Lord Rose, businessman who supports lower wages for workers, to lead pro-EU campaign

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/stuart-rose-businessman-who-backed-immigration-for-cutting-wages-to-lead-campaign-to-keep-britain-in-a6688561.html

Stuart Rose: Ex-M&S boss who supported low wages for migrants to lead campaign to keep Britain in the EU

Lord Rose said he believed that pulling out of the European Union would risk Britain’s prosperity


http://www.londonlovesbusiness.com/pictures/462xAny/2/1/2/17212_Stuart-Rose-Lord-Stuart-Rose.jpg
Lord Rose



A businessman who said that the public shouldn’t complain about migrants undercutting British workers and taking on jobs for less money is to lead the campaign to keep the country in the EU. It is to be revealed at an event on 12 October that Lord Stuart Rose, the former chief executive of Mark and Spencer, is to be the chairman of the In campaign.

But the appointment is likely to be leapt upon by opponents because of his robust views on the free movement of labour. Two years ago the Conservative peer said he had little sympathy with people who complained that jobs were being taken by workers from Bulgaria and Romania who were prepared to work for less money. “I’m a free-market economist; we operate in a free market,” he told Sky News. “If these people want to come here, and work the hours they are prepared to work for the wages they are prepared to work for, then so be it.”

Excellent. This is going to go down really well with Labour voters *snort*

All those voters, usually Labour, who are on low wages trying to pay a mortgage and feed their families will be really happy that there's people like Lord Rose out there who want their wages to stay static in the face of inflation. All so Lord Rose and corporate friends can make even more £.

He's also down on record as supporting more private sector involvement in the NHS.

Thoughts?

[FlyingJesus]

I thought you supported no minimum wage and salaries chosen entirely by the private sector or did that all change when you realised your UKIP chums have taken a different line to it now

[-:Undertaker:-]

I thought you supported no minimum wage and salaries chosen entirely by the private sector or did that all change when you realised your UKIP chums have taken a different line to it now

Didn't realise this topic was about a legally enforced minimum wage. OH WAIT yeah it's not, you just changed it to that. :rolleyes:

And this referendum isn't party political so stop banging the Ukip bongo drum.

[FlyingJesus]

Well it does involve that, he doesn't want to have businesses forced to raise wages against the good of the business and believes in the free market... like you used to. And it is relevant to UKIP because of your flip-flopping views that follow their line - previously you'd have been championing this guy's ideals, but now you/UKIP have picked up on the idea that the working class have a large vote percentage and so he's *+*TeH eNeMy+*+* and you're finding yourself demonising the very things you've promoted many times

[-:Undertaker:-]

Well it does involve that, he doesn't want to have businesses forced to raise wages against the good of the business and believes in the free market... like you used to. And it is relevant to UKIP because of your flip-flopping views that follow their line - previously you'd have been championing this guy's ideals, but now you/UKIP have picked up on the idea that the working class have a large vote percentage and so he's *+*TeH eNeMy+*+* and you're finding yourself demonising the very things you've promoted many times

Are you being purposely slow? What's an objection to a legally enforced minimum wage got to do with this story? Absolutely nothing lmao.

[FlyingJesus]

Have you not read your own link or something

[abc]

Are you being purposely slow? What's an objection to a legally enforced minimum wage got to do with this story? Absolutely nothing lmao.

Wait, in the previous thread you argued that there should be a minimum wage?!

[-:Undertaker:-]

Have you not read your own link or something

No dear it's terribly simple.

I support a British economy based on the free market when it benefits us. As it happens, most economic proposals (such as a minimum wage) are usually anti-free market and often have negative unintended consequences rather than positive outcomes. In terms of cheap overseas labour, that doesn't benefit British workers and thus despite it being in line with free market principles (of a more anarchist and wacky line of libertarians who reject the concept of borders) I reject it too. Lord Rose naturally wants to suppress wages here to make more money for his company, but I am not of the opinion that a flooding of millions of cheap foreign workers is good for this country or her people whereas it may be good for the Marks and Spencer annual audit. Country > M&S wage freezes behind inflation.


Wait, in the previous thread you argued that there should be a minimum wage?!

The opposite.

[abc]

No dear it's terribly simple.

I support a British economy based on the free market when it benefits us. As it happens, most economic proposals (such as a minimum wage) are usually anti-free market and often have negative unintended consequences rather than positive outcomes. In terms of cheap overseas labour, that doesn't benefit British workers and thus despite it being in line with free market principles (of a more anarchist and wacky line of libertarians who reject the concept of borders) I reject it too. Lord Rose naturally wants to suppress wages here to make more money for his company, but I am not of the opinion that a flooding of millions of cheap foreign workers is good for this country or her people whereas it may be good for the Marks and Spencer annual audit. Country > M&S wage freezes behind inflation.



The opposite.

You are against cheap (foreign) labour yet you do not want a minimum wage? Okkkkkaaayyyyyy then.

[-:Undertaker:-]

You are against cheap (foreign) labour yet you do not want a minimum wage? Okkkkkaaayyyyyy then.

It's fairly simple, it's what we had pre-late 1990s.

Within the context of the British economy it allowed wages to fluctuate more naturally with market forces whilst not harming the young and/or unskilled (minimum wage) and not permanently (even in times of economic boom) compressing those same unskilled wages with an unlimited supply of second or third world labour.

In other words putting workers before corporations whilst not distorting the market with direct wage laws. A centre-ground approach.

[FlyingJesus]

There is no centre, you either have a minimum wage or you don't. It's ok to admit that you've changed your mind - in fact that's favourable to pretending to support all stances at once and coming up with something that makes no sense to anyone... but cheers for explaining exactly how this story relates to minimum wage laws right after suggesting that it doesn't at all :P

[-:Undertaker:-]

There is no centre, you either have a minimum wage or you don't. It's ok to admit that you've changed your mind - in fact that's favourable to pretending to support all stances at once and coming up with something that makes no sense to anyone... but cheers for explaining exactly how this story relates to minimum wage laws right after suggesting that it doesn't at all :P

Again this story isn't even related - nor is anything I have said - to a legally enforced minimum wage so back to Ashworth you go.

[FlyingJesus]

THE ENTIRE THING IS COMPLAINING ABOUT HOW A GUY DOESN'T WANT ENFORCED MINIMUM WAGES what are you actually smoking you even wrote about it in your owns in your opening post

[-:Undertaker:-]

THE ENTIRE THING IS COMPLAINING ABOUT HOW A GUY DOESN'T WANT ENFORCED MINIMUM WAGES what are you actually smoking you even wrote about it in your owns in your opening post

he's not talking about a legally enforced minimum wage he's talking about keeping wages at minimum wage levels via unskilled cheap labour.

please read the articles before wasting my time in future. thank you x

[FlyingJesus]

He's very openly saying (or said, since this isn't even something new) that he doesn't want to have increased wages imposed upon businesses, that he wants wages to be set by what people are willing to work for in a free market. You then quoted him saying this, and wrote yourself a continuing paragraph about it. How you can possibly deny it when it's even there in your own words is ludicrous

[-:Undertaker:-]

He's very openly saying (or said, since this isn't even something new) that he doesn't want to have increased wages imposed upon businesses, that he wants wages to be set by what people are willing to work for in a free market. You then quoted him saying this, and wrote yourself a continuing paragraph about it. How you can possibly deny it when it's even there in your own words is ludicrous

Um no he's not. He's talking very clearly about the effect that unskilled cheap labour has on keeping wages low. Nothing was or is mentioned about a legally enforced minimum wage. Read the ******* article in future and don't waste my time with this nonsense.

Of course you are free to prove me wrong by quoting Lord Rose in the article talking about removing the minimum wage.

[FlyingJesus]

he wants wages to be set by what people are willing to work for in a free market
he wants wages to be set by what people are willing to work for in a free market
he wants wages to be set by what people are willing to work for in a free market
he wants wages to be set by what people are willing to work for in a free market
he wants wages to be set by what people are willing to work for in a free market
he wants wages to be set by what people are willing to work for in a free market
he wants wages to be set by what people are willing to work for in a free market
he wants wages to be set by what people are willing to work for in a free market
he wants wages to be set by what people are willing to work for in a free market
he wants wages to be set by what people are willing to work for in a free market
he wants wages to be set by what people are willing to work for in a free market
he wants wages to be set by what people are willing to work for in a free market
he wants wages to be set by what people are willing to work for in a free market
he wants wages to be set by what people are willing to work for in a free market
he wants wages to be set by what people are willing to work for in a free market

And the fact also remains that you hilariously flip-flop on your personal views more often than a lion has sex

[abc]

he's talking about keeping wages at minimum wage levels via unskilled cheap labour.

To do that you must scrap minimum wage first.

[-:Undertaker:-]

@FlyingJesus (http://www.habboxforum.com/member.php?u=24753); no I didn't think you'd be able to. Thank you for trying though.


To do that you must scrap minimum wage first.

No. He's talking about keeping wages at the minimum wage, he's not talking about the legal status of the minimum wage. So for example, say in 2005 the salary average for a cleaner is £6.70ph and that is the minimum wage. With inflation over a period of ten years in order to get people to work in a cleaning job the employer in normal market conditions would be forced to increase the wage to say £8.20ph in order to secure the staff. Lord Rose doesn't like this, and obviously wants to keep the average wage as low as possible (at minimum wage level) hence why he supports mass immigration which does exactly that. In such conditions, you then have British people turning down these jobs (because they are too lowly paid and Britons cannot afford to work for such low levels of pay) whereas single men from Eastern Europe who are willing to sleep 6 to a rented bedroom can easily undercut the British worker.

In normal free market conditions, the wage should be forced up on demand/supply in the British market not forced forever downwards by unlimited foreign labour.

[FlyingJesus]

“I’m a free-market economist; we operate in a free market,” he told Sky News. “If these people want to come here, and work the hours they are prepared to work for the wages they are prepared to work for, then so be it.”

Not saying the specific buzzwords doesn't change what he stands for, fuck me you're getting more stupid by the day. And yes people can afford to work low paid jobs, what they can't do is work like that and still keep luxuries beyond what they're earning. I didn't realise you were a socialist now Dan, this is getting more hilarious with every post

[-:Undertaker:-]

“I’m a free-market economist; we operate in a free market,” he told Sky News. “If these people want to come here, and work the hours they are prepared to work for the wages they are prepared to work for, then so be it.”

Not saying the specific buzzwords doesn't change what he stands for, **** me you're getting more stupid by the day. And yes people can afford to work low paid jobs, what they can't do is work like that and still keep luxuries beyond what they're earning. I didn't realise you were a socialist now Dan, this is getting more hilarious with every post

lmaooo a 'buzzword'?? you mean the actual word of the topic you're claiming he's said which he hasn't. yeah as i said back to the padded room at ashworth. he's not talking about the minimum wage my dear he's talking about keeping wages at minimum wage levels via mass immigration do read the article okay hun.

as for Britons being able to work for any wage, erm no quite not. a British worker who is unskilled but who has a house and maybe a child or two simply cannot afford to work at the same wage that a single young man from Poland who will sleep 5 to a room can. it cannot be done. in normal market circumstances (with normal inflation), the employer would be forced gradually to increase the wages of unskilled jobs so it makes it worthwhile for Britons to go out and work these jobs... unlike the current situation where employers will simply keep those wages down by bringing in unskilled and unlimited second and third world labour.

[FlyingJesus]

No, he's very clearly saying that he wants wages to be set entirely by what people are willing to pay/willing to work for. And yes, it is very possible to be saying something without using the actual word - you yourself are heavily implying that I'm dangerously impaired because I can read.

And yeah of course people can't all do the same things, that's not the fault of the job or the wage structure though. I can't be a pro wrestler as per the requirements of the job, but that doesn't mean I should be campaigning for the WWE to start up a league for short unfit people. Trying to live beyond one's means is not the fault of any company; if you can't afford a house and two kids, you aren't owed it by force of law. You actually have become a socialist overnight, this is just too funny

[-:Undertaker:-]

No, he's very clearly saying that he wants wages to be set entirely by what people are willing to pay/willing to work for. And yes, it is very possible to be saying something without using the actual word - you yourself are heavily implying that I'm dangerously impaired because I can read.

No he's saying wages should be kept at minimum wage with mass immigration.

I read it as that, the Independent newspaper read it as that and just about everyone does but you.


And yeah of course people can't all do the same things, that's not the fault of the job or the wage structure though. I can't be a pro wrestler as per the requirements of the job, but that doesn't mean I should be campaigning for the WWE to start up a league for short unfit people. Trying to live beyond one's means is not the fault of any company; if you can't afford a house and two kids, you aren't owed it by force of law. You actually have become a socialist overnight, this is just too funny

Yes except here we're not talking about WWE wrestling (a qualified elite job and private company) we're talking about a nation and her people. Unless you take a nutty libertarian anarchist view that borders shouldn't exist, we shouldn't have a navy and hell the state shouldn't even exist, then you will understand that a government has an obligation to its people other than making as much money as possible. There is no 'world economy' there are only separate national economies, and economies of varying freedoms/stages of development which means you cannot continually import masses of unskilled labour without upsetting the British economic balance.

It's the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, not the United Kingdom Ltd.

[FlyingJesus]

No he's saying wages should be kept at minimum wage with mass immigration.

I read it as that

But he didn't say those words!!!!!11111111111


the Independent newspaper read it as that and just about everyone does but you.

[citation needed]


Yes except here we're not talking about WWE wrestling (a qualified elite job and private company) we're talking about a nation and her people. Unless you take a nutty libertarian anarchist view that borders shouldn't exist, we shouldn't have a navy and hell the state shouldn't even exist, then you will understand that a government has an obligation to its people other than making as much money as possible. There is no 'world economy' there are only separate national economies, and economies of varying freedoms/stages of development which means you cannot continually import masses of unskilled labour without upsetting the British economic balance.

It's the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, not the United Kingdom Ltd.

But you're now suddenly suggesting that the government's role in this should be to intervene directly in business rather than acting as a separate body. I'd say an obligation to one's people would include keeping the economy competitive and encouraging personal growth rather than subsidised luxuries at the expense of those who've actually earned it, you however are taking a tumblr-esque approach to this all of a sudden and declaring that the government owes everyone much more than simple safeties and that private business should foot the bill... and all of this seemingly just because someone who says otherwise disagrees with you on one political matter

[-:Undertaker:-]

But he didn't say those words!!!!!11111111111

What he said is what the article is about.


But you're now suddenly suggesting that the government's role in this should be to intervene directly in business rather than acting as a separate body. I'd say an obligation to one's people would include keeping the economy competitive and encouraging personal growth rather than subsidised luxuries at the expense of those who've actually earned it, you however are taking a tumblr-esque approach to this all of a sudden and declaring that the government owes everyone much more than simple safeties and that private business should foot the bill... and all of this seemingly just because someone who says otherwise disagrees with you on one political matter

I don't believe I have ever made anarchist demands that the state remove itself from every sphere of national life. When have I ever called for open borders? When have I ever called for the dismantling of the Royal Navy? When have I ever called for the abolition of financial regulation or basic safety regulation? I've done nothing of the sort, rather you like to imagine I have in your attempt to box me into a Ron Paul or Hayek on steroids.

As I said above, Britain should have a free-market economy as possible as most free market solutions benefit the people living here. But the importation of mass unskilled labour doesn't benefit everyone here, therefore it is a desirable part of state action that we have border controls to regulate unskilled labour outside of the UK just as it is desirable that we have a constitutional monarchy and cabinet form of government to uphold our constitutional documents or just as it is desirable that we have a Royal Navy to deter hostile states/enemies from attacking the people of this country.

You assume that because I usually back most less state solutions that I don't believe in a state. I do believe in a state with limited responsibilities.


Not: Anarcho-capitalist (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism). I don't believe in the abolition of the state.

Am: Minarchist (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minarchism), High Tory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Tory). I do believe in a minimal state with basic functions such as border controls, constitutional roles, courts, police and armed forces carried out with restraint but strength (strong and respectable institutions). In other words, the 'night-watchman' state.

[FlyingJesus]

Where has open borders and the Navy come into this? And where did I say that you ever thought any of those things? If anything I'm saying the exact opposite by calling you a socialist :S you are literally inventing extra arguments from thin air as usual, dear me

[abc]

No he's saying wages should be kept at minimum wage with mass immigration.

I really want to know how this is even possible without first scrapping the minimum wage? It is impossible. You need to scrap minimum wage first or his proposal just cannot work...

[-:Undertaker:-]

I really want to know how this is even possible without first scrapping the minimum wage? It is impossible. You need to scrap minimum wage first or his proposal just cannot work...

"No he's saying wages should be kept at minimum wage with mass immigration."

[abc]

"No he's saying wages should be kept at minimum wage with mass immigration."

Yes but to have fluctuating wage, you need to first scrap minimum wage.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Yes but to have fluctuating wage, you need to first scrap minimum wage.

Indeed but what Lord Rose wants currently is the allowance of mass immigration and cheap unskilled labour into this country to keep low wages frozen at the minimum wage rate despite inflation/wage rises elsewhere in the economy. A situation which in many towns and cities locks British people out of the jobs market and forces them onto benefits as it simply isn't worth working.

He's only doing what benefits his company but the EU argument is about what benefits the British people, not Marks and Spencers.

[abc]

Didn't realise this topic was about a legally enforced minimum wage. OH WAIT yeah it's not, you just changed it to that. :rolleyes:

And this referendum isn't party political so stop banging the Ukip bongo drum.

I was just proving it is fully related to minimum wage.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I was just proving it is fully related to minimum wage.

It's about mass unskilled immigration keeping wages low which is caused by EU membership.

Nowhere in the piece does Lord Rose talk about legally repealing the minimum wage act. Why? Because he's not talking about the rights/wrongs of the mw.

[abc]

It's about mass unskilled immigration keeping wages low which is caused by EU membership.

Nowhere in the piece does Lord Rose talk about legally repealing the minimum wage act. Why? Because he's not talking about the rights/wrongs of the mw.

Oh my. But to achieve what he wants, which is a fluctuating minimum wage, you must first scrap the fixed minimum wage - so yes it is fully related to fixed minimum wage. If you do not see this then wow.

[FlyingJesus]

Nowhere in this piece does he say that he likes the idea of open borders, or a privatised NHS, OR EVEN THAT UNSKILLED LABOUR IS HIS ISSUE either, but what educated people with logic and reasoning do is take inferences and apply them to things. You're really not very good at this at all Dan

[-:Undertaker:-]

Oh my. But to achieve what he wants, which is a fluctuating minimum wage, you must first scrap the fixed minimum wage - so yes it is fully related to fixed minimum wage. If you do not see this then wow.

I have no idea if he would like the legal minimum wage scrapped or not, if he does then we at least agree on something. What we don't agree on is what he's actually said rather than speculation on a different topic that is linked but isn't the actual topic. He's stated he wants mass immigration and supports the current huge influx as it keeps wages compressed down at the current levels. I didn't say below minimum wage and nor has he, as obviously that would be illegal under minimum wage law: he wants to keep them down and static as low as legally possible.

I disagree with him on that and even the left-leaning Independent newspaper doesn't seem impressed either. That's the subject at hand.
@FlyingJesus (http://www.habboxforum.com/member.php?u=24753);

...and yet it's interesting neither of you have debated it once in this thread instead trying to move the argument onto a debate on the minimum wage rather than what it is actually about which is Lord Rose wanting to use mass immigration as a business tool to keep low wages down as low as possible.

I won't be debating what he said anymore from this point as it is clear to anyone with a working pair of eyeballs what Lord Rose is saying, similar to if we were having a debate on geopolitics in Iraq and Syria concerning borders i'm sure Tom would seize on the word 'bomb' and want to skew the argument and start talking about arms dealing rather than the actual topic at hand - and i'm not alone if you read the comments on the Independent article you'll see. So after three pages of absolute waffle, i'll debate the actual issue of mass immigration and low wages if you want. If not, no more replies my dears.

Lord Rose states he wants mass immigration to keep wages down at the lowest level (legally) possible. Fact. I disagree with him, what about you?

[abc]

I have no idea if he would like the legal minimum wage scrapped or not, if he does then we at least agree on something. What we don't agree on is what he's actually said rather than speculation on a different topic that is linked but isn't the actual topic. He's stated he wants mass immigration and supports the current huge influx as it keeps wages compressed down at the current levels. I didn't say below minimum wage and nor has he, as obviously that would be illegal under minimum wage law: he wants to keep them down and static as low as legally possible.

I disagree with him on that and even the left-leaning Independent newspaper doesn't seem impressed either. That's the subject at hand.
@FlyingJesus (http://www.habboxforum.com/member.php?u=24753);

...and yet it's interesting neither of you have debated it once in this thread instead trying to move the argument onto a debate on the minimum wage rather than what it is actually about which is Lord Rose wanting to use mass immigration as a business tool to keep low wages down as low as possible.

I won't be debating what he said anymore from this point as it is clear to anyone with a working pair of eyeballs what Lord Rose is saying, similar to if we were having a debate on geopolitics in Iraq and Syria concerning borders i'm sure Tom would seize on the word 'bomb' and want to skew the argument and start talking about arms dealing rather than the actual topic at hand - and i'm not alone if you read the comments on the Independent article you'll see. So after three pages of absolute waffle, i'll debate the actual issue of mass immigration and low wages if you want. If not, no more replies my dears.

Lord Rose states he wants mass immigration to keep wages down at the lowest level (legally) possible. Fact. I disagree with him, what about you?

How can you fail to see that if minimum wage is scrapped then only can you achieve what he wants to achieve? If you a fixed minimum wage then minimum wage is the lowest wage possible so his proposal cannot be properly implemented.

I personally disagree that minimum wage should be scrapped. Even though I think minimum wage has actually hurt the country by making it unviable to manufacture may of the items in UK, we are now in a situation where prices are so high that wages lower than minimum wage may significantly affect people in several negative ways including their well being and mental health. However I do not think the minimum wage should be increased as it currently has been done this month. Why? Because it is what ends up causing inflation. Businesses pay more to their staff, thus their costs are increased, they increase their prices and therefore that minimum wage increase has had no real positive benefit. Not only that, many businesses have very small margins and the wage increases eats into that margin, they then either make people redundant or close down, which has a negative affect on the economy overall.

I have seen people work in America with basically no minimum wage in jobs like waitress and the struggle is massive. They rely on tips and that is wrong.

[-:Undertaker:-]

How can you fail to see that if minimum wage is scrapped then only can you achieve what he wants to achieve? If you a fixed minimum wage then minimum wage is the lowest wage possible so his proposal cannot be properly implemented.

But he can and is achieving it now. I don't understand how you both aren't getting this. If we say for instance, that in 2005 the average hourly pay for unskilled labour was £4.00 and each year it rises £1.00. The minimum wage is £4.00. In normal market circumstances with slight inflation and a healthy economy, the annual increase is £1.00 on wages because to get the people to work these jobs it has to be economically beneficial for people to work them rather than remain on welfare. So say in 2010 the average wage has increased to £9.00: that's a good thing as those low level wages are then keeping up with the cost of living and inflation.

But mass immigration reverses that. Instead of having to, due to market circumstances and demand and supply, raise wages: employers such as Lord Rose can simply bring in unlimited unskilled labour from abroad to do those jobs for £4.00 to £6.00 to 2010 and beyond. Why? Because single Polish men sleeping 6 to a bedroom can afford such wages and don't mind such living conditions whereas British workers (with families and other obligations) cannot and should not.

Lord Rose wants to keep wages from increasing and keep them as low as he legally can. Hence why he supports mass immigration.


I personally disagree that minimum wage should be scrapped. Even though I think minimum wage has actually hurt the country by making it unviable to manufacture may of the items in UK, we are now in a situation where prices are so high that wages lower than minimum wage may significantly affect people in several negative ways including their well being and mental health. However I do not think the minimum wage should be increased as it currently has been done this month. Why? Because it is what ends up causing inflation. Businesses pay more to their staff, thus their costs are increased, they increase their prices and therefore that minimum wage increase has had no real positive benefit. Not only that, many businesses have very small margins and the wage increases eats into that margin, they then either make people redundant or close down, which has a negative affect on the economy overall.

I have seen people work in America with basically no minimum wage in jobs like waitress and the struggle is massive. They rely on tips and that is wrong.

I disagree (and work for minimum wage and would work for less) but that's another whole can of fish.

[FlyingJesus]

Lord Rose states he wants mass immigration to keep wages down at the lowest level (legally) possible.

Really? Because actually no those aren't the words he said at all. What you're doing is INFERRING his meaning from what he said...


“I’m a free-market economist; we operate in a free market,” he told Sky News. “If these people want to come here, and work the hours they are prepared to work for the wages they are prepared to work for, then so be it.”

Hey look, he's not said the words "I want mass immigration" at all. And according to you over the past few pages no views exist at all unless they're written in blood and with the exact wording. Whoopsie.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Really? Because actually no those aren't the words he said at all. What you're doing is INFERRING his meaning from what he said...

yes he did.

“If these people want to come here, and work the hours they are prepared to work for the wages they are prepared to work for, then so be it.”


Hey look, he's not said the words "I want mass immigration" at all. And according to you over the past few pages no views exist at all unless they're written in blood and with the exact wording. Whoopsie.

Yes he has, he's campaigning to remain in the European Union of which a main pillar is the free movement (mass immigration) of people.

He states just above if people want to come here then so be it. He couldn't be any clearer.

[FlyingJesus]

You don't seem to get the point: you've been saying all through this thread that his views aren't important to this discussion unless they've been written explicitly in this article (which is fucking stupid) and are now pointing to things outside the actual quote for your own handholds. I'm not suggesting that he's against mass immigration because it's OBVIOUS that he's all for it, but what's also obvious is that he supports no minimum wages - not because he's said those words in the quoted segment, but because that's what logically follows from his views on the free market.

It should not be this difficult to teach people over the age of six bloody hell.

[-:Undertaker:-]

You don't seem to get the point: you've been saying all through this thread that his views aren't important to this discussion unless they've been written explicitly in this article (which is **** stupid) and are now pointing to things outside the actual quote for your own handholds. I'm not suggesting that he's against mass immigration because it's OBVIOUS that he's all for it, but what's also obvious is that he supports no minimum wages - not because he's said those words in the quoted segment, but because that's what logically follows from his views on the free market.

It should not be this difficult to teach people over the age of six bloody hell.

I'm not disputing he doesn't support a minimum wage i'm saying that isn't what the article or issue is about....................................

He supports mass immigration to keep wages as low as he can. That's what the article is about and what I care about. Case closed, Christ almighty.

[FlyingJesus]

The article is actually just a very short note stating that Stuart Rose is the chairman of the In campaign. It's not about minimum wage, it's not about mass immigration, it's JUST saying "hey, this is the bloke that's leading the pro-EU lot".

[peteyt]

While I disagree with undertaker and believe a minimum wage is a good idea I can see the point he is trying to make or at least think I can.

Wages generally rise as well as the cost of living with many businesses trying to be competitive. However with a lot of foreigners looking for any income it gives employers the possibility of not having to raise their wages. Why go above the minimum wage when you know there's a load of people who will work for anything. The problem is that it won't be illegal as they will be offering the minimum wage while saving more money and remember business is all about profit.