Is There an Economic Case for Leaving the EU?

Generali

Bantex wrote: »

Seems Generali has found that if he accuses anybody he does not agree with of racism and then reports them, the posts get deleted.

One way of winning an argument, just a bit north Korea though.

I accused the points of being off topic. Stick to the topic and your posts won't be deleted.

ruggedtoast

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

No.

I really do hope you think about this a bit though.....

Lets try another example;

When women first started to enter the workforce by their millions, many people predicted it would lead to mass unemployment of men.

They predicted that women would be stealing men's jobs and driving down men's wages.

Of course this didn't happen.....

Why do you think that is?




The simplest way to explain it is that a society of 100 million people will need roughly twice the number of doctors, lawyers, supermarket shelf stackers, taxi drivers, toilet cleaners, etc, as a society of 50 million people.

Or to put it another way....

-In the recession of the early 80's there were 3.2 million people unemployed.

-In the recession of the early 90's there were 3 million people unemployed.

-In the recession of the late 00's there were 2.7 million people unemployed.

If immigration causes unemployment, and given that millions of immigrants have been added to the population since the 80's, why were fewer people unemployed in the last recession (which was also the deepest recession) than in the two previous ones?



Inflation is at near record lows....

Economists all note that close to 0% unemployment is neither desirable nor possible.

Apart from anything else, it's highly inflationary, it's also terrible for productivity, as you're having to hire people that have no desire to work and in many cases have little ability to perform in the jobs at hand.

The desired level of unemployment from an economic perspective, so called "full employment", is somewhere around 4% to 5% or so in the UK.

Unemployment of less than this level will damage productivity and cause inflation.

As a society then, we're better off in aggregate with around 1.6m unemployed than we are with fewer unemployed.

And with unemployment now below 2m and falling fast, we're getting dangerously close to full employment.

Time to open the floodgates....

I'm not that convinced about the government's definition of employed. 16 to 18 year olds now have to be in education, and the term education is applied rather loosely.

Then there are things like this:

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/nov/03/dwp-benefits-electrician-work-placement-labour

We are better off than many countries though.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

ruggedtoast wrote: »

I'm not that convinced about the government's definition of employed. .

Oh there's no doubt that governments over the decades have all had their little scams for redefining unemployed people as something else.

But I don't think the governments of today are much better at it than their predecessors were, so historical comparisons should be broadly in line.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Still waiting for a response to these questions from the anti-immigration crowd....


When women first started to enter the workforce by their millions, many people predicted it would lead to mass unemployment of men.

They predicted that women would be stealing men's jobs and driving down men's wages.

Of course this didn't happen.....

Why do you think that is?


and....


-In the recession of the early 80's there were 3.2 million people unemployed.

-In the recession of the early 90's there were 3 million people unemployed.

-In the recession of the late 00's there were 2.7 million people unemployed.

If immigration causes unemployment, and given that millions of immigrants have been added to the population since the 80's, why were fewer people unemployed in the last recession (which was also the deepest recession) than in the two previous ones?




.

Generali

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Still waiting for a response to these questions from the anti-immigration crowd....


When women first started to enter the workforce by their millions, many people predicted it would lead to mass unemployment of men.

They predicted that women would be stealing men's jobs and driving down men's wages.

Of course this didn't happen.....

Why do you think that is?


and....


-In the recession of the early 80's there were 3.2 million people unemployed.

-In the recession of the early 90's there were 3 million people unemployed.

-In the recession of the late 00's there were 2.7 million people unemployed.

If immigration causes unemployment, and given that millions of immigrants have been added to the population since the 80's, why were fewer people unemployed in the last recession (which was also the deepest recession) than in the two previous ones?




.

As any economist will tell you, the reason is that as the population rises aggregate supply and aggregate demand both rise.

Output and demand for inputs (such as labour) both rise in tandem.

More people need more roads but then more people can pay for more roads!

I suspect that the real benefit from immigration comes from the fact that most productive people are expensive at the start and end of their lives: they need educating and they need pensions and an elongation of life. Most immigrants come pre-educated so save the country that cost. I'm not aware of a proper study that looks to that conclusion though.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Generali wrote: »

As any economist will tell you, the reason is that as the population rises aggregate supply and aggregate demand both rise.

Output and demand for inputs (such as labour) both rise in tandem.

More people need more roads but then more people can pay for more roads!.

Indeed.

A simple concept that many here seem unable to grasp.

Hence why they are ignoring the questions.....

CLAPTON

Generali wrote: »

As any economist will tell you, the reason is that as the population rises aggregate supply and aggregate demand both rise.

Output and demand for inputs (such as labour) both rise in tandem.

More people need more roads but then more people can pay for more roads!

I suspect that the real benefit from immigration comes from the fact that most productive people are expensive at the start and end of their lives: they need educating and they need pensions and an elongation of life. Most immigrants come pre-educated so save the country that cost. I'm not aware of a proper study that looks to that conclusion though.

presumably you and Hamish will be quoting acedemic studies to show how much the peoples of Greece/Spain/Itlay etc have gained by the recent wave of immigrants.

If the aggregate level of supply and demand was always exactly in balance irrespective of the population and circumstances then how is it that the unemployment level every changes?

Gangaweed

I'm both pro immigration and anti the EU.

As someone who's worked in senior levels in industry, I can say for sure that the UK needs the skilled folks that come over. Most folks arriving are better qualified, and have a far superior work ethic to many locals. It maybe unpopular but this is a fact. I've been in businesses where our progress has been hampered more by the lack of talented staff than anything else.

However, the biggest downside to the EU is the huge weight of regulation it places on business. Big business is best placed to cope, but they generally don't hire as much or grow as fast. Small businesses, which are the life blood of most economies are being strangled.

The EU likes to think it is about free markets, but really it's about preserving the place of big corporates through crony capitalism. Just look at the Luxembourg files for proof of this.

kabayiri

[QUOTE=Generali;66936979
...

I suspect that the real benefit from immigration comes from the fact that most productive people are expensive at the start and end of their lives: they need educating and they need pensions and an elongation of life. Most immigrants come pre-educated so save the country that cost. I'm not aware of a proper study that looks to that conclusion though.[/QUOTE]

We choose to delay the age at which people become productive by pushing for higher education for more of our young.

At the other end, there was an interesting article on the radio about research seeking not to extend the life of older people, but their ability to be productive. It would make sense to help people self fund their old age into their 70s.

jjlandlord

An now my post about previous posts having been deleted has also been deleted.

This is a 'debate', Stalin would have been proud of.

Anyway such threads are no debates at all, just a pure waste of time and free pages views for the site owners.

As such, I'm off.