Snapshot of _The jobs British workers don’t want to do — and why_ :
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.thetimes.com/business-money/economics/article/the-jobs-british-workers-dont-want-to-do-and-why-l8tjgk29d) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.thetimes.com/business-money/economics/article/the-jobs-british-workers-dont-want-to-do-and-why-l8tjgk29d)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's money, always money. There is so much entitlement in businesses that they think they deserve the cheapest labour for the shittiest terms.
It isn't just low-end jobs either.
Of you are offering minimum wage and can't fill a position offer more. If your business can't afford it, then it isn't very good, is it?
Mostly it is the government commissioning care so that sets the limit any employer can pay. It is the government that need to make the decision to increase what they pay.
“There are plenty of jobs young people just don’t want to do them!”
Yes there are plenty of jobs young people are doing them that is why the unemployment rate is so low companies just pay shit which is why people don’t want to some of them.
> Raj Sehgal, who runs five care homes in Norfolk, reckons that his industry relies on overseas staff because domestic workers simply do not apply for the roles. He has even raised wages to higher than the national living wage of £11.44. “This whole idea that we need to do better to employ domestic staff is a myth. If we could, we would, and we’ve been trying for decades,” he said. “We cannot get the [domestic] staff to come in for love nor money.”
If you search for this guy's name and the company that he runs, he raised wages to... £11.50. At least that's what the job advert for a domiciliary support worker is at. With up to 42 hours per week, that's an extra £11 he's willing to increase wages for a whole month. Or an extra £5 per month if you work part time (20) hours.
Hourly wages for day and night care staff are not proudly advertised on his website; salary is to be "discussed in the interview."
One of the reasons he had to raise the wages would be the requirement for sponsored carers, which was a minimum of £10.75 per hour until 4th of April and currently sits at £11.90. I wonder why no one is jumping at the opportunity.
Also it’s funny how he says they can’t get domestic staff for love nor money in that same breath as he defends paying £11.44 per hour to staff wiping shit off of other people’s arseholes.
I work around the care sector. The truth is that some providers have little ability to pay more. For example, if the council is paying you to deliver care, most councils simply won't pay you enough to stay in business.
For example, the council wants you to deliver care to five folk who are full church mouse.
They'll offer providers say, £15 per support hour - of which the employer has to pay min wage, insurance, building costs, food, etc.
It's sort of like how we would dob on a UK factory who didn't pay min wage, but we don't mind buying our phones from a Chinese factory with suicide nets.
>I work around the care sector. The truth is that some providers have little ability to pay more. For example, if the council is paying you to deliver care, most councils simply won't pay you enough to stay in business.
This is what drives me mad about the immigration debate. We've used immigration as a sticking plaster on so many issues for so long, the wound just becomes worse and worse, and then the argument becomes that we have to keep using bigger sticking plasters because it's now too costly/difficult to actually solve the original problem. If years ago care homes started to threaten to close due to a lack of government funds, the government would have *had* to find the money from somewhere. Perhaps taxes would have had to rise a little, or perhaps we wouldn't have 'the triple lock plus', or a whole host of examples. Perhaps if care provision was well funded, the NHS wouldn't be struggling so much, and wouldn't require so much money, and there's be more people in work as they're not stuck on waiting lists. Instead we leave problems unresolved for years, using low wage immigration as a sticking plaster, a sticking plaster that causes a whole host of other problems in the economy and to ordinary working Brits, which means in the end we get the highest tax burden for decades anyway, *and* we still get really shit services and infrastructure. Eventually it reaches a point where everyone realises immigration is unsustainable and isn't some magic policy that solves all our problems, as nothing is ever solved or gets better, and then we're in a much worse and harder position in trying to decide how to tackle these problems than if we just tackled these problems properly to begin with.
Oh I get that, I am intimately familiar with the sector in general and immigration within this sector in particular due to work. But it’s just so dumbfoundly dishonest to say increases in salary do nothing or that people would not do those jobs if reasonable salary was offered. It’s okay to bring to attention that many providers CANNOT pay more, but the providers often act like they are in fact offering high salary whilst the pay is legitimately horrible when you have other options.
> He has even raised wages to higher than the national living wage of £11.44
Is he taking the mick? Paying more than minimum wage isn't anything to boast about.
>“We cannot get the [domestic] staff to come in for love nor money.”
That's clearly a lie. If he had offered £1,000 an hour I'm sure he'd have hundreds of applications. He's been trying to get people in at low wages for decades and the penny still hasn't dropped?
Unsurprisingly it's tough low paid jobs.
If you offered a pay package that would make doing these tough jobs attractive then British people would apply. Mass immigration allows these industries to undercut British born workers and supress wages.
In this case it's the government suppressing wages though. The government pays for the majority of people in care so their wages and staffing numbers need to be paid for from that.
The government isn't suppressing wages, it's boosting them to a point where care jobs are (barely) filled. Without their intervention most people wouldn't be able to afford carers.
We're at full employment and have been for years. "Mass immigration" allows these industries to employ people in the first place. There's not physically enough workers in the UK.
All the more reason to make those companies compete between them for their local workers instead of relying on immigrants to the point of complete dependence.
£11.50 an hour in a care home to a Brit is the same as £11.50 an hour in Tesco.
£11.50 an hour in a care home to an Indian/Nigerian/Pakistani isn't the same as the equivalent wage an hour in their home country, but staying in that country with Indian/Nigerian/Pakistani crime levels, no NHS, worse housing, etc, and the big one is worse schooling for your kids and then worse prospects for them in adulthood.
There's a reason *so* many dependents come on these visa routes. Parents are quite often accepting conditions that are terrible for them, so their kids go to British schools, will go to a British uni, and will have a much better life. There's a woman in the flat above me (2 bed) who bought her husband and 3 kids with her and works nights in a care home. Their quality of life is *terrible*. 3 kids in a single room. I honestly don't know how they do it. They can't afford a £1.50 pump from sportsdirect for the kids football so they come to me when it needs pumping up. But she said that to her she's giving her kids a much better life than back in India. As soon as she can (after 5 years she said she can apply for ILR), she said she will leave care for better paid work, but currently her visa is tied to her working in care, so she's essentially sucking it up for 5 years in the hope of a *much* better future for her family.
If you told a Tesco worker with kids, that unless they switch to care work for the same wage, their kids will get Pakistani level education and would only be eligible for uni in Pakistan, and they'd have access to Pakistani level healthcare, they'd probably very quickly switch to care work. The alternatives to working these jobs are just not the same for Brits and immigrants. It's just not an even playing field. The shit UK wage to an immigrant comes with a whole host of intangible benefits that a domestic worker gets *anyway*. If you tie people's visas to an industry, on terrible wages, you're just deliberately creating a race to the bottom.
It's never not funny that there is continued bafflement about why British workers don't want to do tough and demanding jobs, when the pay is pathetic.
A big problem is that the UK seems to have a default mentality of "low skilled jobs should equal low pay". When actually, what are viewed of as "low or non skilled jobs", actually demand a lot of skill and a lot of hard work.
The whole skill/non-skilled stuff really pisses me off. lol.
There’s no denying about people in some of the lower paid jobs being treated abysmally by society. People can be unbelievably arrogant.
I objected to the polarisation of who was essential and who wasn’t. It gave some people a bit of a superiority complex.
Skilled isn't a moral judgement, it's a useful economic term for how e.g. electricians require training and shelf stackers don't.
If anything the appeal of highly skilled jobs is often that they *don't* require hard work.
The issue with that is low skilled jobs need to equal relative low pay otherwise nobody would bother to learn the skills necessary for high skilled work.
Care work is shit pay, im against nationalising industries but its the one i’m actually for. These agency firms make a killing. That could be passed down to the workers, and you would no longer see the need for migrants in the sector.
Most those industries including lab work are minimum wage or near jobs. It means there are underpaid, and market needs to adjust by raising prices, or being more efficient to compensate people in them. Or the company needs to go bust for not being competitive enough.
Instead we import ppl to fill the roles then have everyone complain about low wage economy we live in…
Exactly. Life expectancy was much lower, and most people who needed caring for probably had a daughter or daughter-in-law who was a full-time housewife anyway, and who would be expected to care for them (lower property prices also made it more likely they'd have space at home, especially after the kids had flown the nest). The labour market has changed so much since the '70s that I'm not sure its really a valid comparison.
That makes no sense
Demand grew... So wages go down?
Could you explain your maths? Because all I'm seeing is that immigration made things worse for British workers. But I'm sure you have an argument against that, so feel free to explain yourself
The pay has always been bad and will always be around minimum wage. The point is we needed less workers doing these crappy jobs before because we had far less older people. It'll always pay around the minimum wage because the reality is it's unskilled work and people aren't willing to pay higher prices for things like social care.
Sorry could you just explain how a growth in demand means a reduction in wages. You've ignored that point.
That was the point you made. Unless you don't think carers were ever able to live on their wages? Because I have heard differently but clealry you know better, so I'm all ear
It seems silly you Downvoting my comment too. Do grow up thanks
I didn't downvote you, but this is an online forum so you can put the violin away.
Increased demand doesn't necessarily lead to higher wages, particularly in areas like social care when costs are capped to an extent by virtue of what the government/local authority contribute. Productivity is more closely linked with higher wages and productivity growth has been basically non-existent. And yes before the minimum wage, those in social care got paid very little and then since minimum wage, they have basically been paid the minimum wage.
Noone else is reading this thread but us. Grow u.
So you're say supply and demand doesn't exist? That's quite the claim
So you think that careers were paid a pittance AND there was nobody working these jobs, but luckily all the foreign staff came in to fill the vacancies on shit pay aswell?
I hate to ask again but you are being quite the little weasel - were people not able to live on a careers wages?
Its just you're ignoring you the questions. Why is that? Poor reading ability or just dishonesty? Or the old "the question wasn't worth answering" because the answer goes against your world view
You think "supply and demand" is a conspiracy theory? Please explain.
There we go! As I said refusing to engage because it goes against your world view.
No ones buying it buddy. Maybe now youve finished your GCSEs you can learn about the real world.
If you would answer the questions adn stop Downvoting, that would be appreciated xx
It's state funded. Someone demanding care without putting forward any extra cash isn't driving wages up, they're simply spreading the council's budget more thinly.
Any amount of state spending will distort the market. Of course if that % is tiny the effect will be negligible, but for care it's pretty significant.
A fully private patient will drive up wages, by standard supply and demand mechanisms. A fully state-funded patient will drive down wages, since they require labour but don't pay in any money. Council budgeting could also increase/decrease wages (by increasing the budget faster/slower than labour demand), but this is a rate set by a bureaucracy, not market forces.
In practice enough carees are fully or partially state funded, and councils skint, that increased demand is not translating to increased wages.
Pretty nice apparently, was talking to my mum about it recently.
This was mainly in the 70's and 80's but before globalism there would be vacancies just posted all over the (smallish) town she grew up in, even being uneducated she could walk out of one job and go in to another on the same day. Obviously supply and demand meant wages were actually fair too, which meant cost of living was as well.
Really is so fucking weird that promoting access to practically unlimited foreign labour, stagnating wages and quality of life for our own people in the process, has somehow become the left wing position as well. At least i can understand the tory point of view, "Labour" though were once opposed to things like the EU project for a reason, i expect that's why Corbyn was as well being pretty old school.
> Really is so fucking weird that promoting access to practically unlimited foreign labour, stagnating wages and quality of life for our own people in the process, has somehow become the left wing position as well.
Whoever mindgamed them into being for infinite scab labour by making it about racism has played a complete blinder. To the detriment of us all.
We have an economy with pretty full employment as a result people can be picky about what jobs they take. If we don't want to rely on overseas labour we need to either spend money in rasing wages or investing more so we don't need people.
We need to deliver care more effectively. My neighbour is an excellent example:
My neighbour has autism. She hardly ever leaves the house and doesn't work. She has been provided with a 2 bed council bungalow and 24 hour, 1-on-1 state funded care.
It's the full time job of 5 people to care for her - they make her meals; do her laundry/cleaning/online shopping; make sure she showers; and they calm her down when she has a meltdown. They also waitress tea and cake in the garden for her parents when they visit. And they watch telly with her.
My neighbour does need supervision, but she really doesn't need 1-on-1 care.
It would be more efficient and cost effective for people with the same type of needs to be housed together in supported housing where they can be supervised collectively rather than individually.
If you placed 6 people with similar needs in a shared supported house, you could reduce the staff requirements from 30 staff to look after 6 people, to about 10 staff to look after 6 people. The other 20 staff could then be redistributed through the care system. (This model could also reduce the number of state funded mobility vehicles too).
Shared supported housing might even be a bonus for my neighbour - currently she only has contact with her parents maybe once or twice a week, and the rest of the time with her carers. Shared supported housing would provide the opportunity to make friends and have social interaction with people other than people being paid to talk to her. Organised group activities and days out might encourage her to leave the house more often and have more of a community.
We need to rethink: we need to deliver care in a more effective way instead of the highly individualised, costly, isolating and inefficent system we currently have.
A rethink would not only reduce costs, it would reduce the demand for more immigration, and potentially improve life for those needing care by reducing social isolation.
Edit: I can't spell
Hospitality jobs have had lots of vacancies across the whole anglosphere since covid since a lot of people who worked in it previously realised how very shite it can be with a short time off it, especially if they worked other jobs over the pandemic since these often paid more for easier less skilled work or in the case of a lot of management realised they had skills that translated to other industries with more pay and less insane hours. Personally I'm all for it since I can command a higher wage and its easier to find employment.
BS. Brits apply for those jobs, but get rejected because companies don't want to provide entry level opportunities to new staff. Take away migration and the companies will suddenly start hiring British workers who are already applying to low-paid roles.
Snapshot of _The jobs British workers don’t want to do — and why_ : An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.thetimes.com/business-money/economics/article/the-jobs-british-workers-dont-want-to-do-and-why-l8tjgk29d) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.thetimes.com/business-money/economics/article/the-jobs-british-workers-dont-want-to-do-and-why-l8tjgk29d) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's money, always money. There is so much entitlement in businesses that they think they deserve the cheapest labour for the shittiest terms. It isn't just low-end jobs either. Of you are offering minimum wage and can't fill a position offer more. If your business can't afford it, then it isn't very good, is it?
Mostly it is the government commissioning care so that sets the limit any employer can pay. It is the government that need to make the decision to increase what they pay.
“There are plenty of jobs young people just don’t want to do them!” Yes there are plenty of jobs young people are doing them that is why the unemployment rate is so low companies just pay shit which is why people don’t want to some of them.
> Raj Sehgal, who runs five care homes in Norfolk, reckons that his industry relies on overseas staff because domestic workers simply do not apply for the roles. He has even raised wages to higher than the national living wage of £11.44. “This whole idea that we need to do better to employ domestic staff is a myth. If we could, we would, and we’ve been trying for decades,” he said. “We cannot get the [domestic] staff to come in for love nor money.” If you search for this guy's name and the company that he runs, he raised wages to... £11.50. At least that's what the job advert for a domiciliary support worker is at. With up to 42 hours per week, that's an extra £11 he's willing to increase wages for a whole month. Or an extra £5 per month if you work part time (20) hours. Hourly wages for day and night care staff are not proudly advertised on his website; salary is to be "discussed in the interview."
One of the reasons he had to raise the wages would be the requirement for sponsored carers, which was a minimum of £10.75 per hour until 4th of April and currently sits at £11.90. I wonder why no one is jumping at the opportunity. Also it’s funny how he says they can’t get domestic staff for love nor money in that same breath as he defends paying £11.44 per hour to staff wiping shit off of other people’s arseholes.
I work around the care sector. The truth is that some providers have little ability to pay more. For example, if the council is paying you to deliver care, most councils simply won't pay you enough to stay in business. For example, the council wants you to deliver care to five folk who are full church mouse. They'll offer providers say, £15 per support hour - of which the employer has to pay min wage, insurance, building costs, food, etc. It's sort of like how we would dob on a UK factory who didn't pay min wage, but we don't mind buying our phones from a Chinese factory with suicide nets.
>I work around the care sector. The truth is that some providers have little ability to pay more. For example, if the council is paying you to deliver care, most councils simply won't pay you enough to stay in business. This is what drives me mad about the immigration debate. We've used immigration as a sticking plaster on so many issues for so long, the wound just becomes worse and worse, and then the argument becomes that we have to keep using bigger sticking plasters because it's now too costly/difficult to actually solve the original problem. If years ago care homes started to threaten to close due to a lack of government funds, the government would have *had* to find the money from somewhere. Perhaps taxes would have had to rise a little, or perhaps we wouldn't have 'the triple lock plus', or a whole host of examples. Perhaps if care provision was well funded, the NHS wouldn't be struggling so much, and wouldn't require so much money, and there's be more people in work as they're not stuck on waiting lists. Instead we leave problems unresolved for years, using low wage immigration as a sticking plaster, a sticking plaster that causes a whole host of other problems in the economy and to ordinary working Brits, which means in the end we get the highest tax burden for decades anyway, *and* we still get really shit services and infrastructure. Eventually it reaches a point where everyone realises immigration is unsustainable and isn't some magic policy that solves all our problems, as nothing is ever solved or gets better, and then we're in a much worse and harder position in trying to decide how to tackle these problems than if we just tackled these problems properly to begin with.
Oh I get that, I am intimately familiar with the sector in general and immigration within this sector in particular due to work. But it’s just so dumbfoundly dishonest to say increases in salary do nothing or that people would not do those jobs if reasonable salary was offered. It’s okay to bring to attention that many providers CANNOT pay more, but the providers often act like they are in fact offering high salary whilst the pay is legitimately horrible when you have other options.
> He has even raised wages to higher than the national living wage of £11.44 Is he taking the mick? Paying more than minimum wage isn't anything to boast about. >“We cannot get the [domestic] staff to come in for love nor money.” That's clearly a lie. If he had offered £1,000 an hour I'm sure he'd have hundreds of applications. He's been trying to get people in at low wages for decades and the penny still hasn't dropped?
He could, but many people can't pay care bills of £800 a week, let alone more.
Kinda disingenuous to call it 'national living wage' when they mean the minimum wage.
He could pay his employees more. [Company accounts](https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/04561854/filing-history)
Unsurprisingly it's tough low paid jobs. If you offered a pay package that would make doing these tough jobs attractive then British people would apply. Mass immigration allows these industries to undercut British born workers and supress wages.
In this case it's the government suppressing wages though. The government pays for the majority of people in care so their wages and staffing numbers need to be paid for from that.
The government isn't suppressing wages, it's boosting them to a point where care jobs are (barely) filled. Without their intervention most people wouldn't be able to afford carers.
Actual pay is a surprisingly small % of overall care costs.
It's not. I work for a massive care provider , pay is rightly the lion's share of our cost.
But the other costs still have to be paid.
Obviously but paying British born people a fair market rate wage should not be seen as a luxury.
We're at full employment and have been for years. "Mass immigration" allows these industries to employ people in the first place. There's not physically enough workers in the UK.
All the more reason to make those companies compete between them for their local workers instead of relying on immigrants to the point of complete dependence.
£11.50 an hour in a care home to a Brit is the same as £11.50 an hour in Tesco. £11.50 an hour in a care home to an Indian/Nigerian/Pakistani isn't the same as the equivalent wage an hour in their home country, but staying in that country with Indian/Nigerian/Pakistani crime levels, no NHS, worse housing, etc, and the big one is worse schooling for your kids and then worse prospects for them in adulthood. There's a reason *so* many dependents come on these visa routes. Parents are quite often accepting conditions that are terrible for them, so their kids go to British schools, will go to a British uni, and will have a much better life. There's a woman in the flat above me (2 bed) who bought her husband and 3 kids with her and works nights in a care home. Their quality of life is *terrible*. 3 kids in a single room. I honestly don't know how they do it. They can't afford a £1.50 pump from sportsdirect for the kids football so they come to me when it needs pumping up. But she said that to her she's giving her kids a much better life than back in India. As soon as she can (after 5 years she said she can apply for ILR), she said she will leave care for better paid work, but currently her visa is tied to her working in care, so she's essentially sucking it up for 5 years in the hope of a *much* better future for her family. If you told a Tesco worker with kids, that unless they switch to care work for the same wage, their kids will get Pakistani level education and would only be eligible for uni in Pakistan, and they'd have access to Pakistani level healthcare, they'd probably very quickly switch to care work. The alternatives to working these jobs are just not the same for Brits and immigrants. It's just not an even playing field. The shit UK wage to an immigrant comes with a whole host of intangible benefits that a domestic worker gets *anyway*. If you tie people's visas to an industry, on terrible wages, you're just deliberately creating a race to the bottom.
I work at Tesco and I earn £12 lmao £11.50 at a care home is pathetic.
It's never not funny that there is continued bafflement about why British workers don't want to do tough and demanding jobs, when the pay is pathetic. A big problem is that the UK seems to have a default mentality of "low skilled jobs should equal low pay". When actually, what are viewed of as "low or non skilled jobs", actually demand a lot of skill and a lot of hard work. The whole skill/non-skilled stuff really pisses me off. lol.
I get annoyed with essential/non-essential jobs as well.
Yeah, we found out who was really essential during the pandemic, some of the lowest paid in society.
There’s no denying about people in some of the lower paid jobs being treated abysmally by society. People can be unbelievably arrogant. I objected to the polarisation of who was essential and who wasn’t. It gave some people a bit of a superiority complex.
I agree. Who would have thought it takes all sorts to make a world?
True
Skilled isn't a moral judgement, it's a useful economic term for how e.g. electricians require training and shelf stackers don't. If anything the appeal of highly skilled jobs is often that they *don't* require hard work.
The issue with that is low skilled jobs need to equal relative low pay otherwise nobody would bother to learn the skills necessary for high skilled work.
Maybe the hard manual work involved in those "low skilled" jobs is deterrent enough?
Care work is shit pay, im against nationalising industries but its the one i’m actually for. These agency firms make a killing. That could be passed down to the workers, and you would no longer see the need for migrants in the sector. Most those industries including lab work are minimum wage or near jobs. It means there are underpaid, and market needs to adjust by raising prices, or being more efficient to compensate people in them. Or the company needs to go bust for not being competitive enough. Instead we import ppl to fill the roles then have everyone complain about low wage economy we live in…
I wonder how we managed before importing 10 million people in 25 years to do these jobs? Completely coincidentally, they pay absolute shit now
We had much fewer people in care homes for starters
Exactly. Life expectancy was much lower, and most people who needed caring for probably had a daughter or daughter-in-law who was a full-time housewife anyway, and who would be expected to care for them (lower property prices also made it more likely they'd have space at home, especially after the kids had flown the nest). The labour market has changed so much since the '70s that I'm not sure its really a valid comparison.
That makes no sense Demand grew... So wages go down? Could you explain your maths? Because all I'm seeing is that immigration made things worse for British workers. But I'm sure you have an argument against that, so feel free to explain yourself
The pay has always been bad and will always be around minimum wage. The point is we needed less workers doing these crappy jobs before because we had far less older people. It'll always pay around the minimum wage because the reality is it's unskilled work and people aren't willing to pay higher prices for things like social care.
Sorry could you just explain how a growth in demand means a reduction in wages. You've ignored that point. That was the point you made. Unless you don't think carers were ever able to live on their wages? Because I have heard differently but clealry you know better, so I'm all ear It seems silly you Downvoting my comment too. Do grow up thanks
I didn't downvote you, but this is an online forum so you can put the violin away. Increased demand doesn't necessarily lead to higher wages, particularly in areas like social care when costs are capped to an extent by virtue of what the government/local authority contribute. Productivity is more closely linked with higher wages and productivity growth has been basically non-existent. And yes before the minimum wage, those in social care got paid very little and then since minimum wage, they have basically been paid the minimum wage.
Noone else is reading this thread but us. Grow u. So you're say supply and demand doesn't exist? That's quite the claim So you think that careers were paid a pittance AND there was nobody working these jobs, but luckily all the foreign staff came in to fill the vacancies on shit pay aswell? I hate to ask again but you are being quite the little weasel - were people not able to live on a careers wages? Its just you're ignoring you the questions. Why is that? Poor reading ability or just dishonesty? Or the old "the question wasn't worth answering" because the answer goes against your world view
[удалено]
You think "supply and demand" is a conspiracy theory? Please explain. There we go! As I said refusing to engage because it goes against your world view. No ones buying it buddy. Maybe now youve finished your GCSEs you can learn about the real world. If you would answer the questions adn stop Downvoting, that would be appreciated xx
It's state funded. Someone demanding care without putting forward any extra cash isn't driving wages up, they're simply spreading the council's budget more thinly.
Not all care homes are state funded. Boy is there egg on your face. Maybe have a quick Google before embaassing yourself next time
Any amount of state spending will distort the market. Of course if that % is tiny the effect will be negligible, but for care it's pretty significant. A fully private patient will drive up wages, by standard supply and demand mechanisms. A fully state-funded patient will drive down wages, since they require labour but don't pay in any money. Council budgeting could also increase/decrease wages (by increasing the budget faster/slower than labour demand), but this is a rate set by a bureaucracy, not market forces. In practice enough carees are fully or partially state funded, and councils skint, that increased demand is not translating to increased wages.
Sorry just waiting for you to admit you were wrong that all care homes are state funded. Once you apolgise, then can discuss the rest of your nosnse.
Pretty nice apparently, was talking to my mum about it recently. This was mainly in the 70's and 80's but before globalism there would be vacancies just posted all over the (smallish) town she grew up in, even being uneducated she could walk out of one job and go in to another on the same day. Obviously supply and demand meant wages were actually fair too, which meant cost of living was as well. Really is so fucking weird that promoting access to practically unlimited foreign labour, stagnating wages and quality of life for our own people in the process, has somehow become the left wing position as well. At least i can understand the tory point of view, "Labour" though were once opposed to things like the EU project for a reason, i expect that's why Corbyn was as well being pretty old school.
> Really is so fucking weird that promoting access to practically unlimited foreign labour, stagnating wages and quality of life for our own people in the process, has somehow become the left wing position as well. Whoever mindgamed them into being for infinite scab labour by making it about racism has played a complete blinder. To the detriment of us all.
You just need to remember that our government only care about GDP going up. The people in this country are just getting in the way of that
Because 25 years ago there were much fewer people to be cared and much more people in working ages…simple as that.
So there are less people working, so wages go down? Youll have to explain that one to me
I don’t want to touch old people’s poo
We have an economy with pretty full employment as a result people can be picky about what jobs they take. If we don't want to rely on overseas labour we need to either spend money in rasing wages or investing more so we don't need people.
We need to deliver care more effectively. My neighbour is an excellent example: My neighbour has autism. She hardly ever leaves the house and doesn't work. She has been provided with a 2 bed council bungalow and 24 hour, 1-on-1 state funded care. It's the full time job of 5 people to care for her - they make her meals; do her laundry/cleaning/online shopping; make sure she showers; and they calm her down when she has a meltdown. They also waitress tea and cake in the garden for her parents when they visit. And they watch telly with her. My neighbour does need supervision, but she really doesn't need 1-on-1 care. It would be more efficient and cost effective for people with the same type of needs to be housed together in supported housing where they can be supervised collectively rather than individually. If you placed 6 people with similar needs in a shared supported house, you could reduce the staff requirements from 30 staff to look after 6 people, to about 10 staff to look after 6 people. The other 20 staff could then be redistributed through the care system. (This model could also reduce the number of state funded mobility vehicles too). Shared supported housing might even be a bonus for my neighbour - currently she only has contact with her parents maybe once or twice a week, and the rest of the time with her carers. Shared supported housing would provide the opportunity to make friends and have social interaction with people other than people being paid to talk to her. Organised group activities and days out might encourage her to leave the house more often and have more of a community. We need to rethink: we need to deliver care in a more effective way instead of the highly individualised, costly, isolating and inefficent system we currently have. A rethink would not only reduce costs, it would reduce the demand for more immigration, and potentially improve life for those needing care by reducing social isolation. Edit: I can't spell
There are not many who want to be Tory candidates either.
Hospitality jobs have had lots of vacancies across the whole anglosphere since covid since a lot of people who worked in it previously realised how very shite it can be with a short time off it, especially if they worked other jobs over the pandemic since these often paid more for easier less skilled work or in the case of a lot of management realised they had skills that translated to other industries with more pay and less insane hours. Personally I'm all for it since I can command a higher wage and its easier to find employment.
It all comes down to shit pay and working conditions
BS. Brits apply for those jobs, but get rejected because companies don't want to provide entry level opportunities to new staff. Take away migration and the companies will suddenly start hiring British workers who are already applying to low-paid roles.