Stay or go? EU poll - Oh the irony.

Generali

CLAPTON wrote: »

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

It's that if you want to discuss marginal costs then it's good to be clear what you're discussing. I don't think you are.

CLAPTON

Generali wrote: »

It's that if you want to discuss marginal costs then it's good to be clear what you're discussing. I don't think you are.

I was referring to the increase in costs directly attributable to increase in population
e.g. new doctors surgery due to increase in local population
or a new tube line
new trains due to increase number of passenger
widening a motorway due to increase traffic
new house building
new roads


I used the word 'marginal' to refer to these costs new real costs as opposed to using a historic average cost of previous infrastructure.
Of course some new costs will be incurred whether or not there is an increase in population due to replacement and/or changing requirements.
Maybe it isn't the best word to use but some economists use it in this sense.


However, it seems that you have adopted the position that there are absolutely no drawbacks at all to increase in population :
the only worthwhile debate is how racist or otherwise is the person suggesting that there are both advantages and disadvantages, financial benefits and financial costs of increases in population.

tincans6

CLAPTON wrote: »

I was referring to the increase in costs directly attributable to increase in population
e.g. new doctors surgery due to increase in local population
or a new tube line
new trains due to increase number of passenger
widening a motorway due to increase traffic
new house building
new roads


I used the word 'marginal' to refer to these costs new real costs as opposed to using a historic average cost of previous infrastructure.
Of course some new costs will be incurred whether or not there is an increase in population due to replacement and/or changing requirements.
Maybe it isn't the best word to use but some economists use it in this sense.

The example you give aren't marginal costs and no economist would describe them as marginal
Some could be described as step-change costs.

A new Doctors Surgery might be built if an local area had an increase of say 10,000 people - but it wouldn't be built for a local increase of 1000.
It will be no surprise to find that;

a) existing surgeries will absorb the increase first.

b) young economic migrants don't use health services as much. Go into any Dr's and I can guarantee the main people waiting will be old, and the rest will be children and people with long term chronic health / disability / mental health problems. If 1 in 10 are actually in work I would be gob-smacked.


A new tube line would need literally millions of extra bodies in Greater London to even consider building.

The DLR wasn't built in response to increased population - it was built to regenerate the east of London docklands.

leveller2911

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Your problem is that most EU immigrants don't work less than full time hours a week at minimum wage and have two kids.

My post was an accurate example.Immigrants will be couples,singles and families.

If you bothered to check the governments own benefits calculators and put a few scenarios through the system you will understand how much immigrants (and British people) can claim compared to wages.

Can you post some impartial data showing how many EU immigrants are earning NMW or part time. No graphs please Hamish ,accurate data only. You are constanty saying the majority EU immigrants are not in low paid jobs and even those who are don't claim benefits.

The report actually states that "Highly skilled immigrants contribute £20billion over 10 years ,it makes no mention of the low skilled immigrants.

https://www.gov.uk/benefits-calculators

Which is why EU migrants, (the ones we've actually had, not the fictional ones you like to use for made up examples), have been significant net contributors on average.

Some will be and some will not be.You just don't accept that a significant number are claiming in work and out of work benefits.

Like it or not, the EU migrants we've had have paid in billions of pounds more than they've taken out.

They subsidise the native born population.

The report that you are quoting from (Dr Christian Dustmann) is not as accurate as you make out. You are taking snippits of data to fit your agenda . The report did not include immigrants coming to the UK in the past 18 months. If I was to post a report stating the exact opposite to Dustmanns report and my report was funded by UKIP you would cry foul but given the fact that Dustmanns report was funded by ERC and Northface Migration who are funded by the EU thats ok is it?.

I can imagine your reaction if the SNP funded a report that said Scotland would be better off going independant you would have a hissy fit...

CLAPTON

tincans6 wrote: »

The example you give aren't marginal costs and no economist would describe them as marginal
Some could be described as step-change costs.

A new Doctors Surgery might be built if an local area had an increase of say 10,000 people - but it wouldn't be built for a local increase of 1000.
It will be no surprise to find that;

a) existing surgeries will absorb the increase first.

b) young economic migrants don't use health services as much. Go into any Dr's and I can guarantee the main people waiting will be old, and the rest will be children and people with long term chronic health / disability / mental health problems. If 1 in 10 are actually in work I would be gob-smacked.


A new tube line would need literally millions of extra bodies in Greater London to even consider building.

The DLR wasn't built in response to increased population - it was built to regenerate the east of London docklands.

you may wish to look up 'marginal cost' in wiki or any economic text book


you may wish to look up 'step change cost' in wiki or any economics text book


you may wish to research the London population change between say the 2001 and 2011 census and the lastest estimates.


you may wish to calculate the likely increase in the number of doctors surgeries over that period.


you may wish to reflect that young people (of whatever origin) will be 20 years older in 20 years time , 30 years older in 30 time, 40 years older in 40 years time ... I'm sure you can continue this series.


thank you for your insight into the DLR : I had a little ride on it back in 1987.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

leveller2911 wrote: »

Some will be and some will not be.You just don't accept that a significant number are claiming in work and out of work benefits.

Of course I accept that some (a very small minority) will be claiming in and out of work benefits.

I just don't care.

The EU migrants we've had, in the proportion we've had them, have been a significant net financial benefit.

It really is that simple.

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

It really is that simple....unless you look passed the headline

Fixed that for you.

The EU funds a study, which ends up showing, bizzarely everything the EU wants to show, and suddenly you find yourself losing half your brain matter in one single sneeze, rendering you unable to look passed the headline.

PLENTY of people, including other academics have pulled this data apart. The range of issues they have cited are varied and large. One of the biggest issues they have cited is that the timescale of the data, which seems hand picked. Apparently, if you lok at this data from 2002 onwards (instead of 1995 onwards) the outcome is quite different. But that doesn't fit with either the funding or the outcome they set out to achieve.

If the stereophonics had to write a song about it, they could simply change "pick a part thats new" to "pick a part that fits", as that's exactly what's happened here.

While I'm under no illusion that this will simply be glossed over, and maybe even invite insults etc....that sort of response does sort of prove the point that this isn't about the data, its simply about showing what someone wishes to show.

leveller2911

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Of course I accept that some (a very small minority) will be claiming in and out of work benefits.

I just don't care.

The EU migrants we've had, in the proportion we've had them, have been a significant net financial benefit.

It really is that simple.

Nice one Hamish, just ignore the pieces of my post that are difficult for you to fit into your jigsaw.............

How "tiny" is the proportion who claim benefits?.

THE REPORT WAS FUNDED BY THE EU........................

Hamish its smoke and mirrors.

ruggedtoast

If we're talking about Poles, the costs of migration are far more onerous for Poland than they are for us.

It is extremely expensive to get a human being from being a baby to a high school or degree educated adult (and the education in Poland is very good). Pretty much all they are is a net cost. Its only when they start work themselves that you begin to make the money back.

Now if Poles are coming over here to work rather than staying in Poland, who is benefiting?

zagubov

ruggedtoast wrote: »

If we're talking about Poles, the costs of migration are far more onerous for Poland than they are for us.

It is extremely expensive to get a human being from being a baby to a high school or degree educated adult (and the education in Poland is very good). Pretty much all they are is a net cost. Its only when they start work themselves that you begin to make the money back.

Now if Poles are coming over here to work rather than staying in Poland, who is benefiting?

The one thing the communist countries got right was education. The EU's benefited massively from the subsidised education that the Eastern Bloc societies sank their meagre wealth into developing. Whatever talent pool they had, we must be seriously depleting.

I gather that the workforces of the car factories relocating to Slovakia are hiring non-EU labour as the workforce is voting with their feat. Ukrainians and Belarusians are stepping in to take their place. Wonder who's filling the gap in their countries? Stops and thinks ; maybe it's the Russians. :cool: