Stay or go? EU poll - Oh the irony.

CLAPTON

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Oh please....

SE business is booming, they need more employees, and new employees need more housing. As you lot always claim immigrants live more to a house than the native born, you should be delighted.... they're taking pressure off housing by comparison to shipping in a load of Northerners....

Delays and queues are a result of inadequate investment in infrastructure to cope with our growing economy, not the fault of immigrants, and curtailing economic growth to avoid investing in infrastructure is clearly not the solution.... That would truly be the tail wagging the dog.

Health - EU migrants pay more in than they take out, better spend some of it on health.



EU migrants increase the wages of the native born, on average, and are vital to economic growth and hence new business investment.

so you agree that immigrants prevent northerners from getting jobs in the SE.


so you agree that the new jobs aren't created by the immigrants but are pre-existing


so you agree that the investment hasn't been made and the COSTS haven't been included in the faux figures for the cash balance of the immigrants population


so you agree if the full costs were included the immigrant would be in deficit and the people of the north are loosing job opportunities




seems we agree

zagubov

CLAPTON wrote: »

so you agree that immigrants prevent northerners from getting jobs in the SE.


so you agree that the new jobs aren't created by the immigrants but are pre-existing


so you agree that the investment hasn't been made and the COSTS haven't been included in the faux figures for the cash balance of the immigrants population


so you agree if the full costs were included the immigrant would be in deficit and the people of the north are loosing job opportunities




seems we agree

I wish I was as sure of anything as you are of everything.

CLAPTON

zagubov wrote: »

I wish I was as sure of anything as you are of everything.

Well, it must be difficult being so dedicated to Scotland and its independence but being so adamant that you will never actually live there.


I have no such internal conflicts but in truth have no certainty about much either.


Best to live your own live rather than other people's.

ruggedtoast

Its funny how people from Poland will fly over a thousand miles for these jobs that Clapton is claiming they are stealing but these putative northerners cant find any way to get on the bus.

Employment is quite seasonal down here. There is the holiday industry and low tech fabrication and plant nurseries. When I was growing up both of these used to be sourced from Brits and most students did their time at one of the agencies twisting peppers,riveting sheet metal, or attending to Doris' blocked pipes in her chalet.

The pay was low and the standard of the staff was lower, it has to be said. The companies used to go into mourning come September when all then students left and they were stuck with the remaining locals, most of whom needed Wednesday morning off to go and fraudulently sign on.

The holiday companies used to do most of their recruitment from the North, and bus the new recruits down. Most of them were terrible and more than a few of them were on the run. Many of my colleagues one summer who worked in an amusement park guiding children around heavy machinery could not read, and were mostly pretty baked on something by lunchtime.

Now the holiday companies dont bother with the North and recruit directly from Poland. The light industry selects from a mobile band of semi transient Poles. There are places that have become quite Polish that had previously never known a foreigner.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

CLAPTON wrote: »

so you agree that immigrants prevent northerners from getting jobs in the SE.

No.

so you agree that the new jobs aren't created by the immigrants but are pre-existing

Definitely not.

so you agree that the investment hasn't been made and the COSTS haven't been included in the faux figures for the cash balance of the immigrants population

The costs have been included, so these are not "faux" figures.

But I will agree that this country has woefully underinvested in infrastructure for decades.

Instead of taking the surplus that EU immigrants generate and using it to build out more infrastructure, successive governments have instead used it to subsidise the excessive costs generated by the native born.

I would have preferred it to be spent on infrastructure. But you can't blame immigrants for our own governments choices.

so you agree if the full costs were included the immigrant would be in deficit and the people of the north are loosing job opportunities

The full costs are included. EU immigrants are not in deficit.

The people of the north are not "loosing" job opportunities.

CLAPTON

what we have are studies that look at the effect of immigration or of EU immigration


the UCL study


REFUSE to
-even consider the increase in imports cause by the population increase i.e. increase pressure on balance of payment due in higher fuel and food imports (both in absolute terms and as a percentage)
-refused to consider the effect on housing and the absolute decline in the standard of living of people in London and the SE due in house price increases
-refuse to consider the possibility that young EU migrant could possibly produce children
-refuse to consider the possibility that these young EU migrants will get old.
-refuse to include the actual (marginal) costs of infrastructure and only include average
-refuse to take any account of increase congestion, difficulty of access to health services




well not surprising that that they claim on balance there is a small balance sheet 'benefit ' due to young EU migrant at the present time

Generali

CLAPTON wrote: »

-refuse to include the actual (marginal) costs of infrastructure and only include average

To look at one point in isolation, surely that's because the marginal cost of infrastructure is roughly £0. If a new migrant arrives in London we can't build a 1/1,000,000th of a South Circular or Central Line.

I would argue that using the average cost of infrastructure overstates the costs that migrants impose on the host nation.

CLAPTON

Generali wrote: »

To look at one point in isolation, surely that's because the marginal cost of infrastructure is roughly £0. If a new migrant arrives in London we can't build a 1/1,000,000th of a South Circular or Central Line.

I would argue that using the average cost of infrastructure overstates the costs that migrants impose on the host nation.

if indeed the facts show there has been no new infrastructure spending in the UK over the last 10 years then I agree with you.


presumably there are good reasons why the continual widening of the motorways, xrail, improvement to London overground and underground, new and expanded schools etc don't count

Generali

CLAPTON wrote: »

if indeed the facts show there has been no new infrastructure spending in the UK over the last 10 years then I agree with you.


presumably there are good reasons why the continual widening of the motorways, xrail, improvement to London overground and underground, new and expanded schools etc don't count

You don't seem to understand marginal costs.

CLAPTON

Generali wrote: »

You don't seem to understand marginal costs.

whats your (economic) point of substance ?
is it about the true costs of increase in population of a simple point scoring exercise?