Why do peoples not understand that immigration is currently based on 'pull'?
- Thread starter durruti02
- Start date
nino_savatte said:So no reply then? I said that "you're still trying to play innocent" and this is all you can come up with?
You're not the sharpest tool in the box - are you?
reply to what? .. you have accused me of changing your words/posts .. provide the evidence or put up and shut up .. simple really
late here and have not read this thread, so will no doubt be flamed, well, feck that - but - reason NHS takes nurses and staff from developing world countries is because the wages are so low for these professions in so called developed world countries that people from here don't want to do the work. So then these medical professionals from abroad come along because wages are relatively higher. End result is developing countries suffer because medical staff are not there.
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
The basic argument is that if you reduce the supply of labour, by reducing the number of immigrants, Labour will be in short supply and so wages will go up. The problem with this. Stopping immigrants coming in the country does not reduce the labour supply, globally. Raising wages in Britain will mean that labour costs are higher making investment in other countries more attractive.
It seems to me workers trying to play by the rules of the capitalists, are doomed to failure. It is like playing King Canute. One way or another the capitalist will get cheaper labour, it is their raison d’etre.
It seems to me workers have to play by their own rules. Unionising everybody in sight, both home and abroad. And ultimately taking control of their own destiny.
It seems to me workers trying to play by the rules of the capitalists, are doomed to failure. It is like playing King Canute. One way or another the capitalist will get cheaper labour, it is their raison d’etre.
It seems to me workers have to play by their own rules. Unionising everybody in sight, both home and abroad. And ultimately taking control of their own destiny.
nino_savatte said:
its fairly simple if you would bother to listen to all the health care workers. They would like to be able to work in the land of their birth and the land they were trained in. How fucking stupid is is this merry go round system that is capitalism and how fucking stupid are the minority on the left who defend it!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/real_story/6447179.stm
"They entered nursing with high hopes of working in a valued profession which made a difference to people's lives.
But the staff shortages and cash cutbacks have taken their toll on nurses such as Sarah Hector and Rob Carey who have joined the exodus of staff heading for Australia.
According to the Royal College of Nursing (RCN) 3,200 nurses of the 8,000 registering to work abroad want to work Down Under. "
or again
"Rob Thomas, 29, who works at Whipps Cross in east London, said despite an excellent academic record and passing his postgraduate exams first time, he had been offered no interviews in his chosen speciality of clinical radiology and may emigrate.
"It's disgusting," he said. "I have secured a job in Australia. I don't want to go, I love the NHS, I want to stay here and I want to work here but if I have to go I have to go. I've got to pay my mortgage."
and some more references
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/bpl/hesr/2007/00000042/a00103s1/art00007?crawler=true
The state of nursing practice in SSA appears to have been impacted negatively by migration. Available (though inadequate) quantitative data on stocks and flows, qualitative information on migration issues and trends, and on the main strategies being employed in both source and recipient countries indicate that the problem is likely to grow over the next 5-10 years. Conclusions.
Multiple actions are needed at various policy levels in both source and receiving countries to moderate negative effects of nurse emigration in developing countries in Africa; however, critically, source countries must establish more effective policies and strategies.
and another one
http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:....pdf+nurses+emigrate&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=uk
"The migration of skilled health workers has in the past decade become more complex, more global and of growing concern to countries that lose much-needed health workers. Some countriessuffer disproportionately from the effects of migration. When significant numbers of doctors and nurses emigrate, the countries that financed their education are, usually unwillingly, subsidizing thewealthier countries that receive those health professionals. If a country has a fragile health system, theloss of part of its trained workforce adds further strain. The impact is most severe in rural andunderserved areas, from where emigration of health workers is often greatest. IMPROVED INFORMATION ON HEALTH-WORKER MIGRATION 3.Knowledge about migratory flows of health workers, though far from complete, has improved considerably in the past two years. Major gaps in reporting remain: data are missing for manycountries in the Eastern Mediterranean Region that rely heavily on migrant contract health workers;the larger migration within the African Region remains largely undocumented, and trends ofimmigration over time are not available for a number of recipient countries. In addition, many healthworkers reportedly migrate but work in other occupations. Nevertheless, available data show theimpact of migration of doctors and nurses on some low-income countries, especially in sub-SaharanAfrica. For every 100 doctors working in sub-Saharan Africa, 23 African-trained doctors are workingin OECD countries. The figure for nurses is lower, but problems in data collection mean thatunderestimation is likely.1. Evidence on the extent and impact of migration for other types of healthworkers is limited. 1The world health report 2006: Working together for health. Geneva, World Health Organization, 2006. "
and even jesus says you are wrong .. 
http://www.cmf.org.uk/literature/content.asp?context=article&id=1208
"Struggling economies that cannot afford to offer better deals for their doctors lose out to richer nations. It is much cheaper to take a doctor from another country than it is to train one yourself, so the rich save money at the expense of the poor.[21] Developing countries need their doctors the most. Kenya pays its doctors less than US$256 per month and simply cannot compete with the salaries on offer in more affluent nations. Currently, the South African government will not issue work visas to doctors from developing countries. This change in policy may have been influenced by the fact that South Africa now loses more of its own doctors to other continents than it recruits from its northern neighbours.
One cannot blame doctors for seeking a better lifestyle with better remuneration and better working conditions. Concern for personal safety rather than monetary issues now underpins many doctors' wishes to emigrate. The question is whether it is ethical for developed countries to recruit actively in developing countries, deliberately enticing doctors and other health professionals.
Jesus emphasised to his disciples a duty of care for the poor.[22] He also insisted that we love our neighbours as ourselves; this implies generosity to those in need.[23,24] Active recruitment of overseas doctors from poorer countries goes against these gospel principles.There are potential solutions to this problem other than those currently being tried by the UK government. Active linkages between medical schools across the economic divide could be encouraged, allowing exchange without financial penalty.[25] Developed countries that recruit doctors from developing nations could pay compensation for each doctor lost. The government could simply try harder to learn from other countries about making the NHS more efficient.[26]
Countries benefiting most from globalisation of the medical workforce have an ethical responsibility to frame their own workforce policy in a manner that reflects global, not merely domestic, need. Implementation might be technically challenging but is ethically essential."
http://www.cmf.org.uk/literature/content.asp?context=article&id=1208
"Struggling economies that cannot afford to offer better deals for their doctors lose out to richer nations. It is much cheaper to take a doctor from another country than it is to train one yourself, so the rich save money at the expense of the poor.[21] Developing countries need their doctors the most. Kenya pays its doctors less than US$256 per month and simply cannot compete with the salaries on offer in more affluent nations. Currently, the South African government will not issue work visas to doctors from developing countries. This change in policy may have been influenced by the fact that South Africa now loses more of its own doctors to other continents than it recruits from its northern neighbours.
One cannot blame doctors for seeking a better lifestyle with better remuneration and better working conditions. Concern for personal safety rather than monetary issues now underpins many doctors' wishes to emigrate. The question is whether it is ethical for developed countries to recruit actively in developing countries, deliberately enticing doctors and other health professionals.
Jesus emphasised to his disciples a duty of care for the poor.[22] He also insisted that we love our neighbours as ourselves; this implies generosity to those in need.[23,24] Active recruitment of overseas doctors from poorer countries goes against these gospel principles.There are potential solutions to this problem other than those currently being tried by the UK government. Active linkages between medical schools across the economic divide could be encouraged, allowing exchange without financial penalty.[25] Developed countries that recruit doctors from developing nations could pay compensation for each doctor lost. The government could simply try harder to learn from other countries about making the NHS more efficient.[26]
Countries benefiting most from globalisation of the medical workforce have an ethical responsibility to frame their own workforce policy in a manner that reflects global, not merely domestic, need. Implementation might be technically challenging but is ethically essential."
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
durruti02 said:
You accuse me of not "engaging" and here you are avoiding my point. You're a hypocrite, durutti. How about addressing my point - eh?
Gmart
Well-Known Member
Durruti
No one denies what you are talking about. It certainly happens everyday. Workers from Ghana are cheaper than workers trained in the UK. That's the market, and these workers have the right to try and make a better life for themselves. If they work for a few years in the UK for a wage which we would consider to be insufficient, then they ca retire back home. So the inequality between countries is draining Ghana and skewing the UK market.
This is a symptom of the inequality of the world. If we try to limit immigration in an effort to get our market to react properly (ie leading to better wages etc), then the immigrants will just try harder to get in.
Therefore the only solution is to try and get Ghana to develop.
You are NOT putting forward any solutions to this problem, just restating it again and again. We all recognise it, but you can't stop people from moving from the poor areas to the rich areas. In fact it is a logical result of having an unequal world.
Nina, don't just throw names at him, he's just upset, and doesn't seem to have a solution to put forward. Chill!
One could argue that eventually the advantages of working in the UK will disappear due to this movement, and then we will be up shit creek without a paddle. Then we will recognise that actually creating an educated society with a community is very important. But until then the government will continue to import the skills they need while they can, thus supporting the elitist system which they have set up.
Don't forget that the British system has always been about educating the elite and sweeping the rest under the carpet. This works ONLY while the rest of the world is not developped. For example we make a fortune by allowing the rich of the world to send their kids to our schools, thus technically taking a space which would be better used for us and by us. But until other countries develop to a point of having good schools we will continue to provide this service to our own detriment.
There will come a time where we will have to pull everything back to the community and really create a society with equality of opportunity, which the population is proud of. Until then we should just plan for this future.
No one denies what you are talking about. It certainly happens everyday. Workers from Ghana are cheaper than workers trained in the UK. That's the market, and these workers have the right to try and make a better life for themselves. If they work for a few years in the UK for a wage which we would consider to be insufficient, then they ca retire back home. So the inequality between countries is draining Ghana and skewing the UK market.
This is a symptom of the inequality of the world. If we try to limit immigration in an effort to get our market to react properly (ie leading to better wages etc), then the immigrants will just try harder to get in.
Therefore the only solution is to try and get Ghana to develop.
You are NOT putting forward any solutions to this problem, just restating it again and again. We all recognise it, but you can't stop people from moving from the poor areas to the rich areas. In fact it is a logical result of having an unequal world.
Nina, don't just throw names at him, he's just upset, and doesn't seem to have a solution to put forward. Chill!
One could argue that eventually the advantages of working in the UK will disappear due to this movement, and then we will be up shit creek without a paddle. Then we will recognise that actually creating an educated society with a community is very important. But until then the government will continue to import the skills they need while they can, thus supporting the elitist system which they have set up.
Don't forget that the British system has always been about educating the elite and sweeping the rest under the carpet. This works ONLY while the rest of the world is not developped. For example we make a fortune by allowing the rich of the world to send their kids to our schools, thus technically taking a space which would be better used for us and by us. But until other countries develop to a point of having good schools we will continue to provide this service to our own detriment.
There will come a time where we will have to pull everything back to the community and really create a society with equality of opportunity, which the population is proud of. Until then we should just plan for this future.
Fruitloop said:Why is there not the same focus on outsourcing that there is on immigration. I mean, the net result for the local w/c is the same, but it seems like it's only the foreigners who have the temerity to steal British jobs here are really at fault.
Interesting point Fruitloop. But what and who you mean by focus on outsourcing. I think their have been TU campaigns and the No Sweat campaign.
But in many ways i think its better to take Jobs to poorer countries than take people from poorer countries to do jobs here.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
durruti02 said:and even jesus says you are wrong ..
http://www.cmf.org.uk/literature/content.asp?context=article&id=1208
"Struggling economies that cannot afford to offer better deals for their doctors lose out to richer nations. It is much cheaper to take a doctor from another country than it is to train one yourself, so the rich save money at the expense of the poor.[21] Developing countries need their doctors the most. Kenya pays its doctors less than US$256 per month and simply cannot compete with the salaries on offer in more affluent nations. Currently, the South African government will not issue work visas to doctors from developing countries. This change in policy may have been influenced by the fact that South Africa now loses more of its own doctors to other continents than it recruits from its northern neighbours.
One cannot blame doctors for seeking a better lifestyle with better remuneration and better working conditions. Concern for personal safety rather than monetary issues now underpins many doctors' wishes to emigrate. The question is whether it is ethical for developed countries to recruit actively in developing countries, deliberately enticing doctors and other health professionals.
Jesus emphasised to his disciples a duty of care for the poor.[22] He also insisted that we love our neighbours as ourselves; this implies generosity to those in need.[23,24] Active recruitment of overseas doctors from poorer countries goes against these gospel principles.There are potential solutions to this problem other than those currently being tried by the UK government. Active linkages between medical schools across the economic divide could be encouraged, allowing exchange without financial penalty.[25] Developed countries that recruit doctors from developing nations could pay compensation for each doctor lost. The government could simply try harder to learn from other countries about making the NHS more efficient.[26]
Countries benefiting most from globalisation of the medical workforce have an ethical responsibility to frame their own workforce policy in a manner that reflects global, not merely domestic, need. Implementation might be technically challenging but is ethically essential."
You're bringing up the false messiah to support your arguments now?
You sick bastard!
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
tbaldwin said:
This from someone who rattles on and on about looking after your own community first?
make up your mind, ffs.
well perzactly, a UK worker whose job is taken by a Polish immigrant in the UK, or one whose job is taken by a Polish person in Poland is not in a particularly different situation are they?
It's a fairly important question, since once mr balwin creates his fortress Britain with mobs holding pitchforks and blazing torches at the borders, the likelihood is that a large number of jobs will simply be relocated overseas. If big business can't get cleaners on the cheap in the UK any more then the temptation just to move the whole office to Bangalore will be increasingly attractive.
It's a fairly important question, since once mr balwin creates his fortress Britain with mobs holding pitchforks and blazing torches at the borders, the likelihood is that a large number of jobs will simply be relocated overseas. If big business can't get cleaners on the cheap in the UK any more then the temptation just to move the whole office to Bangalore will be increasingly attractive.
Gmart
Well-Known Member
Fruitloop said:Why is there not the same focus on outsourcing that there is on immigration. I mean, the net result for the local w/c is the same, but it seems like it's only the foreigners who have the temerity to steal British jobs here are really at fault.
Good point that, tho it's all part of the natural reaction to inequality. In an equal world this would not happen. So the same arguments apply and in the end the richer countries will contract due to this.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
ViolentPanda said:You're bringing up the false messiah to support your arguments now?
You sick bastard!
I noticed that. What an odd thing for a self-styled socialist to say.
Of course, if he's a Xtian Socialist that would explain a lot.
ViolentPanda said:
erm....Your at it again aernt you....The wounded sheep.....
My arguements against mass migration as you know are based on Internationalist and Class politics. To dismiss that as "someone who rattles on about looking after their own community first" does you no credit whatsoever.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
No, I leave fucking wounded livestock to you.tbaldwin said:
You keep saying this, your statements say different, probably because you're so scared or incapable of actually detailing what you mean, that people aren't quite sure what you stand for.
Not in your eyes, anyway.
Are you denying that you "rattle on about looking after your own community first"? Bear in mind just how many threads you've contributed to where you've presented exactly that idea.
audiotech
wav, aiff, mp3, ogg, flac
Fruitloop said:Why is there not the same focus on outsourcing that there is on immigration. I mean, the net result for the local w/c is the same, but it seems like it's only the foreigners who have the temerity to steal British jobs here are really at fault.
I haven't got the article to hand, nor a link, but a recent report I read on outsourcing, suggests that claims about thousands of jobs being outsourced to India and elsewhere have been exaggerated.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
MC5 said:
There also appears to be the beginnings of a "bounce" trend in outsourced jobs, in that in some cases (especially with regard to "service" employment) negative feedback in terms of customer loss has made companies rethink the whole "send the helpdesk jobs to India" wheeze.
Interesting recent article on financial sector outsourcing.
Gmarthews said:Durruti
No one denies what you are talking about. It certainly happens everyday. Workers from Ghana are cheaper than workers trained in the UK. That's the market, and these workers have the right to try and make a better life for themselves. If they work for a few years in the UK for a wage which we would consider to be insufficient, then they ca retire back home. So the inequality between countries is draining Ghana and skewing the UK market.
This is a symptom of the inequality of the world. If we try to limit immigration in an effort to get our market to react properly (ie leading to better wages etc), then the immigrants will just try harder to get in.
Therefore the only solution is to try and get Ghana to develop.
You are NOT putting forward any solutions to this problem, just restating it again and again. We all recognise it, but you can't stop people from moving from the poor areas to the rich areas. In fact it is a logical result of having an unequal world.
Nina, don't just throw names at him, he's just upset, and doesn't seem to have a solution to put forward. Chill!
One could argue that eventually the advantages of working in the UK will disappear due to this movement, and then we will be up shit creek without a paddle. Then we will recognise that actually creating an educated society with a community is very important. But until then the government will continue to import the skills they need while they can, thus supporting the elitist system which they have set up.
Don't forget that the British system has always been about educating the elite and sweeping the rest under the carpet. This works ONLY while the rest of the world is not developped. For example we make a fortune by allowing the rich of the world to send their kids to our schools, thus technically taking a space which would be better used for us and by us. But until other countries develop to a point of having good schools we will continue to provide this service to our own detriment.
There will come a time where we will have to pull everything back to the community and really create a society with equality of opportunity, which the population is proud of. Until then we should just plan for this future.
Yes thank you mate it is the market ... and i thought socialists didnt like the market! I thought we campaigned against the way the market treats us all like commondities.
You are wrong to say that this is just a way of the world. It is only the way of the capitalist free world. I do NOT propose and never have proposed to limit immigration .. that is NOT the solution. The simple solution is for employers to employ locally.
People do not emigrate to countries if there is no available work. If you have read all the articles about health workers and africa you will see a common thread that they are actively poached. It is not simply that a ghanaian CHOOSES to emigrate.
thank you for the patronising support
but i have been proposing a simple solution to this for over a year on urban involving campigns to unionise workers, to create sustainable employment, to stop employers recruting abroad, to set up closed shops etc etc, and specifically I propose a really simple measure. That we educate and train those who live in this country to do the work that we as the people who live here need, whether it be nursing, doctors or binmen. This is simple common sense really.
p.s under capitalism there will never be equality so your solution will never happen. Capitalism relies on inequality.
Fruitloop said:Why is there not the same focus on outsourcing that there is on immigration. I mean, the net result for the local w/c is the same, but it seems like it's only the foreigners who have the temerity to steal British jobs here are really at fault.
too right fruitloop
the answer is simply because in the real world as opposed to on urban, the left always opposes outsourcing, even though its affects, as you rightly point out are identical to those caused by bosses using migration for cheap labour!
in my mind the debate has always been as to how, you can oppose outsourcing on the one hand , yet on the other defend the bosses using migration for cheap labour.
nino_savatte said:
"Dave Prentis, Unison’s general secretary, said: “We should develop training opportunities for overseas students, pay their tuition fees, give them a bursary and increase the pool of trained health staff internationally.
“It is morally wrong to take nurses and doctors from countries where their services are desperately needed”.
Tuesday, 22 February 2005 09:55
BNN: British Nursing News Online · www.bnn-online.co.uk
Stop poaching our medical staff
http://www.wrp.org.uk/news/140
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/st...677505,00.html
"Ethical guidelines to stop hospitals poaching nurses from the poorest countries are being ignored by private recruiting agencies, the Royal College of Nursing warns".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3598806.stm
"The Royal College of Nursing (RCN) says the [poaching]code should be mandatory, rather than voluntary."
ViolentPanda said:
Mate. Of course people do not or should not belong to their govts. But what we have is the west using these people for cheap labour. This is the key and any self respecting socialist should oppose it.
VP you rightly have always said posters should back up their posting. I have done this to the nth degree on here, with NO referenced response. On that basis do you accept that i have proved my point?
p.s. Training in this country to often tied in. I have had to sign before to say i would pay back training course money if i left employment.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
durruti02 said:
You're a slippery one, durutti. It is interesting how you change your tone according to the points that are put before you.
So why did you post that "scenario", if you knew that what I was saying was true? It isn't just RTB properties that are being let to immigrants. Privaterented accommodation (non-RTB) is also where many immigrants will go.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
durruti02 said:
Whether or not certain unions use emotive words like "poached" does not alter the fact that these workers are not "poached" at all, rather they come here because they want to.
Your Guardian link is a link to the front page and as for the WRP, I'm not sure where to start.
Gmart
Well-Known Member
While your competition employs lower cost workers from ghana and takes all your customers, mmm great idea.
ie given an opportunity which they choose to take.
It does and I sympathise, but the world IS unequal. That doesn't mean that we can't work towards a more equal world, just that it makes no sense to complain about this fact as you'll end up complaining all your life!
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
I've already said (about 200 posts ago) that as far as the argument goes you've proved that skilled labour movement adversely affects the developing world.durruti02 said:
What you haven't done is proved the contention you made in the thread title.
Hardly the same as having to sign a 3/5/7/9 year indenture (or longer) tying you to an employer though, is it?
nino_savatte said:Whether or not certain unions use emotive words like "poached" does not alter the fact that these workers are not "poached" at all, rather they come here because they want to.
Your Guardian link is a link to the front page and as for the WRP, I'm not sure where to start.
so justify your argument!! ..
we have here, or rather i have posted here, a whole series of references of unions and health organisation from nursing orgs to the WHO (FFS) ALL saying it is poaching ( with detailed research into motivations of those involved and the affects on both countries)
.. yet STILL you say it isn't!! again and as always with NO counter evidence!!!
sorry mate but that makes you look totally ridiculous!
who the fuck are you, in the face of all this evidence to deny it is poaching!!!
Similar threads
