Credit card debt fuels immigration

The above headline must seem a bit strange, but bear with me.

Total UK credit card debt in May 2016 stood at £67 billion.  Per household this amounts to £2,397 per household for credit cards bearing the average interest.  It would take 25 years to repay this if you only made the minimum payment every month.  The UK was ranked third in the list of countries which rely on credit cards (Turkey is highest – 56% of Turks have outstanding debt on their cards). The British have an insatiable appetite for credit and the card companies are only too delighted to indulge the appetite.  There are more than 50 million cards in circulation in the UK, and almost a third of all unsecured debt is on these cards, compared with only 1.6% in France. One in five adults (8 million people) have unsecured debt of more than £10,000.  The total British consumer debt is a massive £1.1 trillion. Consumerism is the best friend of every bank and lender

Immigrants partake of this orgy of unsecured spending, often having two credit cards being used simultaneously. Availability of credit makes it very easy for them to move to the UK, and because of credit, they have time to find lodgings and a job, and cover rough periods where they have higher than normal expenditures, by borrowing. 

I know someone who operated like this, paying one credit card company off, loading a second card, alternately for ages. I doubt she could have done this anywhere else in Europe.  It allowed her to learn English and establish herself in a job. (Later, this hard-working and intelligent person got married and stayed in England). Without the credit she would have had to return to her own country.

What we don’t know is how many short-term migrants return home without paying off their credit card debt.  But in any case, it is clear that this ability to secure credit the day you land is an encouragement to migrate. If this is the case, then the government should have regulations governing borrowing by non-citizens.  The reality is that businesses want these immigrants and would resist if credit was withdrawn. Instead of a decent wage they rely on credit cards to keep their inexpensive foreign workers working. Dreadful, isn’t it, but they would argue that these people have jobs they wouldn’t have in Poland etc, and can learn English on the spot.

I personally think that immigration has been a good thing. Most (not all; some are dishonest freeloaders) are young, smart, educated and responsible, and make first class citizens if they stay. In the London area they take nearly all the retail, hotel and catering jobs, so much so that to be served by an English waiter, for instance, is now rare. And this is the political and social problem.

Are little girls growing up too quickly?

Schools were once places where girls in drab A-line skirts could concentrate on other things than looking perfect. Not any more. We now live in a world “where eight-year-olds worry about their weight, 11-year-olds feel they need to pluck their eyebrows” and teenage schoolgirls are expected to be “selfie-ready” at all times. And attempts to counter this trend get short shrift. A recent school-trip letter which laid down that girls should wear no make-up except “subtle lip gloss”, and could wear either cropped tops or short skirts but not both, was ridiculed as sexist on social media. In the 1980s, my school friends and I would have killed for the freedom to wear lip gloss and short skirts: we just didn’t know how lucky we were in being free to be frumpy. (Gaby Hinsliff, The Guardian)

I have noticed, among the (small) number of young people I know, that grumpy, monosyllabic puberty seems to be starting at eight or nine, and that as early as fifteen or sixteen civilisation seems to be taking tenuous hold. I personally remember being boorishly rebellious at the great age of seventeen, but not at nine. But now it seems that kids, especially girls, are growing up incredibly early, and may not be getting any dreamy youth at all to speak of, which is incredibly sad. Of course, it’s all about Facebook, I suppose. One gets teased if you don’t have a Facebook presence, teased if you have less than five hundred “friends”, and socially dead if you don’t, in person and on your page, look like a model on a runway. The sexualisation of young girls is no light matter. The suicide rate among teenagers is disturbingly high, and it appears to be social pressure that causes the problems. How have we allowed this to happen and what, if anything, can be done about it?

A different view of the EU

A friend of ours made the following comments in an email, and I want to pass them on (having secured his agreement) because they represent a point of view I haven’t heard expressed in the media (or which I have missed if it has been):

“Multinational, multilingual unions do not last forever. Although the use of force can prolong their lives, they eventually collapse (Austro-Hungary, Ottoman). Without force to support them they collapse even faster (Soviet Union, after Gorbachev refused to use much force). Small scale unions have a better chance of survival, but the cases of Canada and Belgium show that even then they struggle to maintain unity.

“This does not mean that the EU was a mistake. I prefer to think of it as a transitional arrangement lasting many decades, that helped to reduce the risk of conflict and strengthened economic ties. One hopes that these two good things will have put down roots that will ensure that the benefits survive the eventual demise of the EU.

“Had I been able to vote I would have voted to remain because of the short term economic costs of leaving, but somewhat reluctantly. The EU has so many deep structural problems (too remote from people, obscure and expensive governance arrangements, imposed top down without much grass roots support, limited cross border solidarity, etc) that it will not survive for ever, or even for very long. Indeed, in trying to cheer myself up by listing the good consequences of Brexit, I have decided that one of the main benefits of leaving now is that the UK will avoid some of the costs that arise as the EU crumbles amid much acrimony and fighting over the spoils. It would have been desirable to have remained for a few years longer, as we are not yet at the point of serious disintegration (although the process has started – viz the eurozone and Schengen), but we lose little by leaving now.

This is not to say that there will not be problems, mostly transitional, for some people, and I certainly hope that your family is spared them. Only that such problems will be less by leaving too early than by leaving too late”.

My own reaction to the above: I am a strong advocate of the EU for historical reasons and because we are in an age of big power blocs, military alliances and multinational trade deals. A nation out of the loop struggles in such a scenario, its industry at a disadvantage, its voice lost in the world. Britain had a loud voice in the EU until it declined as an effective military power and started to annoy other members by trying to get special treatment for this, that and the other. However, if the country finally does leave the EU (to the latter’s relief and my personal dismay) the scenario described above does offer some small consolation and may very well prove a spot-on prediction.

However, the fact is that the man in the street will suffer. The big money that gets its way wants to scrap EU regulations, but does want the cheap labour. So the supporters of Brexit will be deeply disappointed and ignored. Immigration will continue, but the rules that govern how people are treated will disappear. This is my fear. It is Epicurean to work together, not apart. Only now are we beginning to think this through.

A letter sent out by Planned Parenthood

“There is simply no question where Mike Pence (Trump’s running mate. Ed.) stands when it comes to women’s health and rights.

“As Indiana governor, he signed into law anti-LGBTQ legislation and some of the most invasive and extreme abortion restrictions in the country. He forced the local Scott County Planned Parenthood health center to shut its doors in 2013, leaving the community with nowhere to turn for HIV testing and education. Two years later, the county faced an unprecedented HIV outbreak, which Pence himself deemed an “epidemic.”

“That’s not all. As a House Representative in Congress, Pence was known for what Politico called a “one-man crusade” to prevent patients from getting care at Planned Parenthood anywhere in the country, introducing six separate measures in Congress.

“Donald Trump’s choice of Pence should make it crystal clear what his presidential priorities would be:

• Ending access to safe, legal abortion

• Punishing women who seek abortions and doctors who provide them

• Blocking patients’ access to basic health care at Planned Parenthood health centers

• Rolling back women’s access to reproductive health care, like no-copay birth control

• Denying equal protection to LGBTQ people — in housing, employment, and more

“Dawn Laguens, Executive V-P, Planned Parenthood Action Fund”
(The letter has been edited to exclude request for funds)