No, not at all. It leads to a wider divide between the haves and have nots. The cheaper craftsmen from the poorer nations benefit from the freedom of movement because they can significantly undercut the local prices in the richer nations. This leads to cheaper prices, but at the same time the average local craftsperson loses his job. The only people benefiting are company owners who hired that cheaper labor and do EU subsidised government contracts. Hence, the rich just get richer, the poor no longer manage to make ends meet.
And yes, that was a generalisation by example, but illustrates the source of unrest reasonably well, imo.
Well, price of labour issues are double-sided weapons. Unions have fought for generations to reach some reasonable consensus on wages for those mainly blue-collar skills, and if employers were obliged to recruit and pay at set, industry-wide rates, things would become acceptable and accent irrelevant. Thing is, you could then discover that buying strawberries becomes too expensive for your wallet or mine, that going to hospital meant a family member had to come with you and make your bed, change your dressings and clean out your bedpan; many hotels and restaurants would then have to become Michelin-priced and still serve up slop.
The rich getting richer depends largely on where you draw the line defining richness. If you mean big companies, they take big risks, too, and create the work that employs the rest of us less gifted in the art of making money. Nobody got rich by being stupid, and that includes lottery winners, for they at least understood that you had to be in it to win it.
If you refer to the Facebook moguls, then thank those who use their services: I never have, so their activities remains outside my sphere of interest beyond the fact that I disagree with their platforms that permit communications between criminals. Their taxes, however, should be paid wherever they raise the revenue.
