Voluntary work: Is it the best interest of UK Economy ????

[pantaiema]

I will say No
Firstly, my argument is based on the theory of comparative advantage from David Ricardo & Robert Torrents. (The brief description of this theory could be found in the following linked. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage)
The center of the theory is that you should do/make what you are good at. You should not do/make the thing if you could find (or buy) cheaper in the market rather than do it yourselves.

It will be the best interest of UK economics iif the HSMP people holding a highly paid job to work in their field and pay huge amount of taxes rather than doing voluntary work. For instance: Expecting that the highly paid HSMP people to leave their job/business and work as street cleaner or working in Oxfam as shop waitress make them less productive. They will earn more and subsequently pay more taxes if they are working in their field. Also, making it compulsory for HSMP people to do voluntary work will take away the time they have to do shopping and contribute even more to the UK government's coffers through VAT etc.

Secondly, in the voluntary sectors such as in charity organisations there are already a lot of school leavers, students need to gain initial work experience before they could move to real job which will pay much higher. Not to mention pensioners who need something to do something to make them busy.

Thirdly, there will be a real burden in this sector if they need to accommodate the influx of HSMP people. It will take a lot of resources as well as someone need to manage this sector.

[hk_007]

This is an interesting point.
Which is more advantageous to the British economy:
1. I as a HSMP holder is "fully integrated" (whatever that means) into the British society, do voluntary work and survive on benefits or
2. I continue what I am doing now with reasonable interaction with people around me and pay thousands of pounds by the way of tax and national insurance.

[pantaiema]

Point 1 is probably what comes to HO people mind (they are politicians, not economist). However, they probably forget that if you make it compulsory, you will not get the expected results. People will do it hesitantly (not come from their heart). If it is so then they will not get the expected result.

This is an interesting point.
Which is more advantageous to the British economy:
1. I as a HSMP holder is "fully integrated" (whatever that means) into the British society, do voluntary work and survive on benefits or
2. I continue what I am doing now with reasonable interaction with people around me and pay thousands of pounds by the way of tax and national insurance.

[EdgeHillMole]

Well, it certainly could be in the best interests of the economy & country.

Especially if we are allowed to volunteer our time to help out a political party of our choosing.

Does anyone know at this very early and sketchy date if:

1. Non-EU immigrants are allowed to volunteer to help out political parties;
2. Said volunteering would qualify us for "Citizenship points"?

Imagine what 50,000+ of us could do....

[SKUK]

Assuming 50000 highly skilled people spend 10 hours a week for 2 years on voluntary work to gain citizenship points, the number of man hours spent will be :

52000000 Hours

If we assume on an average they earn 25 pounds an hour and tax paid on that amount comes to this:

532,994,326.40 £ which the government loses.

[olisun]

Do you guys really know what exactly is Voluntary work and whether one gets paid for it???

It's better you guys do a research on this first before posting out here...

One e.g. for you to look at is "Community Support Officers"

[SKUK]

I know what voluntary work is. You've misread what I was trying to say, probably it's my mistake I wasn't clear enough in my statements.

I made an assumption i.e. in case one were to spend 10 hours during their weekdays, doing voluntary work, what would be the economic productivity loss?

I assumed a person would be earning 25 pounds an hour in their regular job which they won't earn if they were doing community service.

[gordon]

I appreciate the notion that individuals should demonstrate involvement in their communities and the validity of this expectation in the naturalisation process. But what this thread fails to acknowledge is that would-be citizens are very likely already to be involved in their communities on some level, which (according to the paper) would simply need to be documented for a naturalisation application. This, I think, is where the comparative-advantage argument falls down: individuals undertake paid employment and, on their own time or on sponsored time, already do these other things that reflect their engagement with the community. In other words, I don't see where productive capacity in the economy would be lost (foregone) in this framework.

For instance, look at employers who have sponsored volunteer opportunities (eg take a day off from work in a month to volunteer); where is the additional productivity loss there, since it's already in place with some employers ? Or look at parents who already spend time after work with their children (or other people's children) in organised sports or outdoors activities - would their work productivity be diminished any further by their continuing to do these things ?

The problem will arguably come with those who work at their jobs and then spend the rest of their time either down the pub or shut away at home; it will be far more difficult for them to make the argument that they are integrated in a pro-active and contributory way to the society round them, insofar as the green paper is concerned. But such people, in fact, demonstrate the core problem with the volunteering issue:

From a broader perspective, the problem with the volunteering proposal is that it draws an artificial distinction between social integration and economic integration. There's a problematic implication that being paid for certain activities by its very nature obviates or negates the social engagement resulting from those activities, which is patently absurd: economic activities and employment presumably have some intrinsic social value. Adam Smith himself viewed the market as being moral and social, not just materialist. By doing their jobs, paying their taxes, perhaps even creating further jobs or making charitable contributions, economic migrants who meet the terms of their implicit contract in being let into the country, are in fact integrating themselves in economic ways that cannot be abstracted from the social. And that's a major dimension that has been radically diminished in this citizenship debate, since the benefits of that contribution are not wholly restricted to the individual migrant, to the exclusion of all others round him.

AG

[hk_007]

The problem will arguably come with those who work at their jobs and then spend the rest of their time either down the pub or shut away at home;

From a broader perspective, the problem with the volunteering proposal is that it draws an artificial distinction between social integration and economic integration. AG

I think you have provided a solution yourself....what better way to slide into the British way of life than to frequent pubs (social integration) and in the process contribute to the economy through the overpriced beers (economic integration). Cheers !!!8)