Total Debt as a Proportion of GDP

N1AK

Generali wrote: »

How do you propose the UK more than double productivity increases?

He's not proposing anything. He's decided there's too many immigrants and thus concluded that no argument in favour of them is valid and any argument against them is to be supported.

It's pretty obvious that his position is based on nothing because his 'debating' technique is a mishmash of fallacious arguments. In just one post:

CLAPTON wrote:

As you know, because you 'THANKED' Hamish's post, it's easy to automate almost all jobs in the UK but that would 'reduce the tax take and lead to socio-economic collapse.
Why did you thank that nonsense if you don't believe it?

Reductio Ad Absurdum, Strawman

CLAPTON wrote:

Do you not know any economics?

Ad Hominem

CLAPTON wrote:

do you not know about supply and demand determining price?

Ad Hominem

CLAPTON wrote:

do you not think that supply /demand / price applies to the price of labour?

Strawman

CLAPTON wrote:

do you think the shortage of labour will increase its price?

Argument by question

CLAPTON wrote:

do you think that an increase in the price of labour will lead to finding substitutes for labour?

Argument by question

CLAPTON wrote:

did you actually study economics at all?

Argument Ad Nauseam & Ad Hominem

CLAPTON wrote:

do you think that the current price of labour suggests a shortage or an adequate supply?

Argument by question

CLAPTON wrote:

do you think we need to 'store ' a supply of labour because we may have a shortage in 10 years times

Argument by question, Strawman

CLAPTON wrote:

does your current employer do that?

Digression, Argument by question

CLAPTON wrote:

in any event do you acknowledge the harm being done to the already poorer countries we are 'exploiting'?

Digression, Argument by question


I could have listed more fallacious arguments but would have been repeating the same ones even more. The style above can largely be summed up as trying to discredit Generali's position by asking enough questions which require extensive answers that Generali can't realistically respond and thus appears to be avoiding the issues. It's also notable that the questions mainly stem from attacking Generali's economic knowledge (clearly stronger than CLAPTON's own, thus important to undermine) and an implicit premise that reducing immigration will decrease supply of labour without affecting demand for it, or the wider economy (a naive assumption, but one that suits CLAPTON).

CLAPTON

Generali wrote: »

Erm what do you think happens to the demand for labour as the population increases?

what do you think happens to the demand for labour when productivity increases?

CLAPTON

danothy wrote: »

Is 'automation' synonymous with 'increase in productivity' then?

why would you think that?

Generali

CLAPTON wrote: »

what do you think happens to the demand for labour when productivity increases?

History shows us that it increases.

An increase in productivity in and of itself would cause a fall in the demand for labour. What happens in the real world is that people build a better, cheaper mousetrap which frees up income to be spent elsewhere.

What do you think happens to demand for labour as the population increases? As a thought experiment you could consider what the demand for labour is on Orkney and in London.

Generali

N1AK wrote: »

I could have listed more fallacious arguments but would have been repeating the same ones even more. The style above can largely be summed up as trying to discredit Generali's position by asking enough questions which require extensive answers that Generali can't realistically respond and thus appears to be avoiding the issues. It's also notable that the questions mainly stem from attacking Generali's economic knowledge (clearly stronger than CLAPTON's own, thus important to undermine) and an implicit premise that reducing immigration will decrease supply of labour without affecting demand for it, or the wider economy (a naive assumption, but one that suits CLAPTON).

CLAPTON seems to have decided that his posting position (as well as that of his sockies) is to have a pop at me. I find it quite funny TBH, especially when (s)he uses her superior knowledge of economics to put me down.

danothy

CLAPTON wrote: »

why would you think that?

I don't, but you seem to, evidenced by your answering a question about increasing productivity increases by babbling about automation.

Bantex_2

Isn't automation the main cause of increased productivity?

CLAPTON

Generali wrote: »

History shows us that it increases.

An increase in productivity in and of itself would cause a fall in the demand for labour. What happens in the real world is that people build a better, cheaper mousetrap which frees up income to be spent elsewhere.

What do you think happens to demand for labour as the population increases? As a thought experiment you could consider what the demand for labour is on Orkney and in London.

With an increase in population, in general I would expect an increase in demand for goods and services.
This would, in the short term at least, lead to an increase demand for labour.
Other things remaining the same, then this would either lead to a drop in unemployment and/or an increase in the price of labour.
If the labour supply was constrained and its price started to rise then I would expect businesses to look for ways of substituting labour.
If however the supply of labour was relatively unconstrained then I would expect to see businesses simply continuing present practices.


In practice, with an increase in population especially if concentrated in the working age group, I would expect to see an unwelcome rise in London and the SE house price, a rise in essential imports (food, fuel etc) and rise in foreign debt plus the usual other unwelcome consequences.


Of course, the rise in population might contain a large number of entrepreneurs who will start new businesses that will further increase the UK standard of living and created new export markets.

CLAPTON

Bantex wrote: »

Isn't automation the main cause of increased productivity?

sorry, I don't know where you are going on this


automation, computerisation often lead to productivity gains: however re-engineering business processes (including reducing waste) can also lead to significant enhanced productivity.

kabayiri

Generali wrote: »

Well over the last 20 years, productivity increased by 38% in the UK

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/productivity/labour-productivity/q1-2014/rftxlprod02q114.xls

and that was during an unprecedented era of technological change. How do you propose the UK more than double productivity increases?

I was involved with a company which had a decision to make : automate with heavy upfront investment or ship the operation to a location with cheap labour.

The decision chosen involved relocating the plant, and the need for quality meant that for a long period they were carrying more staff overseas, not less. It's just that the staff were cheaper, and let's just say incentives were attractive.

I can see the same pressures being faced by companies of today. If people are comparably productive then there is a strong argument to ship out the work to a place where labour costs are much lower.

I can't see how we compete long term on this basis.

We have to overachieve on productivity levels, or have the design edge.

38% in 20 years is disappointing, to put it mildly. It suggests we do not focus on r&d and plant investment here.

On an economic level, though, it might be very useful to have large numbers of lower paid people. I don't know. It obviously works for the emerging economies. Could it work here?