|
namesake posted:So immigration does have other effects, that's not what you initially said before but ok. So you're willing to admit it's an economic issue. If the current economy is not growing than an increase in GDP per capita decreases with an influx of people, short of large technological innovations. Setting the immigration level at the correct level is important to meet demand is thus important. Denying the right of people to have that as an important political issue is simply wrong, and calling them xenophobic is reductionist and stupid.
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2014 00:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 05:55 |
|
|
SelfOM posted:Did you not read the first statement I said where gains are no different than a normal increasing population size. An increasing population which we have to pay to be educated and fed and things. Not to mention that population growth slows the better off a population is. EDIT: Unrelated, but proof we could be much better off if we actually invested outside of London. Praseodymi fucked around with this message at 00:39 on Aug 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2014 00:36
|
|
|
SelfOM posted:A larger population on finite resources makes it a lot harder to have children. It simply isn't affordable for a lot of people. 11-15% of the UK population is foreign born and this doesn't include their children. To say that immigration hasn't significantly increased the population size and density is an outright lie. What are these 'finite resources' exactly? Are you talking about some nebulous idea that there's a fixed amount of wealth in the country, that it's divided up between the people living here, and so More People means Less Pie? That's not how economies work - as an example, here's the rabidly left-wing Torygraph with a piece on how immigrants contribute more to the public purse than they consume in public services: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...ility-head.html What's true is that people are definitely feeling a financial squeeze, and I don't think you'll find anyone here who disagrees, but the actual causes are far more complex - austerity and cuts to public services and local funding, skyrocketing house prices, stagnant/cut wages and diminishing real incomes, an economy which hasn't even recovered to pre-crash levels, interest rates which weaken long-term savings... It's convenient for the government (and anyone who supports what they're doing to the country) to find an easy scapegoat, and that's what immigration is. Things are bad, how come - why it's all them immigrants, comin' over 'ere and taking our jobs and benefits, and the government pledges to take a firm line, how nice of them! e- SelfOM posted:So you're willing to admit it's an economic issue. If the current economy is not growing than an increase in GDP per capita decreases with an influx of people, short of large technological innovations. Setting the immigration level at the correct level is important to meet demand is thus important. Denying the right of people to have that as an important political issue is simply wrong, and calling them xenophobic is reductionist and stupid. You know that the people within an economy are the ones producing that GDP, right? It's not just fountaining out of the earth and then people come along and slurp it up baka kaba fucked around with this message at 00:43 on Aug 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2014 00:39
|
|
|
I'm sure having more children would be an excellent economic prospect if we didn't have to wait at least 16 years for them to make a meaningful contribution to the economy, assuming they do well in their exams which will contribute to their success in contributing, of course. Maybe in the 16 or so years we might still have an education infrastructure to speak of. It's playing the long game, but I'm sure it will pay off!
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2014 00:47
|
|
|
Didn't this shitehawk pop up a while back to say that the changing genetic profile of Britain was something to be concerned about?
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2014 00:52
|
|
|
SelfOM posted:So you're willing to admit it's an economic issue. If the current economy is not growing than an increase in GDP per capita decreases with an influx of people, short of large technological innovations. Setting the immigration level at the correct level is important to meet demand is thus important. Denying the right of people to have that as an important political issue is simply wrong, and calling them xenophobic is reductionist and stupid. Hell yeah it's an economic issue, you're just blaming the wrong group of people. What you say is true but with two important points which turn it around; firstly, per capita doesn't really mean a drat thing. If GDP per capita is increasing but so is inequality then most poor people won't see the slightest increase in living conditions because all the gains are being taken by those at the top and given the seriousness of our levels of inequality in wealth that's the much more likely cause of people feeling the squeeze and that has nothing to do with immigration. Secondly, GDP is a product of a countries workers, no matter where they're from. From literally the dawn of time humanity has managed to produce above its own personal needs (to provide for their children and sick, etc) but you're saying more people working with all our technology makes us poorer? There's got to be more to it than that, some other mechanism which is driving people into poverty despite being surrounded by tools of prosperity and I've yet to hear someone who is against immigration fully articulate one.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2014 00:56
|
|
|
A Sloth hasnt shown up in a while, I think.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2014 00:56
|
|
|
SelfOM posted:So you're willing to admit it's an economic issue. If the current economy is not growing than an increase in GDP per capita decreases with an influx of people, short of large technological innovations. Setting the immigration level at the correct level is important to meet demand is thus important. Denying the right of people to have that as an important political issue is simply wrong, and calling them xenophobic is reductionist and stupid. This would be true to a point if we lived in hypothetical  full communism and the resources of the state were shared amongst the population with absolute equality. In that situation, it would follow that adding people without expanding the economic base (is that even really possible?) would lead to a slight decrease in overall welfare.*However, we don't live in that state and resources are shared horribly inequally. We have more than enough to feed, clothe, and house every single person to a decent standard. We don't do that, because poverty isn't the result of immigration, it is the result of the economic elite choosing to live in excess and luxury while the working class starve. Of course, they justify this by suggesting that it's Johnny Foreigner we need to be angry at for eating up our welfare budget and undercutting us on employment. This could be remedied easily by increasing the minimum wage and expanding welfare, but that won't happen because it relies on hiking taxes on the rich and therefore depriving them of their gold plated toilet seats or whatever. You're accepting a narrative that is attractive because it seems to make eminent sense superficially - Pot X/People Y is always going to mean less per person the more there are. However we should be focusing on the pot not the people, as it doesn't represent the sum value of our economic resources but an arbitrary value our government assigns to it based upon political needs. Until the pot and our total resources are equal, the immigration argument doesn't hold any water. It's a classic case of misdirection and divide and conquer perpetrated to keep the lower classes bickering amongst themselves and distracted from their oppression. Blame your government, your boss, and you landlord, not your fellow worker. *Not that this would necessarily make shutting them out the right thing to do, especially if they were fleeing from oppressive regimes. That's a different argument though. ThomasPaine fucked around with this message at 01:03 on Aug 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2014 00:57
|
|
|
Personally, I'm not too concerned with former-IS operatives running amok in the UK. I'm also not too concerned about immigrants running amok in the UK. The good ol' boy network that runs the UK can, and has done, far more damage to the long-term prosperity of the country than 1000 pseudo-jihadists could ever do. The only difference is the method of delivery of the terror they bring to the public.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2014 01:22
|
|
|
What's all quite ironic about the economic arguments in favour of restricting immigration/leaving the EU is that Farage said, in response to the various studies and academic that demonstrate the benefits of immigration,http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/10555158/Id-rather-be-poorer-with-fewer-migrants-Farage-says.html posted:"If you said to me, would I like to see over the next ten years a further five million people come in to Britain and if that happened we’d all be slightly richer, I’d say, I’d rather we weren’t slightly richer, and I’d rather we had communities that were united and where young unemployed British people had a realistic chance of getting a job. I think the social side of this matters more than pure market economics." Quite convenient that the apparently more important side of the debate is the significantly harder side to prove!
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2014 01:23
|
|
|
Hey come on now, all he's saying is he'd prefer a Britain where white communities are united against the dirty foreigners and their languages
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2014 01:32
|
|
|
SelfOM posted:Which is consistently in favor of more immigration. Hahaha okay pal. Brown Moses posted:Supposedly it's this guy (top post is "Neil is my carer and I stand by him and this attack that he obviously felt he had to do to George Galloway. He is a very kind and decent man who obviously felt he had to do what he did"), seems to be a big fan of Israel, UKIP, Britain First, and not such a big fan of Muslims. Typical Better together supporter.  Edit: Didn't know about that woman getting attacked in Argyll Street when I posted this. That leaves a bad taste. Gonzo McFee fucked around with this message at 01:46 on Aug 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2014 01:34
|
|
|
Well, goons are hardly in a position to complain about imprecise stuff like that, Silver Vision. All of the economic arguments in favour of immigration are really only justifications after the fact. Mass immigration is welcomed first and foremost because it makes you feel nice'n'warm'n'fuzzy'n'International, and because the sins of the fathers shall be passed down to their sons (yea, unto the fourth generation) it helps to assauge your vague and nebulous sense of collective guilt over your grandfathers' imperialism. It's a totemic fetish for the Left. It is a matter of record, revealed when Andrew Neather broke ranks, that Labour encouraged mass immigration to deliberately change British society - because when The People aren't all aboard with you, get new People. kapparomeo fucked around with this message at 01:56 on Aug 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2014 01:41
|
|
|
Gonzo McFee posted:Hahaha okay pal. Neil Masterson posted:Appeal to Scotland's true patriots. Quite. e: He's quite the tortured intellectual isn't he?
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2014 01:49
|
|
|
kapparomeo posted:Well, goons are hardly in a position to complain about stuff like that, Silver Vision. All of the economic arguments in favour of immigration are really only justifications after the fact. Mass immigration is welcomed first and foremost because it makes you feel nice'n'warm'n'fuzzy'n'International, and because the sins of the fathers shall be passed down to their sons (yea, unto the fourth generation) it helps to assauge your vague and nebulous sense of collective guilt over your grandfathers' imperialism. It's a totemic fetish for the Left. Does immigration represent a threat to the future of the British people? If so, what should be done to secure that future?
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2014 01:52
|
|
|
kapparomeo posted:Well, goons are hardly in a position to complain about stuff like that, Silver Vision. All of the economic arguments in favour of immigration are really only justifications after the fact. Mass immigration is welcomed first and foremost because it makes you feel nice'n'warm'n'fuzzy'n'International, and because the sins of the fathers shall be passed down to their sons (yea, unto the fourth generation) it helps to assauge your vague and nebulous sense of collective guilt over your grandfathers' imperialism. Errr isn't the justification for mass immigration between EU countries and the UK based in liberal economic/international theory, that the four freedoms bring out the best aspects of free markets on a huge scale? Argue all you like about whether this works/is in the UK's best interests, but it doesn't factor much into Europe. The imperialist guilt thing doesn't really work unless there was a similar policy of mass immigration between the UK and Commonwealth countries. Funnily enough, I remember UKIP arguing that they would like to see an increase of immigration from Commonwealth countries in the run up to the EU parliament elections this year. EDIT: what I mean by not factoring much into Europe is that the policy of mass immigration being bought out by imperialist guilt doesn't hold much water when talking about the migration between European countries. Silver Vision fucked around with this message at 02:02 on Aug 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2014 01:58
|
|
|
Yes, truly, hating people because of their melanin levels is the considered, rational approach here. The only reason anyone would let those pakis and polacks in is because of liberal guilt. Nothing of value was ever brought about by a diverse, modern society with access to a global workforce. Also, while your argument is a lovely red herring, I think, given the UK's responsibility to refugees is a little more direct than "sins of the fathers" given its recent and ongoing involvement in destabilising conflicts and the wholesale peddling of arms to the most odious regimes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2014 01:58
|
|
|
ThomasPaine posted:Quite. Think it's safe to say that regardless of side, nobody's going to be defending the twat kicking a pregnant woman in the stomach to show how she'd be better off agreeing with him.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2014 02:09
|
|
|
Gonzo McFee posted:Think it's safe to say that regardless of side, nobody's going to be defending the twat kicking a pregnant woman in the stomach to show how she'd be better off agreeing with him. The quote was from the guy who assaulted Galloway, not the Britannia guy in Glasgow. Still, no, I'd imagine not.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2014 02:14
|
|
|
namesake posted:Secondly, GDP is a product of a countries workers, no matter where they're from. From literally the dawn of time humanity has managed to produce above its own personal needs (to provide for their children and sick, etc) but you're saying more people working with all our technology makes us poorer? There's got to be more to it than that, some other mechanism which is driving people into poverty despite being surrounded by tools of prosperity and I've yet to hear someone who is against immigration fully articulate one. No it hasn't. Not even in the era of written history has it always been post-Malthusian. There have been era's of Malthusian population loss. China under the great leap forward and Ukraine Holodomor. Low end jobs are at high risk for being replaced by automation. Adding more labor supply to this pool is extremely short sighted. It unfairly puts the burden of competition on the low end of socio-economic status. GDP growth isn't an elastic linear function of population size either. This happens both at the supply and demand side of services and production.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2014 02:22
|
|
|
How about we fight ISIS by turning the church of england into the mosque of england but the kicker is its equally irrelevant?
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2014 03:40
|
|
|
nopantsjack posted:How about we fight ISIS by turning the church of england into the mosque of england but the kicker is its equally irrelevant? Pretty sure that already happened mate, have you had your head in the sand? These days all the bishops have to wear hijabs and all the hymn books are halal, and they turned all the churches to face west using Polish labourers and national lottery money
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2014 04:00
|
|
|
ThomasPaine posted:
 Silver Vision posted:Funnily enough, I remember UKIP arguing that they would like to see an increase of immigration from Commonwealth countries in the run up to the EU parliament elections this year.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2014 04:08
|
|
|
loving hell, it's simplistic, but I learned that the rate of native population growth in Britain is slowing, and needs immigration to sustain economic growth. Immigrants are a good economic prospect because the state, and members of the state don't have to pay to raise them through childhood. You know where I learned that? GCSE loving Geography.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2014 07:18
|
|
|
EvilGenius posted:loving hell, it's simplistic, but I learned that the rate of native population growth in Britain is slowing, and needs immigration to sustain economic growth. Immigrants are a good economic prospect because the state, and members of the state don't have to pay to raise them through childhood. Take your CULTURAL MARXISM and shove it up your jacksie, PINKO
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2014 08:20
|
|
|
When you think about it, immigrants are probably the best type of people since another country has had to pay for them to get the skills they need, they only immigrate because they want to work, and we get more money from them. Makes you think
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2014 08:41
|
|
|
kapparomeo posted:It is a matter of record, revealed when Andrew Neather broke ranks, that Labour encouraged mass immigration to deliberately change British society - because when The People aren't all aboard with you, get new People. Actually, what the record states is that a minor flunky had an opinion about a few meetings and got all worked up over the stunning revelation that complex documents written by committee often go through multiple iterations and revision cycles before being released.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2014 08:48
|
|
|
SelfOM posted:Restricting is not hating. I dunno, most laws restricting homosexual behaviour can probably be described as homophobic.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2014 09:30
|
|
|
Darth Walrus posted:I dunno, most laws restricting homosexual behaviour can probably be described as homophobic. To be fair to him, it is kind of disingenuous to conflate the two here. It's certainly not the same as homophobia, which is discrimination based purely on who someone is. It is possible to support immigration control and not be racist as such, because you're making a value judgement towards the person based on their status as an immigrant, not their origin or skin colour or whatever (generally who they are as an actual person). So you could be absolutely a-ok with people from of all different shades who are already here, just opposed to more people coming in based on what you consider legitimate economic reasons. Yes, many people who disapprove of immigration are racists, but many are just stupid or ignorant and haven't considered it deeply enough to realise how flawed their position is. Just screaming 'racist!' doesn't serve anyone, as it's really just a lazy and unsubstantiated way of legitimising a failure to engage with and challenge their arguments. It pisses them off and closes them to debate because it reeks of dismissal, while also reinforcing the image of left-wingers as oversensitive political correctness worshipping types. What I'm saying is, SelfOM, you're could well not be a racist but you are very much a moron. ThomasPaine fucked around with this message at 10:05 on Aug 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2014 10:02
|
|
|
They don't like being called stupid and ignorant either (even if it's true).
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2014 10:08
|
|
|
Kurtofan posted:They don't like being called stupid and ignorant either (even if it's true). I don't give a poo poo what they like, just as long as they're not misrepresented out of hand.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2014 10:11
|
|
|
Hey remember when SelfOM was asked to define "Britishness" and answered "genetics", linking to this article about non-white people, providing no further elaboration except a wink and a nudge? Good times, good times.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2014 10:21
|
|
|
ThomasPaine posted:To be fair to him, it is kind of disingenuous to conflate the two here. It's certainly not the same as homophobia, which is discrimination based purely on who someone is. It is possible to support immigration control and not be racist as such, because you're making a value judgement towards the person based on their status as an immigrant, not their origin or skin colour or whatever (generally who they are as an actual person). So you could be absolutely a-ok with people from of all different shades who are already here, just opposed to more people coming in based on what you consider legitimate economic reasons. I think it would have been nice if he'd gone out of his way a bit more to make that distinction himself, though, instead of tacitly conflating them further with that 'restricting is not hating' line.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2014 10:30
|
|
|
If capital can move freely and people can't the free market is disrupted. Strivers who want to get on in a poorer country are restricted from getting the highest wage possible and thus working as hard as they can. Oh wait, non-white people might benefit from this and I as a person born in a wealthy country might lose out? Well that must mean free movement of people is communism.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2014 11:01
|
|
|
KKKlean Energy posted:Hey remember when SelfOM was asked to define "Britishness" and answered "genetics", linking to this article about non-white people, providing no further elaboration except a wink and a nudge? I actually didn't remember that, thank you for reminding me. Got at least three squares on immigration bingo: conflating "race" and "ethnicity", conflating "non-white British" with "immigrants", and a "Britain is filling up" quote near the end. On a tangent to "I don't have to care about this problem if it's sufficiently external", what all is everyone here having to deal with in relation to this vacuum cleaner fiasco? I'd kind of blanked over it myself until yesterday when I had to sit through a number of relatives moaning over coffee that it's just not cricket that their carpets will be slightly dustier (as if supplemental carpet cleaning agents don't exist), and that it's their right to choose to own overpowered electric devices in pursuit of personal comfort. It's like as soon as it starts being about civil liberties people forget about things like saving energy for planetary or even personal benefit. My parent's house still does not contain a single LED lamp in TYOL Two-Thousand and Fourteen, all because my dad has an irrational love of dimmer switches and apparently enjoys forking out  every time one of his halogen bulbs explodes (which is about once or twice a month, they are hilariously unreliable)You can get dimmable LEDs now right? That is a thing? I'm seriously considering forking out a few hundred pounds to replace them all for him, because it's pissing me off that part of his electric bill is over 10 times higher than it needs to be.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2014 11:09
|
|
|
Ddraig posted:When you think about it, immigrants are probably the best type of people since another country has had to pay for them to get the skills they need, they only immigrate because they want to work, and we get more money from them. Since the thread is currently dominated by a debate on immigration, I thought I would weigh in as someone who wants to immigrate to the UK. This is the biggest thing. I have been educated, thoroughly and to a far higher standard than all but the most prestigious old boys' club we don't like the poors here universities in the UK. Entirely on my government's dime. Hell, I not only did not have to pay, I was paid, by both my government and the EU when I got a grant to study a year abroad. That is a massive expenditure of resources. And what do I want to do? Immigrate to the UK, because lovely as the wealth inequality there is, racist and xenophobic as large portions of the population are, inept as the government is, it's the only economical choice that makes sense. Even accounting for higher living costs, my disposable income would be three, four times that I would get in my home country. And the UK gets all that sweet, sweet tax revenue at nearly no cost to them. The UK did not shell out heaps of money for my education, I wouldn't qualify for benefits except maybe some tiny ones. Hell, just two months ago I even got to the last stage (did not pass, unfortunately) of recruitment to the Civil Service graduate scheme. If there's a more thorough show of willing to integrate with a society than joining the Civil Service, short of trying to run for an elected position, I don't know what it is. Though it amuses me to think of the aneurysm a Daily Mail reader would have if they found out one of those dirty Polaks was pretty close to ending up at Whitehall. If you (this is the figurative you, not the thread hivemind, which I largely agree with) truly believe immigration is an issue, and all those dirty foreigners stealing your jobs is bad, then fix your bloody education system and produce workers that are qualified. The British people that are pushed out of higher income jobs in favour of immigrants are those who lose out in a comprehensive interview and assessment process, while having a massive advantage. Do you realise how much easier it is to perform well at an assessment and do complex numerical tasks, and interview well, if you just take a train for a couple hours as opposed to someone overcoming the language barrier and flying in the previous day, out of pocket because plenty of companies will not reimburse flights from abroad? It is a huge psychological advantage, even if you assume there is absolutely no prejudice at any part of the process. Those who are pushed out of lower income jobs don't exist, because most British (this applies to nearly every country, but we are talking about the UK here) people would much rather be on benefits than do a job that is "beneath them". Oh, and am I the only one who finds the "diversity questionnaire" in nearly every job application in the UK pretty creepy? I get the purpose of it, but asking me for my race, nationality, religion and sexual orientation is super creepy. And while I'm ranting, asking me for my GCSE results when I have university results is completely inane, it does not matter. That was so many years ago. And I don't have a direct way to calculate the bloody UCAS points the UK seems to be in love with, not that it should matter, because I have goddamn university results and anything before that is meaningless. Sorry if it turned into a rant. I wanted to provide a perspective from one of the hopeful immigrants, and had to vent somewhat about how dumb xenophobia is. Zeppelin Insanity fucked around with this message at 11:44 on Aug 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2014 11:40
|
|
|
Renaissance Robot posted:I actually didn't remember that, thank you for reminding me. Got at least three squares on immigration bingo: conflating "race" and "ethnicity", conflating "non-white British" with "immigrants", and a "Britain is filling up" quote near the end. LEDs have always been dimmable, it's compact fluorescents that can't be dimmed (easily). Also it's likely his love for dimmers that's causing the halogens to blow - they're not supposed to be dimmed because the reaction involved in regenerating the filament is only supposed to happen at a fairly narrow current range. Running them undervolt means that they never reach the right temperature for the halogen cycle to work. (Halogens *should* last almost as long as CFTs, certainly considerably longer than traditional incandescents, because they're self-regenerating (i.e. the filament doesn't erode - unless you constantly run them at under-voltage...)
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2014 11:42
|
|
|
Have people stopped using homophobic language now? Is it safe for me to come back to the thread without wanting to put my fist through my monitor?
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2014 12:14
|
|
|
Zeppelin Insanity posted:If there's a more thorough show of willing to integrate with a society than joining the Civil Service, short of trying to run for an elected position, I don't know what it is... While it's self-evidently true that the state saves money (at least in the short term) by importing skilled childless workers, it's more than a little ridiculous to hold up an application for the civil service graduate scheme as evidence of a willingness to integrate with society - you're essentially saying "to demonstrate my commitment to the country I am willing to accept a prestigious and well-paid office job that provides great security of employment, a well-defined career path, and an outstanding pension." Also, stating that people would "rather be on benefits than do a job that is beneath them" is a pretty gross mischaracterization/oversimplification. Incidentally, the GCSE thing is basically a polite way of saying "we don't value degrees from bad universities so don't bother applying if you studied at an ex-poly."
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2014 12:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 05:55 |
|
|
I may have used slightly stronger language than necessary. As you might imagine I am quite emotionally invested in the whole immigration thing. You're right about the oversimplification, but it is an attitude I see a lot. There's obviously more to it, but I wanted to provide a counter-argument. I have a tendency to play Devil's Advocate a bit in that I put forward what I think far more strongly than I truly feel, and than is perhaps reasonable, because I think that can lead to better discussion. I think the Civil Service is very much a show of integration, because it is the farthest you can get in integrating without actually being in politics. You make a good point, though, that simply hasn't come to mind. I wanted to join it because I want to be involved in making any given country a better place, as much as possible. That to me is far more rewarding than a making a corporation's numbers get bigger (which I am not particularly opposed to, but it's something I am ambivalent rather than passionate about). It's not the highest paid job I applied for, by far, and it's in London with much higher living costs. As for commitment, it's a bigger commitment than most jobs, because it ties you down to a place far more. With most corporate jobs, I might end up moving to a different country without even leaving the company, therefore paying taxes there, while with the Civil Service that's evidently not going to happen. Could you please explain what an ex-poly is? I haven't met with the term before. Zeppelin Insanity fucked around with this message at 12:30 on Aug 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2014 12:25
|
|