Looking after one's own: isn't than another way of saying something else?

[Jessiedog]

I think in the Philippines and India its been properly planned for. However, part of the question is whether this is good for the Philippines in the long run.

Yes.

There is a question mark as to whether, in the long term, the overseas worker phenomenon will demonstrate net benefits to the Philippines. I think it will. I think that the benefits already delivered outweigh any detriment and believe this will continue.

But the key issue for me is far simpler. The Philippines is an extremely poor country and just as I support the poor of China, I support the poor of the Philippines. These people live in desperate circumstances and they need jobs and money NOW. NOW!

Not tomorrow.

Not when their governments wake up and start working on their behalf (watch out for flying pigs, folks).

Not next week.

Not when all the (relatively VERY well off) workers in the UK have secured their jobs/futures and locked in future pay rises.

Not when we have a global socialist revolution.

But NOW!

And I will continue to support them until viable alternatives are made available.

I think you might call it "looking after ones own".



Woof

 

[nino_savatte]

And exactly HOW would you like baldwin to address the situation? apart from contributing to your awe inspiring thread?

A little honesty would be helpful as well as refraining from calling people "liberals" if they don't agree with him. Of course some more substantive contributions from you wouldnae go a miss either. Bu I know that isnae possible in your case.

 

[nino_savatte]

500 white middleclas people per day leave x amount of white middleclass europeans take there place ie french italains etc as seen on these boards still i supose they have to do somthing while they wait for there parents to die to sell the house

and as for woof more baaaaaa

And you have proof that all of those emigrating are "white" and "middle class"?

You don't and you're showing yourself for the thick twat that you are (again).

 

[ViolentPanda]

This is the key or at least one of the keys. Migration is progressive in this repect. The old world order was by no means rational, just as the new world order is by no means rational. There is no good a priori reason why training should be for a particular country's industries/services.

I've been looking at Mexico and South America more than the Philippines and in Mexico emmigration has had a devastating effect. I think in the Philippines and India its been properly planned for. However, part of the question is whether this is good for the Philippines in the long run.

Isn't Mexico somewhat of a special case (given it's govts' long-standing collusion in supplying migrant labour to the US), especially now, with NAFTA causing economic misery?
As for the sustainability of either the Philippines or India's trained migrant labour, I suspect that it'll rattle on as long as the benefits to the individuals outweigh the negatives, and as far as sustainability of personnel goes, although both countries have seen a slowdown in birthrates (mostly due to wider availability of contraceptives), they're still in growth.

You have to grant balders the fact that he is partially right, though. Plus he's been plugging away on this issue in a way nobody else has - with the emphasis on the brain drain and zealous internationalism - and its turned out to be pretty insightful. I think that's more important than being 100% accurate.

I've never disagreed that he's partially right, the problem lying in the fact that he believes himself to be "100% accurate" and anyone who disagrees with him a "liberal" or some such toss, as well as believeing his analysis to be the last word.
If only life were that simple.

 

[nino_savatte]

A really interesting bit on how legal migrants are exploited on the BBC News just now.
People from Lithuania exploited by gangmasters and people traffikers.

It is a world away from the open borders that as you say a few middle class people benefit from.

So what is your solution? Attack immigration or go after the gangmasters and people traffickers?

The only people who benefit are those who are already wealthy. The only thing that is allowed to move freely across borders is capital and the people who control it.

 

[Belushi]

A really interesting bit on how legal migrants are exploited on the BBC News just now.
People from Lithuania exploited by gangmasters and people traffikers.

I used to work for gangmasters in the food packing industry in East Anglia in the 1980s. Terrible jobs, they'd often ring up and tell you there was no work that day, they'd try every trick in the book to rip you off, ignore health and safety rules and often turn violent on their staff.

God knows it must far worse for trafficked workers far away from home and to afraid to go to the law.

 

[treelover]

I saw that, bloody awful, what an indictment of a cheap labour exploitative economy. The BBC journalist asked the rehetorical question, ''is this what open borders and flexible labour markets was supposed to bring''? Yes, flexible labour markets, so beloved of N/labour, neo-cons and the CBI. Do you, Nino, VP, support flexible labour markets then?

A really interesting bit on how legal migrants are exploited on the BBC News just now.
People from Lithuania exploited by gangmasters and people traffikers.

It is a world away from the open borders that as you say a few middle class people benefit from.
Reply With Quote

 

[Knotted]

Yes.

There is a question mark as to whether, in the long term, the overseas worker phenomenon will demonstrate net benefits to the Philippines. I think it will. I think that the benefits already delivered outweigh any detriment and believe this will continue.

But the key issue for me is far simpler. The Philippines is an extremely poor country and just as I support the poor of China, I support the poor of the Philippines. These people live in desperate circumstances and they need jobs and money NOW. NOW!

Not tomorrow.

Not when their governments wake up and start working on their behalf (watch out for flying pigs, folks).

Not next week.

Not when all the (relatively VERY well off) workers in the UK have secured their jobs/futures and locked in future pay rises.

Not when we have a global socialist revolution.

But NOW!

And I will continue to support them until viable alternatives are made available.

I think you might call it "looking after ones own".



Woof

Careful, Jessie, you're beginning to sound like Bob Geldoff.

If we hypothetically suppose that there is some sort move to restrict migration from the Philippines, I think I would oppose it. It would be the worst of all worlds for the Phlippine economy to be geared toward the export of labour only to find that it couldn't. I do still retain the criticism of the economic model that encourages migration, though.

The Philippines specialise in medical/nursing, India specialises in IT. These are professions where there is a continual demand for workers in the West, even in recessions. If a country wants to take advantage of this, then good luck to them. However, it would be impossible for every country to do this. Supply would soon outstrip demand.

 

[nino_savatte]

I saw that, bloody awful, what an indictment of a cheap labour exploitative economy. The BBC journalist asked the rehetorical question, ''is this what open borders and flexible labour markets was supposed to bring''? Yes, flexible labour markets, so beloved of N/labour, neo-cons and the CBI. Do you, Nino, VP, support flexible labour markets then?

You don't read well, do you? Where did I say that I was "in favour of flexible labourt markets"? I didn't, so stop ascribing things to me that I never said.

I am categorically against the nation-state, what it represents and how it reproduces itself. How you can manage to conflate the two in your mind is anyone's guess.

 

[treelover]

How the fuck do they get away with it, apparently there are only 11 gangmaster
inspectors in the country and they are funded by the gangmasters themselves!.
Anyway, gangmasters, (what a victorian term), are clearly one part of the seamy underbelly of british anglo-saxon capitalism that has fuelled the(for some) booming economy. Maybe the energies of the no borders brigade should be spent dealing with such brutal men and women.

 

[nino_savatte]

Well, treelover?

Next, you'll be telling all and undry how I support the CBI and attend all their conferences...and how I gave Ruth Lea and Digby Jones head etc.

 

[Belushi]

I should mention re Gangmasters (that in the agricultural sector I used to work in) a big part of the problem is the big multi-national agribusinesses like Geest who use them to supply casual labour.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I saw that, bloody awful, what an indictment of a cheap labour exploitative economy. The BBC journalist asked the rehetorical question, ''is this what open borders and flexible labour markets was supposed to bring''? Yes, flexible labour markets, so beloved of N/labour, neo-cons and the CBI. Do you, Nino, VP, support flexible labour markets then?

Frankly, that's a pointless question. What does my personal view have to do with the issue (except insofar as you might attempt to insinuate that my viewpoint, if it were in favour of "flexible labour markets" made me a "boss's stooge" or something similar)?

Lithuania is part of the EU, it's citizens have the right to work here. The fact that they've been duped is a matter for our and their legal authorities, and nothing to do with "flexible labour markets" (a phenomenon that's existed time out of mind).

You'd be better occupied bitching about the lack of law enforcement that allows this to happen, as the BBC journalist should have done, rather than arbitrarily ascribing the cause to a set of "newsworthy" issues.
Or even attacking the pissweak legislature that passed near-toothless anti-gangmaster legislation recently, so as not to upset its' supermarket-owning friends. After all, if there were properly enforced legislation, then the exploiters wouldn't so easily be able to exploit, would they?

 

[ViolentPanda]

I should mention re Gangmasters (that in the agricultural sector I used to work in) a big part of the problem is the big multi-national agribusinesses like Geest who use them to supply casual labour.

Yep, I've heard exactly the same from friends in rural East Anglia. The agri-businesses love sub-contracting. It removes most of the onus of maintaining the legality of work and business practices while giving greater profit.

 

[treelover]

er, what about this?

How the fuck do they get away with it, apparently there are only 11 gangmaster inspectors in the country and they are funded by the gangmasters themselves!. Anyway, gangmasters, (what a victorian term), are clearly one part of the seamy underbelly of british anglo-saxon capitalism that has fuelled the(for some) booming economy.

You'd be better occupied bitching about the lack of law enforcement that allows this to happen, as the BBC journalist should have done, rather than arbitrarily ascribing the cause to a set of "newsworthy" issues.
Or even attacking the pissweak legislature that passed near-toothless anti-gangmaster legislation recently, so as not to upset its' supermarket-owning friends. After all, if there were properly enforced legislation, then the exploiters wouldn't so easily be able to exploit, would they?

 

[nino_savatte]

^^^^^

Neither VP nor I are in favour of "flexible labour markets". Please indicate where either of us suggested this.

 

[tbaldwin]

^^^^^

Neither VP nor I are in favour of "flexible labour markets". Please indicate where either of us suggested this.

So your FOR the free movement of people and AGAINST "flexible labour markets" ?
I know you think i'm thick etc etc but could you state clearly why?

 

[Fruitloop]

That doesn't actually seem like an inherently contradictory point of view to me, to be honest.

 

[madonrubber]

I see myself and every person I meet as citizens of the world, so surely we should look after "our own"

 

[Fruitloop]

Me too.

 

[nino_savatte]

So your FOR the free movement of people and AGAINST "flexible labour markets" ?
I know you think i'm thick etc etc but could you state clearly why?

What is so difficult to understand? You fail to understand something quite fundamental here: the current use of the phrase "flexible labour market" is taken as a shorthand for exploitation; workers are denied basic rights and are paid badly. What is so wrong with people being able to move freely? These Lithuanians were regarded as capital and not as people by those who exploited them. Slaves were regarded similarly.


I am anticipating the usual reply here

 

[ViolentPanda]

So your FOR the free movement of people and AGAINST "flexible labour markets" ?
I know you think i'm thick etc etc but could you state clearly why?

I've already set out why I think the term "flexible labour market" is bollocks. Given that proviso:

Lets say you decide, in a moment of madness, to go live in Bulgaria (exercising your right to free movement within the EU, like those Lithuanians did).

Do you believe that once you arrive there you should be allowed to work at your trade, or do you believe restrictions should be imposed on you, because you're a "foreigner", or that you should be treated any differently from the locals, including being entitled to the protections of EU and local law (taking into account the usual points of supercession)?

Now me, I believe I'm entitled to move wherever I like in the EU and not be treated any differently from the locals in the place I settle, so I'm for freedom of movement, and against a "flexible labour market", because I believe we're all of us, Brit, Lett, Spaniard, Greek, equal and therefore entitled to equal treatment under the law, however much business wants to buttfuck us..

 

[ViolentPanda]

That doesn't actually seem like an inherently contradictory point of view to me, to be honest.

That's because it isn't.

Unless you're so ideologically-hidebound you're as fossilised as this mythical concept of "the left" that balders keeps railing at.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I am anticipating the usual reply here

I'd hate for you to feel disappointed, so I'll deputise for balders.

"LIBERAL SUPREMACIST SNOB"

 

[tbaldwin]

What is so difficult to understand? You fail to understand something quite fundamental here: the current use of the phrase "flexible labour market" is taken as a shorthand for exploitation; workers are denied basic rights and are paid badly. What is so wrong with people being able to move freely? These Lithuanians were regarded as capital and not as people by those who exploited them. Slaves were regarded similarly.


I am anticipating the usual reply here

I think the thing is that yes ideally people should be allowed to move freely.
But in a world so divided as it is now freedom of movement just makes things worse.
The term economic slavery was used by baldwin,fanon etc cos it makes sense.
And supporting open borders or more liberal positions on migration, seems to be asking for more petrol to be poured on the fire.

 

[tbaldwin]

I've already set out why I think the term "flexible labour market" is bollocks. Given that proviso:

Lets say you decide, in a moment of madness, to go live in Bulgaria (exercising your right to free movement within the EU, like those Lithuanians did).

Do you believe that once you arrive there you should be allowed to work at your trade, or do you believe restrictions should be imposed on you, because you're a "foreigner", or that you should be treated any differently from the locals, including being entitled to the protections of EU and local law (taking into account the usual points of supercession)?

Now me, I believe I'm entitled to move wherever I like in the EU and not be treated any differently from the locals in the place I settle, so I'm for freedom of movement, and against a "flexible labour market", because I believe we're all of us, Brit, Lett, Spaniard, Greek, equal and therefore entitled to equal treatment under the law, however much business wants to buttfuck us..

Do you believe in import controls or are you for completely free trade?

Myself i believe regulations are needed to protect people.
Opening up borders would make it a bit of a capitalist free for all. And i think very few people would benefit from that.

 

[tbaldwin]

I see myself and every person I meet as citizens of the world, so surely we should look after "our own"

Agreed. But the question is how? Should we say that people should be free to go where they like and take "their" money with them?
Or do we say that in a world so unequal there has to be controls and laws and taxation etc?

 

[Fruitloop]

I think the thing is that yes ideally people should be allowed to move freely.
But in a world so divided as it is now freedom of movement just makes things worse.
The term economic slavery was used by baldwin,fanon etc cos it makes sense.
And supporting open borders or more liberal positions on migration, seems to be asking for more petrol to be poured on the fire.

Supporting them how? I don't think anyone here materially supports the movement of labour from one country to another, do they?

In my view the answer to this question resembles Germaine Greer's opinion on mini-skirts vs the hijab - that in the present situation there is nothing to be gained from either exposing or covering up women's bodies. Likewise I can't see any political gain either in acting to encourage the movement of labour capital, or in attempting to keep it out. Only the alteration of other political circumstances offers any improvement on any timescale.

That's it, I'm done with these threads.

 

[tbaldwin]

Supporting them how? I don't think anyone here materially supports the movement of labour from one country to another, do they?

Maybe im just really thick. But that is what i thought a lot of people were arguing for.
I thought people were saying that it was good that people (labour) could freely move from one country to another.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Do you believe in import controls or are you for completely free trade?

I'm not for "free trade" at all, it doesn't work and it's a mechanism whereby wealthy countries get wealthier at the expense of everyone else.

Myself i believe regulations are needed to protect people.

Regulations on business, yes. Regulation on people...?

Opening up borders would make it a bit of a capitalist free for all. And i think very few people would benefit from that.

beckyp's post referred to a news item on some Lithuanians, like it or not we already have freedom of movement/open borders within the EU. Don't try and extrapolate peoples' replies to specific cases like this one as being some kind of guide to their general thinking, because you'll end up with egg on your face.