The Economics of Pessimistic Time Travelling Kippers

Generali

SkyeKnight wrote: »

These figures appear to be from the ons.gov.uk website so I'm assuming they are accurate, but I don't get how indirect taxation can be lower nowadays than in 1977. Just looking at the two taxes quoted, VAT was 8% then and is 20% now. Fuel duty is vastly more. Plus other stuff like tax on alcohol, cigarettes, etc is increased above inflation every year. Just what taxes were people paying in 1977 which made them pay so much indirect taxation??

I would guess 2 things:

1. Many fewer smokers
2. The single market. You would have paid huge import duties on stuff from Europe in 1977 which you don't pay today.

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Yes. And since 2007 it's gone into reverse.

My point is that the 28% increase is going to be heavily weighted by the massive pay rises happening just after 1977.

The percentage number gets smaller as you move up the years and goes into reverse as you get to the end.

In any case, many of those working in 1977 won't now be working, and similarly, many working today have only seen minimal increases and then a decline in income.

Thereofr I just don't see the relevance of a year plucked out of thin air. I know why it was plucked out of thin air....it makes the case that they wanted to present.... I just don't see how it's relevant today. Life has changed immeasurably since then.

Obviously the percentage increases will get larger the further you go back as wages have generally been increase by more than inflation every year.

Things did go into reverse after 2007 but standard of living is still higher than the beginning of this century.

CLAPTON

Generali wrote: »

We were discussing why people had this bizarre nostalia when you brought this figure up for no obvious reason. You said that the reason people were nostalgic was due to a fear of a future with 100-200 million people with no tradition of democracy, rule of law, trial by jury, religious freedom ..

I'm interested to know who these 1-200 million are, where they've come from and where they're going to.

If 20 million people arrived in Aus tomorrow, most of them would die of thirst, insanitary conditions and hunger, probably in that order. It would be the same if 20,000,000 people turned up anywhere on the planet.

I know you have a degree in Economics as you have mentioned it several times which gives you special insight as you why balance of payments, capital movement, levels of foreign debt no longer have any economic significance (positively old fashioned to be concerned).


However we do seem to agree that opposition to immigration isn't at all racist but reflects simple practical concerns and self interest. I had clearly misunderstood your view but now realise we agree about that.

N1AK

CLAPTON wrote: »

However we do seem to agree that opposition to immigration isn't at all racist but reflects simple practical concerns and self interest. I had clearly misunderstood your view but now realise we agree about that.

Not all racist, a fairly large proportion is ignorance, another hefty whack is inability to cope with change, and a tiny fraction is actually rational issues worth considering.

CLAPTON

N1AK wrote: »

Not all racist, a fairly large proportion is ignorance, another hefty whack is inability to cope with change, and a tiny fraction is actually rational issues worth considering.

As a non ignorant, rational person able to deal with change, do you support unrestricted movement of peoples ?

Thrugelmir

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Yes. And since 2007 it's gone into reverse.

My point is that the 28% increase is going to be heavily weighted by the massive pay rises happening just after 1977.

In the early days technology transformed productivity. I would say that my pay increases at the time were a comfortable 2% - 3% above inflation every year. In some fields such as finance. Technology has advanced to the point that pay has gone backwards. 17 years I employed credit controllers at around £18k (basic pay) a year. I doubt that many earn much more today. As there's far less real skill and expertise involved.

ukcarper

Thrugelmir wrote: »

In the early days technology transformed productivity. I would say that my pay increases at the time were a comfortable 2% - 3% above inflation every year. In some fields such as finance. Technology has advanced to the point that pay has gone backwards. 17 years I employed credit controllers at around £18k (basic pay) a year. I doubt that many earn much more today. As there's far less real skill and expertise involved.

I think it was pretty constant though out the 70s 80s 90s obviously some years more than others. Graham seems to have a limited grasp of figures, yes there were large wage rises in some years but in those years inflation was high so the rise in real earnings was fairly constant.

Yes in some jobs people earnings have increased less and in others they have increased more but average earnings are just that.

Thrugelmir

ukcarper wrote: »

Yes in some jobs people earnings have increased less and in others they have increased more but average earnings are just that.

The nature of the world of work has changed dramatically in that time window. The "average" hides many things. There's more jobs that require far less skill or thought.

ukcarper

Thrugelmir wrote: »

The nature of the world of work has changed dramatically in that time window. The "average" hides many things. There's more jobs that require far less skill or thought.

I agree but the relationship between the earnings of someone on average earnings to cost of living is not effected by that.

Generali

CLAPTON wrote: »

I know you have a degree in Economics as you have mentioned it several times which gives you special insight as you why balance of payments, capital movement, levels of foreign debt no longer have any economic significance (positively old fashioned to be concerned).


However we do seem to agree that opposition to immigration isn't at all racist but reflects simple practical concerns and self interest. I had clearly misunderstood your view but now realise we agree about that.

LOL, yes. We agree that if 20,000,000 people suddenly arrive in a single place then the logistical challenges would be huge.

If we can ever get 20,000,000 people to a single place in short order then we'd better start to worry about it.

It rather reminds me of this:

https://what-if.xkcd.com/8/