Theresa May is clearly trying to spread her Conservative wings to take in moderates from UKIP as well as the less tribal parts of Labour's traditional working class base.
If she pulls it off, then that's an awful lot of extra seats that could come into play for the Tories.
What's wrong with British Jobs for British Workers?.
Getting British workers to do them?
I covered that - we need to educate people that work pays the bills. A big step would be getting it so that work does pay the bills. I still remember Iain Duncan Scum visiting Merthyr Tydfil talking about the high unemployment and saying "there are jobs in Cardiff".
True. But when the people out of work have kids, the jobs are shift work, and if there was the childcare, public transport to get people to and from the jobs and the jobs paid enough to cover those costs then people might take then. But as was pointed out the jobs are minimum wage or close to it, public transport stops too early and costs too much and the childcare element as anyone with kids will tell you costs a fortune.
Its no wonder people "wont" work. Work need to be viable.
How does naming and shaming organisations that employ foreign workers help? You are absolutely right, though, that the infrastructure we currently have precludes many Brits from taking jobs that foreign workers do take. To solve that problem, of course, means higher taxes and/or more borrowing. How many folk supporting strict caps on immigration numbers will also support that?
Theresa May is clearly trying to spread her Conservative wings to take in moderates from UKIP as well as the less tribal parts of Labour's traditional working class base.
If she pulls it off, then that's an awful lot of extra seats that could come into play for the Tories.
It is a strategy that I've been hoping for since the last budget, when it was clear that Camosbornism was philosophically dead.
Not least because it actually means policy making and governing for all the people, not just the narrow percentage of your voters.
A lesson that that the Labour party would do well to heed.
Theresa May is clearly trying to spread her Conservative wings to take in moderates from UKIP as well as the less tribal parts of Labour's traditional working class base.
If she pulls it off, then that's an awful lot of extra seats that could come into play for the Tories.
It helps that she actually likes such people and isnt saying it with a clothespeg on her nose. Such people are pretty well the bedrock of suburban and rural C of E congregations.
Not the high types (who are high liberals, Cameroons or barkingly right wing) or hardline evangelicals who probably have momentumish sympathies (or Democratic Unionist, of Farronish liberals) or what used to be the Mary Whitehouse fringe of the blue rinse brigade.
Theresa May is clearly trying to spread her Conservative wings to take in moderates from UKIP as well as the less tribal parts of Labour's traditional working class base.
If she pulls it off, then that's an awful lot of extra seats that could come into play for the Tories.
It is a strategy that I've been hoping for since the last budget, when it was clear that Camosbornism was philosophically dead.
Not least because it actually means policy making and governing for all the people, not just the narrow percentage of your voters.
A lesson that that the Labour party would do well to heed.
What's wrong with British Jobs for British Workers?.
Getting British workers to do them?
I covered that - we need to educate people that work pays the bills. A big step would be getting it so that work does pay the bills. I still remember Iain Duncan Scum visiting Merthyr Tydfil talking about the high unemployment and saying "there are jobs in Cardiff".
True. But when the people out of work have kids, the jobs are shift work, and if there was the childcare, public transport to get people to and from the jobs and the jobs paid enough to cover those costs then people might take then. But as was pointed out the jobs are minimum wage or close to it, public transport stops too early and costs too much and the childcare element as anyone with kids will tell you costs a fortune.
Its no wonder people "wont" work. Work need to be viable.
How does naming and shaming organisations that employ foreign workers help? You are absolutely right, though, that the infrastructure we currently have precludes many Brits from taking jobs that foreign workers do take. To solve that problem, of course, means higher taxes and/or more borrowing. How many folk supporting strict caps on immigration numbers will also support that?
I'm happy to name and shame Sports Direct and Starbucks. There are companies who seem almost zealous in their efforts to screw over their employees and having a large pool of labour to choose from helps. Osbrown said let's cut corporation tax- that should have been linked to wages. Pay your workers a living wage, make the jobs accessible to more people, and yes you can have a tax cuts as we the taxpayer won't have to subsidise you as much.
Because people have been indoctrinated to hate scroungers. People who get money from the state. The biggest scroungers are the employers, paying poverty wages topped up by the state. Wages in cities like London so low that the only people who can afford to live on them are the 6 to a room migrants that the newspapers take great pleasure in exposing on page 4 whilst on page 1 they demand tax cuts which drive the need for 6 to a room migrants.
She will say: “The Labour Party is not just divided, but divisive. Determined to pit one against another. To pursue vendettas and settle scores. And to embrace the politics of pointless protest that doesn’t unite people but pulls them further apart… So let’s have no more of Labour’s absurd belief that they have a monopoly on compassion. Let’s put an end to their sanctimonious pretence of moral superiority.”
What's wrong with British Jobs for British Workers?.
Getting British workers to do them?
I covered that - we need to educate people that work pays the bills. A big step would be getting it so that work does pay the bills. I still remember Iain Duncan Scum visiting Merthyr Tydfil talking about the high unemployment and saying "there are jobs in Cardiff".
True. But when the people out of work have kids, the jobs are shift work, and if there was the childcare, public transport to get people to and from the jobs and the jobs paid enough to cover those costs then people might take then. But as was pointed out the jobs are minimum wage or close to it, public transport stops too early and costs too much and the childcare element as anyone with kids will tell you costs a fortune.
Its no wonder people "wont" work. Work need to be viable.
How does naming and shaming organisations that employ foreign workers help? You are absolutely right, though, that the infrastructure we currently have precludes many Brits from taking jobs that foreign workers do take. To solve that problem, of course, means higher taxes and/or more borrowing. How many folk supporting strict caps on immigration numbers will also support that?
At the low-pay unskilled end of the market the reality is that many immigrant workers are used to (and therefore prepared to accept) a lower standard of living that most locals. They are therefore able, after expenses, to undercut local workers and so in an open market will generally speaking get the job.
The local worker will look at his £8/hr job, deduct his transport and other costs, look at the £4/hr he has left and decide it's less hassle to sit at home and sign-on. His Eastern European (typically) competitor will make the same calculation, but on the basis of less costs because he is prepared to room share in rented accommodation with 3-4 others, eat more basic food, and be content with a simpler lifestyle, and decide he is prepared to accept it, and so takes the job.
The same happens in reverse if you are an ex-pat in a poor country, most businesses I might open here for example would not survive long, because my neighbour could open the same business, but he is prepared (or indeed happy) to live with four bare concrete walls, a fan, and a bag of rice to eat, and I am not, so he is prepared to run the business on vastly smaller margins than me, so can easily undercut me.
What's wrong with British Jobs for British Workers?.
Getting British workers to do them?
I covered that - we need to educate people that work pays the bills. A big step would be getting it so that work does pay the bills. I still remember Iain Duncan Scum visiting Merthyr Tydfil talking about the high unemployment and saying "there are jobs in Cardiff".
True. But when the people out of work have kids, the jobs are shift work, and if there was the childcare, public transport to get people to and from the jobs and the jobs paid enough to cover those costs then people might take then. But as was pointed out the jobs are minimum wage or close to it, public transport stops too early and costs too much and the childcare element as anyone with kids will tell you costs a fortune.
Its no wonder people "wont" work. Work need to be viable.
How does naming and shaming organisations that employ foreign workers help? You are absolutely right, though, that the infrastructure we currently have precludes many Brits from taking jobs that foreign workers do take. To solve that problem, of course, means higher taxes and/or more borrowing. How many folk supporting strict caps on immigration numbers will also support that?
I'm happy to name and shame Sports Direct and Starbucks. There are companies who seem almost zealous in their efforts to screw over their employees and having a large pool of labour to choose from helps. Osbrown said let's cut corporation tax- that should have been linked to wages. Pay your workers a living wage, make the jobs accessible to more people, and yes you can have a tax cuts as we the taxpayer won't have to subsidise you as much.
Because people have been indoctrinated to hate scroungers. People who get money from the state. The biggest scroungers are the employers, paying poverty wages topped up by the state.
And the landlords - who actually get to pocket housing benefit, not just pass it on like the tenants do.
She will say: “The Labour Party is not just divided, but divisive. Determined to pit one against another. To pursue vendettas and settle scores. And to embrace the politics of pointless protest that doesn’t unite people but pulls them further apart… So let’s have no more of Labour’s absurd belief that they have a monopoly on compassion. Let’s put an end to their sanctimonious pretence of moral superiority.”
Which one? Your post currently applies to all the major parties.
True. Having now read the thread it became increasingly clear that the post was ambiguous.
I suppose it is good politics for May to emphasise that she gets the concerns and aspirations of (most of) the 17.4m, especially if she thinks she is ultimately going to disappoint them with her deal with the EU but is this really the woman who complained about the nasty party?
The need for the fiscally dry, socially liberal not obsessed by gays or Europe party has never been greater. I hear David Cameron is at a loose end.
What's wrong with British Jobs for British Workers?.
Getting British workers to do them?
True. But when the people out of work have kids, the jobs are shift work, and if there was the childcare, public transport to get people to and from the jobs and the jobs paid enough to cover those costs then people might take then. But as was pointed out the jobs are minimum wage or close to it, public transport stops too early and costs too much and the childcare element as anyone with kids will tell you costs a fortune.
Its no wonder people "wont" work. Work need to be viable.
How does naming and shaming organisations that employ foreign workers help? You are absolutely right, though, that the infrastructure we currently have precludes many Brits from taking jobs that foreign workers do take. To solve that problem, of course, means higher taxes and/or more borrowing. How many folk supporting strict caps on immigration numbers will also support that?
At the low-pay unskilled end of the market the reality is that many immigrant workers are used to (and therefore prepared to accept) a lower standard of living that most locals. They are therefore able, after expenses, to undercut local workers and so in an open market will generally speaking get the job.
The local worker will look at his £8/hr job, deduct his transport and other costs, look at the £4/hr he has left and decide it's less hassle to sit at home and sign-on. His Eastern European (typically) competitor will make the same calculation, but on the basis of less costs because he is prepared to room share in rented accommodation with 3-4 others, eat more basic food, and be content with a simpler lifestyle, and decide he is prepared to accept it, and so takes the job.
The same happens in reverse if you are an ex-pat in a poor country, most businesses I might open here for example would not survive long, because my neighbour could open the same business, but he is prepared (or indeed happy) to live with four bare concrete walls, a fan, and a bag of rice to eat, and I am not, so he is prepared to run the business on vastly smaller margins than me, so can easily undercut me.
Agreed. My wife is from Africa.
One day she made soup out of left over Brocolli stalks (I and 99% of brits would have binned them.
She pointed out that when you live in a country with no social security and you go through bad times with a three day week that is how you make ends meet.
It was nice soup too.
The welfare state existing has made us uncompetitive as we dont need to be so competitive to survive.
It is of course why wealthy civilisations collapse in on themselves.
With reference to last night's discussion about the 100,000 net migration target, it is worth recalling that net migration to the UK consistently ran at figures way below that prior to EU expansion.
It is also worth looking at the 200,000 or so arrivals that we have each year into studying.
Our massively expanded education sector since Blair's premiership is dependent on these people to keep the University of Lower Peckham operating and supplying sociology lecturers with a handsome pension.
Make no bones about this, some solid bastions of the left are wholly in hock to immigration for their continued wealth, just like multinational corporations.
If one was looking to make an argument, one could suggest that the so called liberal elite, the AB metropolitans and Guardianista are even more incandescent than usual at the moment, not just because the masses voted against staying the EU, a touchstone of their faith, but in that act they made politicians remember there were more people in the country what the noisy chattering classes.
The upper middle class, the media, the City and the upper echelons of the public sector have had two decades of being shameless pandered to, first by Blair and then by Cameron, they have grown up, or grown old being used to politicians giving them what they want, or at least sounding as if they wanted to give them what they want, and now all of a sudden the politicians are starting to notice that they have been holding that conversation with a relatively small section of the population, and that large, forgotten sections of the country are starting to get restless at the inattention.
Maybe some people sitting behind their morning Guardian are starting to get a bit nervous, they fear with some justification that politicians are starting to look at the country a bit more broadly, and that their interests might not received the attention that they are used to. Historically they would have looked for a Blair or a Clegg in the other parties to listen to them, but all they can see is navel gazing and irrelevance, and they begin to wonder if the barbarians are at the door.
Yes, the Village People - those who move into Dulwich, Walthamstow, Stoke Newington etc - the £5 for a bowl of cornflakes people - cannot fathom the rest of the country.
Wide scale exposure to globalisation and competition - as their perceived lessers endure - in cosseted public sector areas would soon change a few opinions.
imagine the froth if we started outsourcing hip replacement operations to the continent (a third of the price in eastern Europe); started using technology and telecoms to deliver administrative services offshore; started shifting campuses to cheaper foreign lands, so the foreign students don't need to come to us for us to make money out of them.
imagine the froth if we started outsourcing hip replacement operations to the continent (a third of the price in eastern Europe); started using technology and telecoms to deliver administrative services offshore; started shifting campuses to cheaper foreign lands, so the foreign students don't need to come to us for us to make money out of them.
What's wrong with British Jobs for British Workers?.
Getting British workers to do them?
snip
Its no wonder people "wont" work. Work need to be viable.
How does naming and shaming organisations that employ foreign workers help? You are absolutely right, though, that the infrastructure we currently have precludes many Brits from taking jobs that foreign workers do take. To solve that problem, of course, means higher taxes and/or more borrowing. How many folk supporting strict caps on immigration numbers will also support that?
At the low-pay unskilled end of the market the reality is that many immigrant workers are used to (and therefore prepared to accept) a lower standard of living that most locals. They are therefore able, after expenses, to undercut local workers and so in an open market will generally speaking get the job.
The local worker will look at his £8/hr job, deduct his transport and other costs, look at the £4/hr he has left and decide it's less hassle to sit at home and sign-on. His Eastern European (typically) competitor will make the same calculation, but on the basis of less costs because he is prepared to room share in rented accommodation with 3-4 others, eat more basic food, and be content with a simpler lifestyle, and decide he is prepared to accept it, and so takes the job.
The same happens in reverse if you are an ex-pat in a poor country, most businesses I might open here for example would not survive long, because my neighbour could open the same business, but he is prepared (or indeed happy) to live with four bare concrete walls, a fan, and a bag of rice to eat, and I am not, so he is prepared to run the business on vastly smaller margins than me, so can easily undercut me.
Agreed. My wife is from Africa.
One day she made soup out of left over Brocolli stalks (I and 99% of brits would have binned them.
She pointed out that when you live in a country with no social security and you go through bad times with a three day week that is how you make ends meet.
It was nice soup too.
The welfare state existing has made us uncompetitive as we dont need to be so competitive to survive.
It is of course why wealthy civilisations collapse in on themselves.
I can't compete in a Four Yorkshireman contest - however I don't ever use the hot tap unless it involves me getting wet all over or delicate smalls in the sink. I wash dishes with cold water. It's a childhood legacy thing - put on a jumper, not the heating. It's incomprehensible to many.
What's wrong with British Jobs for British Workers?.
Getting British workers to do them?
True. But when the people out of work have kids, the jobs are shift work, and if there was the childcare, public transport to get people to and from the jobs and the jobs paid enough to cover those costs then people might take then. But as was pointed out the jobs are minimum wage or close to it, public transport stops too early and costs too much and the childcare element as anyone with kids will tell you costs a fortune.
Its no wonder people "wont" work. Work need to be viable.
How does naming and shaming organisations that employ foreign workers help? You are absolutely right, though, that the infrastructure we currently have precludes many Brits from taking jobs that foreign workers do take. To solve that problem, of course, means higher taxes and/or more borrowing. How many folk supporting strict caps on immigration numbers will also support that?
At the low-pay unskilled end of the market the reality is that many immigrant workers are used to (and therefore prepared to accept) a lower standard of living that most locals. They are therefore able, after expenses, to undercut local workers and so in an open market will generally speaking get the job.
The local worker will look at his £8/hr job, deduct his transport and other costs, look at the £4/hr he has left and decide
The same happens in reverse if you are an ex-pat in a poor country, most businesses I might open here for example would not survive long, because my neighbour could open the same business, but he is prepared (or indeed happy) to live with four bare concrete walls, a fan, and a bag of rice to eat, and I am not, so he is prepared to run the business on vastly smaller margins than me, so can easily undercut me.
Agreed. My wife is from Africa.
One day she made soup out of left over Brocolli stalks (I and 99% of brits would have binned them.
She pointed out that when you live in a country with no social security and you go through bad times with a three day week that is how you make ends meet.
It was nice soup too.
The welfare state existing has made us uncompetitive as we dont need to be so competitive to survive.
It is of course why wealthy civilisations collapse in on themselves.
No the welfare state has stopped people starving in the streets as happened in Victorian times, unless you get all your Broccoli from food banks most developed nations introduced a welfare state for a reason
No the welfare state has stopped people starving in the streets as happened in Victorian times, unless you get all your Broccoli from food banks most developed nations introduced a welfare state for a reason
Indeed. The byproduct is that a generous welfare state means are people are unwilling to accept a standard of living that is tolerable, or even welcomed by immigrants from less well off countries, so those immigrants take the jobs.
There is a basic nexus here that people are really trying hard not to understand, because the implications are too painful. When people do a job, they generate a certain amount of value for their employer, if the employer pays them more than the value they generate for his business, he will rapidly go out of business. In current market conditions, given international competition, the amount of value most unskilled workers can generate is around the minimum wage. If that amount of money doesn't produce an acceptable standard of living with acceptable residue money no one will take the job.
However the standard of living is acceptable for many immigrants, and isn't for many locals, so the immigrants take the jobs. Increasing pay doesn't change the equation, a higher salary means a better standard of living, or more residual cash. At the sort of pay levels an unskilled local would consider acceptable we are moving into the standard of living that many better qualified or more experienced immigrants would find acceptable, so the local still doesn't get the job.
No the welfare state has stopped people starving in the streets as happened in Victorian times, unless you get all your Broccoli from food banks most developed nations introduced a welfare state for a reason
Indeed. The byproduct is that a generous welfare state means are people are unwilling to accept a standard of living that is tolerable, or even welcomed by immigrants from less well off countries, so those immigrants take the jobs.
There is a basic nexus here that people are really trying hard not to understand, because the implications are too painful. When people do a job, they generate a certain amount of value for their employer, if the employer pays them more than the value they generate for his business, he will rapidly go out of business. In current market conditions, given international competition, the amount of value most unskilled workers can generate is around the minimum wage. If that amount of money doesn't produce an acceptable standard of living with acceptable residue money no one will take the job.
However the standard of living is acceptable for many immigrants, and isn't for many locals, so the immigrants take the jobs. Increasing pay doesn't change the equation, a higher salary means a better standard of living, or more residual cash. At the sort of pay levels an unskilled local would consider acceptable we are moving into the standard of living that many better qualified or more experienced immigrants would find acceptable, so the local still doesn't get the job.
It's about expectation and entitlement.
Certainly the welfare state needs to be cut back but that is not the same as abandoning it completely
That is factually correct, since EU countries will blackmail us on the status of british nationals you need to hold EU nationals as hostages too.
Indeed. It is impossible for a UK government to hold any other position until the rights of UK citizens in the EU are guaranteed.
But it's an absurd position. Even if we were going to do mass deportations of EU citizens, how would we do it? We don't know who they are, where they live or where they came from. In any case many will be eligible for UK citizenship.
Same would be true of UK citizens in the EU.
Wouldn't be too complicated. All firms in the UK are required by law to keep a copy of "proof of right to work in the UK" for all employees. If that proof is an EU passport and if the EU citizens lost their right to work in the UK then all companies could be instructed to take action accordingly.
I think this would be an utterly terrible idea and am not proposing it ... but its not impossible.
And it only covers EU citizens who are working. What about the unemployed, students, self-employed, spouses etc?
Unemployed and self-employed would be identifiable by their NI numbers. Students won't be students forever. When they graduate they'd be unable to get a job.
So that just leaves spouses who are staying at home. Who'd almost certainly be able to get a spousal visa anyway.
Again not proposing this just saying that it's possible.
Comments
If she pulls it off, then that's an awful lot of extra seats that could come into play for the Tories.
Not least because it actually means policy making and governing for all the people, not just the narrow percentage of your voters.
A lesson that that the Labour party would do well to heed.
Not the high types (who are high liberals, Cameroons or barkingly right wing) or hardline evangelicals who probably have momentumish sympathies (or Democratic Unionist, of Farronish liberals) or what used to be the Mary Whitehouse fringe of the blue rinse brigade.
Because people have been indoctrinated to hate scroungers. People who get money from the state. The biggest scroungers are the employers, paying poverty wages topped up by the state. Wages in cities like London so low that the only people who can afford to live on them are the 6 to a room migrants that the newspapers take great pleasure in exposing on page 4 whilst on page 1 they demand tax cuts which drive the need for 6 to a room migrants.
She will say: “The Labour Party is not just divided, but divisive. Determined to pit one against another. To pursue vendettas and settle scores. And to embrace the politics of pointless protest that doesn’t unite people but pulls them further apart… So let’s have no more of Labour’s absurd belief that they have a monopoly on compassion. Let’s put an end to their sanctimonious pretence of moral superiority.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/04/theresa-may-to-attack-politicians-who-sneer-at-patriotic-working/
Samata Ullah, of Riverside, Cardiff, was arrested in the city by officers from the Metropolitan Police Service Counter Terrorism Command.
Read more: http://metro.co.uk/2016/10/04/computer-technician-charged-with-being-a-member-of-isis-6171577/#ixzz4MBrYLQBX
The local worker will look at his £8/hr job, deduct his transport and other costs, look at the £4/hr he has left and decide it's less hassle to sit at home and sign-on. His Eastern European (typically) competitor will make the same calculation, but on the basis of less costs because he is prepared to room share in rented accommodation with 3-4 others, eat more basic food, and be content with a simpler lifestyle, and decide he is prepared to accept it, and so takes the job.
The same happens in reverse if you are an ex-pat in a poor country, most businesses I might open here for example would not survive long, because my neighbour could open the same business, but he is prepared (or indeed happy) to live with four bare concrete walls, a fan, and a bag of rice to eat, and I am not, so he is prepared to run the business on vastly smaller margins than me, so can easily undercut me.
Labour is a moral crusade or it is nothing.
I suppose it is good politics for May to emphasise that she gets the concerns and aspirations of (most of) the 17.4m, especially if she thinks she is ultimately going to disappoint them with her deal with the EU but is this really the woman who complained about the nasty party?
The need for the fiscally dry, socially liberal not obsessed by gays or Europe party has never been greater. I hear David Cameron is at a loose end.
One day she made soup out of left over Brocolli stalks (I and 99% of brits would have binned them.
She pointed out that when you live in a country with no social security and you go through bad times with a three day week that is how you make ends meet.
It was nice soup too.
The welfare state existing has made us uncompetitive as we dont need to be so competitive to survive.
It is of course why wealthy civilisations collapse in on themselves.
It is also worth looking at the 200,000 or so arrivals that we have each year into studying.
Our massively expanded education sector since Blair's premiership is dependent on these people to keep the University of Lower Peckham operating and supplying sociology lecturers with a handsome pension.
Make no bones about this, some solid bastions of the left are wholly in hock to immigration for their continued wealth, just like multinational corporations.
The upper middle class, the media, the City and the upper echelons of the public sector have had two decades of being shameless pandered to, first by Blair and then by Cameron, they have grown up, or grown old being used to politicians giving them what they want, or at least sounding as if they wanted to give them what they want, and now all of a sudden the politicians are starting to notice that they have been holding that conversation with a relatively small section of the population, and that large, forgotten sections of the country are starting to get restless at the inattention.
Maybe some people sitting behind their morning Guardian are starting to get a bit nervous, they fear with some justification that politicians are starting to look at the country a bit more broadly, and that their interests might not received the attention that they are used to. Historically they would have looked for a Blair or a Clegg in the other parties to listen to them, but all they can see is navel gazing and irrelevance, and they begin to wonder if the barbarians are at the door.
Guardian
Yahoo 'secretly monitored emails on behalf of the US government' https://t.co/D6tf2n3X35
Wide scale exposure to globalisation and competition - as their perceived lessers endure - in cosseted public sector areas would soon change a few opinions.
imagine the froth if we started outsourcing hip replacement operations to the continent (a third of the price in eastern Europe); started using technology and telecoms to deliver administrative services offshore; started shifting campuses to cheaper foreign lands, so the foreign students don't need to come to us for us to make money out of them.
Lefties want companies to log ethnicity, sexuality, gender, but no account nationality. These people literally make no sense whatsoever.
There is a basic nexus here that people are really trying hard not to understand, because the implications are too painful. When people do a job, they generate a certain amount of value for their employer, if the employer pays them more than the value they generate for his business, he will rapidly go out of business. In current market conditions, given international competition, the amount of value most unskilled workers can generate is around the minimum wage. If that amount of money doesn't produce an acceptable standard of living with acceptable residue money no one will take the job.
However the standard of living is acceptable for many immigrants, and isn't for many locals, so the immigrants take the jobs. Increasing pay doesn't change the equation, a higher salary means a better standard of living, or more residual cash. At the sort of pay levels an unskilled local would consider acceptable we are moving into the standard of living that many better qualified or more experienced immigrants would find acceptable, so the local still doesn't get the job.
It's about expectation and entitlement.
Students won't be students forever. When they graduate they'd be unable to get a job.
So that just leaves spouses who are staying at home. Who'd almost certainly be able to get a spousal visa anyway.
Again not proposing this just saying that it's possible.