That is the world we live in.

Neoliberalism comprises the current political reality, but I would argue that it is unsustainable. Literally unsustainable -- it will not be possible for 'reality', as you put it, to sustain neoliberalism indefinitely. When things cannot be sustained, they collapse and something else appears instead. We can either try to get ahead of that collapse and envision a more sustainable replacement, or we can be at the mercy of the forces of reactionarism that will otherwise be the default.

Shinkage of the birth rate increases the burden upon the social systems for those who are vulnerable and the elderly. Therefore naturally, the neoliberal capitalist system will therefore excert increasing pressures upon the working age population. After a certain point, that system cannot function.

Correct!

I take the view that we live in a neoliberal, capitalist world and within the discussion we have influential people such as Lord Musk, the manosphere, Tate, incels, and various other far right individuals who are setting a narrative from an ultra-machismo, nationalistic, often racist, social view that sees "white alpha males" being in positions of power and reducing women to baby making machines and reducing the rights of others they deem below them. We can set a counter narrative based upon the world we live in, or we can set one based upon a world we do not.

I take the view that things like Musk, Tate and the far-right are inevitable consequences of neoliberalism and capitalism. They are a feature, not a bug. To put it more formally, externalities are not the failures of the market, they are the things that make the market. Attempts to internalise the externalities will fail, because this approach assumes that you can indemnify experience using money. In other words, we cannot address the failures of capitalism with more capitalism.

And, I do not know whether a social democratic, socialist, libertarian communist, or anarchist system would be better. I see various flavours of problem and sit somewhere as a social democrat/socialist. Therefore I am not going to come from a position that requires revolution, but rather from a worldview that is based on the system we have or seem within reach.

These aren't the only options. One option is to revisit the basis of economics and rebuild it to take account of its failings. This is not the place for a hefty treatise on how that might be done, but it comprises a cutting edge of the intersection of economics and psychology right now. Imagine a world in which the way that economic success is measured takes account of all the things that human economic agents actually value! Things like social justice, inclusion, sustainability and opportunity. So the concept of 'rationality' is not pitted against these things, but builds them in. Would you end up with markets that resemble their current capitalist form? You would not.

Don't mistake your (or others') failure of imagination for how things can be done better for the impossibility that things can be done better. Don't place limits on the ideas before you even encounter them.

For example, something akin to Labour under Corbyn/Momentum, however I dont think that would solve the issues on its own and Im not convinced about Corbyn being effective although thats from a foreign political perspective and I could be miles wrong. But that kind of political position sounds to me like a good start.

We can do better than imagining Corbynism as the extreme end of change! Corbyn proposed a weak form of social democracy that would have been seen by 1960s Tories as radically right-wing! It took all the structures of capitalism for granted and simply imagined some slightly different management of its processes. That ain't going to do it.

Remember, unsustainable means unsustainable. Capitalism cannot be sustained. That's not an ideological statement. It's not a position of how I would prefer social affairs to be managed. It's simply recognising the reality that humans are using environmental resources at a rate that means the environment will eventually collapse, and those resources won't be able to be used any more. The Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) 4.5 from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is viewed as a kind of median expected future pathway, leads to global warming of +2 to +3 degrees, which leads to the risk of deadly heat for more than 100 days per year in Amazonia, India, Southeast Asia and the west coast of Africa. Deadly heat -- heat that kills. You think that capitalism can just keep on rolling at that point?

But, I do totally understand where you're coming from and recognise your points.

In that case, address my question. What -- specifically what -- is the problematic that you are creating from the event of population decline?

 

[lengualo]

Neoliberalism comprises the current political reality, but I would argue that it is unsustainable. Literally unsustainable -- it will not be possible for 'reality', as you put it, to sustain neoliberalism indefinitely. When things cannot be sustained, they collapse and something else appears instead. We can either try to get ahead of that collapse and envision a more sustainable replacement, or we can be at the mercy of the forces of reactionarism that will otherwise be the default.

Correct!

I take the view that things like Musk, Tate and the far-right are inevitable consequences of neoliberalism and capitalism. They are a feature, not a bug. To put it more formally, externalities are not the failures of the market, they are the things that make the market. Attempts to internalise the externalities will fail, because this approach assumes that you can indemnify experience using money. In other words, we cannot address the failures of capitalism with more capitalism.

These aren't the only options. One option is to revisit the basis of economics and rebuild it to take account of its failings. This is not the place for a hefty treatise on how that might be done, but it comprises a cutting edge of the intersection of economics and psychology right now. Imagine a world in which the way that economic success is measured takes account of all the things that human economic agents actually value! Things like social justice, inclusion, sustainability and opportunity. So the concept of 'rationality' is not pitted against these things, but builds them in. Would you end up with markets that resemble their current capitalist form? You would not.

Don't mistake your (or others') failure of imagination for how things can be done better for the impossibility that things can be done better. Don't place limits on the ideas before you even encounter them.

We can do better than imagining Corbynism as the extreme end of change! Corbyn proposed a weak form of social democracy that would have been seen by 1960s Tories as radically right-wing! It took all the structures of capitalism for granted and simply imagined some slightly different management of its processes. That ain't going to do it.

Remember, unsustainable means unsustainable. Capitalism cannot be sustained. That's not an ideological statement. It's not a position of how I would prefer social affairs to be managed. It's simply recognising the reality that humans are using environmental resources at a rate that means the environment will eventually collapse, and those resources won't be able to be used any more. The Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) 4.5 from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is viewed as a kind of median expected future pathway, leads to global warming of +2 to +3 degrees, which leads to the risk of deadly heat for more than 100 days per year in Amazonia, India, Southeast Asia and the west coast of Africa. Deadly heat -- heat that kills. You think that capitalism can just keep on rolling at that point?

In that case, address my question. What -- specifically what -- is the problematic that you are creating from the event of population decline?

I need to get a client update finished, so I'm gonna give a brief reply to it (even if its insufficient to answer your question) but might give a long reply later.


BIB 1:
Those are the left wing systems I know, I am not a political scientist so there is no way I could attempt theorise a better system beyond the kinds of basic ideas (or desires) most of us do. I like most have to leave that to others who can then present an alternative into discourse in a way we can understand. That doesn't mean a better system isn't possible, but I am unaware of it as a tangible thing, and don't see how we reach it without revolution. And in revolution, things tend to go badly.

BIB 2:
I don't think Corbynism is the best we can do, I have problems with Corbyn and don't see that Labour vision as perfect. But its a far sight better than what we have now, and it is at least an attainable goal that can be achieved through gradual change and can be improved upon, without witnessing the collapse of the system, or a revolution. Both of which are usually quite bad, the old adage of "beware that which rises from the ashes" applies.


I know what basically amounts to "I can only discuss within the parameters of what we have because asking me to see an abstract idea of something better which doesn't yet exist is asking too much" is hugely unsatisfying as an answer. But, again, I understand what you're saying but I cannot visualise that in a tangible way or how you get from here to something like that thing.

 

[Gramsci]

I never really considered the positive side of sweatshop employers before this post

It's not quite like that.

Thing is when they catch the Brazilians for example I really don't think they wanted to be put on a plane and sent back to Brazil.

I say the Brazilians as they are the first ones this government has sent back. Easy pickings.

 

[kabbes]

I think this is really about whether or not you accept the 'there are too many people' argument as the correct jumping-off point.

No it’s not. The question is whether or not the reduction in population in developed countries needs to be compensated for by taking people from other countries. That’s got nothing to do with whether there are too many people. Quite the reverse.

The way humans currently operate is unsustainable. That, imo, should be the jumping-off point. It can only be addressed by measures that produce sustainable livings for humanity collectively. To achieve this requires a range of changes that include increased social and economic justice globally - after all, it is a minority of people that live ultra-unsustainably who are the central problem. Those changes are needed whatever the number of people there are in existence. Those kinds of changes will also result in a lowering of birth rates globally as an inevitable consequence, but this should not be the primary aim.

Right. This is what I’m saying. It’s not about having to take extra migration to replace low birth rates in developed nations. It’s about looking again at our whole economic practices

 

[Serge Forward]

If they were worker controlled as well as owned; yeah, why not?

Hip capitalism

 

[The39thStep]

It's not quite like that.

Thing is when they catch the Brazilians for example I really don't think they wanted to be put on a plane and sent back to Brazil.

I say the Brazilians as they are the first ones this government has sent back. Easy pickings.

No, it’s not at all like that.

The inextricable link between migration and sweatshops

newint.org

 

[Serge Forward]

So ... safe routes. Why doesn't this happen? Has any government actually said why they don't want to do this?

UK governments have been pretending there are safe routes (well, safe-ish anyway) for a while now, but when ministers have been asked what these safe routes are, they've provided flimsy details about Ukrainians or dodged the question completely.

At one select committee, I think it was Braverman who was asked directly by one of the questioners that, if he [the questioner] was, for example, a young sub-Saharan African boy from a nameless war-torn country, what would be the safe and legal route to come to the UK. The minister had no clue and babbled on about the Ukrainian scheme.

 

[xenon]

Neoliberalism comprises the current political reality, but I would argue that it is unsustainable. Literally unsustainable -- it will not be possible for 'reality', as you put it, to sustain neoliberalism indefinitely. When things cannot be sustained, they collapse and something else appears instead. We can either try to get ahead of that collapse and envision a more sustainable replacement, or we can be at the mercy of the forces of reactionarism that will otherwise be the default.

Correct!

I take the view that things like Musk, Tate and the far-right are inevitable consequences of neoliberalism and capitalism. They are a feature, not a bug. To put it more formally, externalities are not the failures of the market, they are the things that make the market. Attempts to internalise the externalities will fail, because this approach assumes that you can indemnify experience using money. In other words, we cannot address the failures of capitalism with more capitalism.

These aren't the only options. One option is to revisit the basis of economics and rebuild it to take account of its failings. This is not the place for a hefty treatise on how that might be done, but it comprises a cutting edge of the intersection of economics and psychology right now. Imagine a world in which the way that economic success is measured takes account of all the things that human economic agents actually value! Things like social justice, inclusion, sustainability and opportunity. So the concept of 'rationality' is not pitted against these things, but builds them in. Would you end up with markets that resemble their current capitalist form? You would not.

Don't mistake your (or others') failure of imagination for how things can be done better for the impossibility that things can be done better. Don't place limits on the ideas before you even encounter them.

We can do better than imagining Corbynism as the extreme end of change! Corbyn proposed a weak form of social democracy that would have been seen by 1960s Tories as radically right-wing! It took all the structures of capitalism for granted and simply imagined some slightly different management of its processes. That ain't going to do it.

Remember, unsustainable means unsustainable. Capitalism cannot be sustained. That's not an ideological statement. It's not a position of how I would prefer social affairs to be managed. It's simply recognising the reality that humans are using environmental resources at a rate that means the environment will eventually collapse, and those resources won't be able to be used any more. The Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) 4.5 from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is viewed as a kind of median expected future pathway, leads to global warming of +2 to +3 degrees, which leads to the risk of deadly heat for more than 100 days per year in Amazonia, India, Southeast Asia and the west coast of Africa. Deadly heat -- heat that kills. You think that capitalism can just keep on rolling at that point?

In that case, address my question. What -- specifically what -- is the problematic that you are creating from the event of population decline?

"These aren't the only options. One option is to revisit the basis of economics and rebuild it to take account of its failings. This is not the place for a hefty treatise on how that might be done, but it comprises a cutting edge of the intersection of economics and psychology right now."

Can you point to any accessible books / articles outlining these ideas? BY accessible I mean, preferably not an accademic paper?

 

[kabbes]

"These aren't the only options. One option is to revisit the basis of economics and rebuild it to take account of its failings. This is not the place for a hefty treatise on how that might be done, but it comprises a cutting edge of the intersection of economics and psychology right now."

Can you point to any accessible books / articles outlining these ideas? BY accessible I mean, preferably not an accademic paper?

I wish I could! The stuff I’ve read (and am reading) so far is stuff that makes me pause every 6 pages to pant and decompress. For 600 pages. And I’m used to reading it, or at least attempting to. As an example, this was written by my PhD supervisor and is truly brilliant but it has just taken me literally three months to read and I’m highly motivated to do it.

I think the problem is that attempting to bridge psychology and economics (without just attempting to “fix” economics using things like behavioural or experimental economics) is very new and this still at the stage where people are talking in very philosophical terms about the nature of “flourishing” and “autonomy” and “agency” and “opportunity” and what those can mean in the context of economic activity (ie people interacting with others). So that leads to a lot of references to other works, which doesn’t make for the easiest reading.

If I come across something more digestible, I’ll post it. More realistically, maybe one day I’ll write something more digestible and post that instead.

 

[xenon]

I wish I could! The stuff I’ve read (and am reading) so far is stuff that makes me pause every 6 pages to pant and decompress. For 600 pages. And I’m used to reading it, or at least attempting to. As an example, this was written by my PhD supervisor and is truly brilliant but it has just taken me literally three months to read and I’m highly motivated to do it.

I think the problem is that attempting to bridge psychology and economics (without just attempting to “fix” economics using things like behavioural or experimental economics) is very new and this still at the stage where people are talking in very philosophical terms about the nature of “flourishing” and “autonomy” and “agency” and “opportunity” and what those can mean in the context of economic activity (ie people interacting with others). So that leads to a lot of references to other works, which doesn’t make for the easiest reading.

If I come across something more digestible, I’ll post it. More realistically, maybe one day I’ll write something more digestible and post that instead.

Cheers kabbes. 80 quid is a bit much for me TBH even if I had a chance of understanding it... Just looking up the term neuroeconomics.

Basically interested to read ideas presenting alternatives to the lunacy of infinite growth that is Capitalism. But not state corporate fascism, for want of a better term, or advocating return to low tech agririan primitivism.

 

[brogdale]

I’ve got no problem with them- seems like a great idea. But they can (and do) exist now right? You’d be saying that would be the only business model allowed? Is there a reason they’re not more prevalent now? (I think John Lewis is one?).

Er...neoliberal capitalism.

 

[Gramsci]

So ... safe routes. Why doesn't this happen? Has any government actually said why they don't want to do this?

Good question and been trying to look this up

Looks to me Yvette Cooper is going to go for low hanging fruit first ( Brazilian overstayers etc), work more closely with EU on the people smugglers, drop Rwanda and get more staff to fast track appeals.

Might be some routes for Afghans. She might do deal with EU to take share of migrants in return for EU taking people back. Now not in EU not really part of Fortress Europe. So separate deal needs to be done.

But the long term picture no.

In spat on TV with SNP she said this after kept on being asked about safe routes. She didn't want to clearly answer the question about safe routes

An audience member then told Cooper to answer the question “yes or no” and she said that changes to legal routes wouldn’t stop gangs from operating

So as SNP guy said that's a no then.

What legal routes there are now will be the only ones.

SNP leader view was this:

He said: “You undermine the criminal gangs by providing safe and legal routes as Jessica (audience member) has outlined. That is the solution to this problem.

Which I agree with. Also regularising people that immigration catch when it does one of its sweeps.

Stephen Flynn in heated clash on migration with Yvette Cooper on Question Time

STEPHEN Flynn and Yvette Cooper clashed with one another during a heated debate on migration on Thursday night’s Question Time...

www.thenational.scot

 

[Pickman's model]

Cheers kabbes. 80 quid is a bit much for me TBH even if I had a chance of understanding it... Just looking up the term neuroeconomics.

Basically interested to read ideas presenting alternatives to the lunacy of infinite growth that is Capitalism. But not state corporate fascism, for want of a better term, or advocating return to low tech agririan primitivism.

Try Anna's archive to see if there's a free download

 

[Gramsci]

Who are the UK’s undocumented population?

jcwi.org.uk

The undocumented. The low hanging fruit that this government has started on to show its tough on illegal migrants

As this says most of these people did not come here on boats. They came here on visas and stayed for example


JWCI say that compared to other European countries the process to regularise oneself in UK difficult. And should be made cheaper.

The UK is an outlier compared to countries in the region. We provide comparatively few routes for people living established lives here to regularise their status. This means more people are made undocumented and forced to live on the margins of society.

The UK Government must ensure that undocumented people can regularise and maintain their status. We need a simplified, affordable route to regularisation for undocumented people

 

[_Russ_]

Before organised social groups being extremely lazy and doing little i expect was a characteristics that did not flourish, today it just means you become a parasite
The definition of work can be argued and of course workers are exploited but that doesn't mean working is bad in of itself, originally it literally was going out to gather and hunt for food
Some people are simply Lazy, up to you whether you criticise that type of person, im not saying its the only reason why a person would not work or that society
Should not support those who can't but the will to work is not a negative personal attribute.

 

[kabbes]

Before organised social groups being extremely lazy and doing little i expect was a characteristics that did not flourish, today it just means you become a parasite
The definition of work can be argued and of course workers are exploited but that doesn't mean working is bad in of itself, originally it literally was going out to gather and hunt for food
Some people are simply Lazy, up to you whether you criticise that type of person, im not saying its the only reason why a person would not work or that society
Should not support those who can't but the will to work is not a negative personal attribute.

Yes, the problem is not "work" (or, more generally, activity). Activity is how we express ourselves and thus achieve contentment. The problem, rather, comprises three problems inherent to the institutions derived from modern (and neoclassical) economics. First, work is subject to hierarchical rule, which comes from the (completely empirically baseless) notion that people are opportunistic and need to be controlled. Not only does that, paradoxically, actually act to increase acts of individualistic opportunism, not suppress them. It also alienates workers from the products of their work, which inhibits flourishing. Second, work is viewed as "pain", in the sense that it contains negative utility and must be compensated for by money so that the worker can consume. That is baked into all economic models, and it creates a social reality in which humans are unable to experience flourishing through activity, which is fundamental to being human -- the model creates reality as well as describing it. Third, reproductive labour (the work done to sustain our lives) is viewed as unproductive. This inhibits the ability to take joy from self-care and the care of others. The combination of these three problems, which collectively disembody human efforts and creativity as "labour power" to be exploited, turn us towards passive consumption rather than expression through activity. The way to solve it is to tear down the capitalist institutions that create the paradox.

 

[nino_savatte]

No idea why Nino is being a dick towards you, though. That’s come out of left field.

Categorically not being a dick. He misrepresented my reply to him and then doubled down when I challenged him. Okay?

 

[nino_savatte]

The expression ‘not all opinions are equal’ to me seems to contain a couple of troubling allusions/possibilities. For instance:

• No separation between the opinion and the person/s is being made/qualified. Some would argue there is a logical extension, ie, your opinion is you, therefore it is you who is unequal. I’m an authority and you’re just a pleb.
• The absence of an objective authority to assign some opinions more or less equal. Opinion A can’t simply be assigned less equal by the proponents of Opinion B anymore than vice versa. Eg, a flat earther might argue that your opinion is less equal as it is sourced in the programmed masses, and therefore limited and skewed.

Personally, I think it’s different to say someone/a view is wrong and claiming it should be/is unequal. To say an opinion is wrong is to stay within the realm of your opinions/assessments. To assign an opinion as ‘unequal’ is to assume a position outside of the realm of your opinions, which you're not in a position to do.

Drivel. I provided a perfectly useful illustration. Presumably, you believe that someone holding an opinion about the earth being flat shouldn't be challenged? Catch yourself on.

 

[nino_savatte]

This doesn't even make sense in response to what you quoted, perhaps I'm missing something? Or, perhaps you're being needlessly antagonistic.

This is quite rich coming from someone who wilfully misrepresented my reply.

 

[nino_savatte]

You know exactly what you were doing with this post:






What? No, I came from AVF because they were two siding with right wingers. Are you one of those types (who thinks anyone who isn't exactly like them is a previously banned member or troll)?

You misrepresented me and when I pointed that out, you doubled down. Classic troll behaviour.

 

[nino_savatte]

Don't worry about them. Post as you will. No idea what Nino is on about and just looks like he's being a dick rather than clarifying or moving on. Such are the boards at times.

Again, yer man misrepresented my post about opinions not being equal.

 

[Edie]

No, it’s not at all like that.

The inextricable link between migration and sweatshops

newint.org

This is like the Leicester sweatshops.

Sounds like the grey economy might be something urban can agree needs to be addressed urgently.

I’m sure it’s the same all over the country. Deliveroo, UberEats, car washes, exploitative factories, restaurants, barber shops.

What kind of jobs do undocumented Brazilian people work in London Gramsci ?

It’s a massive pull for migrants. Let’s focus on the pull factors.

 

[dshl]

Drivel. I provided a perfectly useful illustration. Presumably, you believe that someone holding an opinion about the earth being flat shouldn't be challenged? Catch yourself on.

No, I don't believe that and explained it so.

 

[xenon]

Again, yer man misrepresented my post about opinions not being equal.

You’re being a dick though. You could’ve just explained in one sentence. Whatever man. Instead you treat us all to this tedious two and throw.

 

[kabbes]

Just let it go. Nobody cares about anybody’s honour as represented by being challenged about a point made on a message board. You don’t have to defend yourself. It doesn’t matter. What does matter is not having important conversations derailed and overwhelmed by personal arguments about nothing.

 

[ice-is-forming]

Yes, the problem is not "work" (or, more generally, activity). Activity is how we express ourselves and thus achieve contentment. The problem, rather, comprises three problems inherent to the institutions derived from modern (and neoclassical) economics. First, work is subject to hierarchical rule, which comes from the (completely empirically baseless) notion that people are opportunistic and need to be controlled. Not only does that, paradoxically, actually act to increase acts of individualistic opportunism, not suppress them. It also alienates workers from the products of their work, which inhibits flourishing. Second, work is viewed as "pain", in the sense that it contains negative utility and must be compensated for by money so that the worker can consume. That is baked into all economic models, and it creates a social reality in which humans are unable to experience flourishing through activity, which is fundamental to being human -- the model creates reality as well as describing it. Third, reproductive labour (the work done to sustain our lives) is viewed as unproductive. This inhibits the ability to take joy from self-care and the care of others. The combination of these three problems, which collectively disembody human efforts and creativity as "labour power" to be exploited, turn us towards passive consumption rather than expression through activity. The way to solve it is to tear down the capitalist institutions that create the paradox.

Thank you for this

 

[brogdale]

This is like the Leicester sweatshops.

Sounds like the grey economy might be something urban can agree needs to be addressed urgently.

I’m sure it’s the same all over the country. Deliveroo, UberEats, car washes, exploitative factories, restaurants, barber shops.

What kind of jobs do undocumented Brazilian people work in London Gramsci ?

It’s a massive pull for migrants. Let’s focus on the pull factors.

If "Let's" means "let us", how do you suggest that we focus on the pull factor of undocumented employment? The NI piece that The39thStep linked said:

the fault clearly does not lie with migrant workers seeking a living, but with a structurally embedded and profit-driven need to create a worker base with different degrees of exploitability.

If it's the exploitative capitalist factory owners that are the driver or pull for migrants, I'm not clear about our role in "focussing" on this factor.