Good article. I've often compared the 'deliveroo economy' to what happened in the early 20th century when it became impossible for rich Britons to find domestic servants because there were so many other better paid jobs available, which basically led to the death of domestic service. We now rightly see this as a positive development, but if the British aristocracy had had access to mass immigration in this period, doubtless they would have tried to import labour from India to do it.
Why is this a positive development? It's basic comparative advantage. Engineers and doctors who have to do their own laundry, cooking, and cleaning spend time doing those things instead of innovating or treating patients (or relaxing so they can do those things better).
I think there's something inherently a bit degrading about having a servant living in your house. This is why I think we regard it as a positive development. Not having this probably also stimulated innovation in home appliances.
So you want the law to force people to work themselves to death as peasants in Africa or Asia, so they aren't "degraded" by being a live-in servant in Britain?
Yes; I don't care if they have to work themselves to death or where they do it as long as it isn't in England or those economic sinkholes attached to England.
You're basing that risibly half-witted argument on the assumption that what engineers and 'doctors' do is of nett benefit to those who must work for low pay and live in less comfort to serve them. Almost invariably it isn't.
Good article. I've often compared the 'deliveroo economy' to what happened in the early 20th century when it became impossible for rich Britons to find domestic servants because there were so many other better paid jobs available, which basically led to the death of domestic service. We now rightly see this as a positive development, but if the British aristocracy had had access to mass immigration in this period, doubtless they would have tried to import labour from India to do it.
Why is this a positive development? It's basic comparative advantage. Engineers and doctors who have to do their own laundry, cooking, and cleaning spend time doing those things instead of innovating or treating patients (or relaxing so they can do those things better).
I think there's something inherently a bit degrading about having a servant living in your house. This is why I think we regard it as a positive development. Not having this probably also stimulated innovation in home appliances.
So you want the law to force people to work themselves to death as peasants in Africa or Asia, so they aren't "degraded" by being a live-in servant in Britain?
Yes; I don't care if they have to work themselves to death or where they do it as long as it isn't in England or those economic sinkholes attached to England.
You're basing that risibly half-witted argument on the assumption that what engineers and 'doctors' do is of nett benefit to those who must work for low pay and live in less comfort to serve them. Almost invariably it isn't.
End the subsidies, not the migration, and let the market truly decide which immigrants are desirable.
Fucking sick of seeing these around. Time to start shaming people for using them. If it's lefties, point out how it's exploiting poor migrants.