Corbynomics: A Dystopia

gadgetmind

Alan_Brown wrote: »

you're not one of the top 1% of the world's wealthy

Being in the top 1% of the global wealthy is trivially easy and vast swathes of people in the UK manage, perhaps even you.

Being in the top 1% of the UK wealthy is harder, and unless using the "silver spoon" route (minority approach BTW) requires smarts. I'm guessing not you, but feel free to correct me.

cells

CLAPTON wrote: »

well it would seem to me that

implies that property everywhere will become either very cheap or worthless

yes I think property in places where the population is falling is going to become worth-less. in a lot of the developed world women are at or are moving to less than 2 children per woman so populations will decline unless net migration stops it. maybe it wont happen in the UK for many many generations as we may be a net migration receiving country for many years.

interestingly it kind of happened in London 1970-1990s. It was an odd case. The population of the UK was flat-ish but the population of London declined. Property became cheap as London depopulated losing about 600,000 people during that time while adding some 600,000 properties to its stock. If that trend had not reversed and London lost another 600,000 from 1990-2010 then today London would probably cost not much more than stoke

CLAPTON

cells wrote: »

yes I think property in places where the population is falling is going to become worth-less. in a lot of the developed world women are at or are moving to less than 2 children per woman so populations will decline unless net migration stops it. maybe it wont happen in the UK for many many generations as we may be a net migration receiving country for many years.

interestingly it kind of happened in London 1970-1990s. It was an odd case. The population of the UK was flat-ish but the population of London declined. Property became cheap as London depopulated losing about 600,000 people during that time while adding some 600,000 properties to its stock. If that trend had not reversed and London lost another 600,000 from 1990-2010 then today London would probably cost not much more than stoke

Also I would argue its already happening in Germany, The biggest german REIT with 300,000 properties on its books

So, what you are saying is that if we hadn't had massive immigration into London, then families or couples wanting families could now be living in family sized houses in London.

Good we agree about something even if you consider this makes their standard of living worse whilst I consider that would make their standard of living better.

cells

CLAPTON wrote: »

So, what you are saying is that if we hadn't had massive immigration into London, then families or couples wanting families could now be living in family sized houses in London.

Not many, but some
Also I tried to point out but you ignore most things that dont fit into the clapton dance, without migration since 2004 I think London would have drawn in more Brits from outside of London. So places like Stoke or Middlesborough would be in a worse position than they are now. Much of the midlands and north may have experienced a proper house price crash and who knows how bad that would have been for the UK banking system and those regions? The migrants added demand when demand was needed and played an important role from 2007-2015 in powering the uk out of recession by both adding demand and by greatly improving the public finances.

CLAPTON wrote: »

So, what you are saying is that if we hadn't had massive immigration into London, then families or couples wanting families could now be living in family sized houses in London.

Also lets not forget that in about 80% of the country homes are affordable and in most of that they are down right cheap.

If we get a 'hard brexit' and a hard crackdown on migration you will find that within a generation or two a lot of the north the midlands and wales is worthless. And Im not talking about £60k a house stoke Im talking about £6k a house grangetown. While you think that would be utopia it is in fact dystopia

CLAPTON

cells wrote: »

Not many, but some
Also I tried to point out but you ignore most things that dont fit into the clapton dance, without migration since 2004 I think London would have drawn in more Brits from outside of London. So places like Stoke or Middlesborough would be in a worse position than they are now.

It is certainly possible that other Uk born people would have been able to live and work in London if there had been far fewer immigrants.
I see this would have been to the great benefit to the people of the UK, so is an excellent example of how immigration makes the people of the UK poorer.

Much of the midlands and north may have experienced a proper house price crash and who knows how bad that would have been for the UK banking system and those regions?

I see nothing bad about people in midlands and north having better, largers houses to live in: why do you see it as a bad thing?

The migrants added demand when demand was needed and played an important role from 2007-2015 in powering the uk out of recession by both adding demand and by greatly improving the public finances.

as you have explained, immigrants both provide extra demand for goods and services but also provide extra supply of goods and services.
you also maintain that they on average provide more than they consume : so they clearly didn't power us out of a recession but had overall the opposite efffect.

Also lets not forget that in about 80% of the country homes are affordable and in most of that they are down right cheap.

If we get a 'hard brexit' and a hard crackdown on migration you will find that within a generation or two a lot of the north the midlands and wales is worthless. And Im not talking about £60k a house stoke Im talking about £6k a house grangetown. While you think that would be utopia it is in fact dystopia

I've already explained that I see that people in the north and midlands being able to live in better and bigger houses is an advantage and not a disadvantage which you, somewhat bizarrely seem to believe.

westernpromise

gadgetmind wrote: »

Being in the top 1% of the UK wealthy is harder.

From memory you need to be on about £180k a year. The top 0.1% is something like half a million income.

cells

CLAPTON wrote: »

I see nothing bad about people in midlands and north having better, largers houses to live in: why do you see it as a bad thing?

the quality or size of the homes would be no different they are the same homes. What would have been different if we had 2 million fewer immigrants is that instead of living 2.35 to a house people would be living 2.30 to a house. The notable difference is that people would be living 0.05 persons less per house. So every 20th house would have one fewer person in it. But on the negative side we would have had to pay higher taxes or have lower public services if the migrants had not come

This is why I dont get your argument that without the migrants the homes would be larger and better. Did the homes shrink or decay because a migrant looked at it?


Also yes the migrants over produce, the state spends that via their excess taxes. I think you know this but you like doing the clapton dance :j

mrginge

cells wrote: »

the quality or size of the homes would be no different they are the same homes. What would have been different if we had 2 million fewer immigrants is that instead of living 2.35 to a house people would be living 2.30 to a house. The notable difference is that people would be living 0.05 persons less per house. So every 20th house would have one fewer person in it.

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

What a load of absolute garbage.

CLAPTON

cells wrote: »

the quality or size of the homes would be no different they are the same homes. What would have been different if we had 2 million fewer immigrants is that instead of living 2.35 to a house people would be living 2.30 to a house. The notable difference is that people would be living 0.05 persons less per house. So every 20th house would have one fewer person in it. But on the negative side we would have had to pay higher taxes or have lower public services if the migrants had not come

we have 9 million immigrants in the UK.
whilst your white christian eurocentric view is noted, I don't share your racism.

This is why I dont get your argument that without the migrants the homes would be larger and better. Did the homes shrink or decay because a migrant looked at it?

too stupid to comment on

Also yes the migrants over produce, the state spends that via their excess taxes. I think you know this but you like doing the clapton dance :j

so your well argued point that immigrants increased employment amoungst the native due to the increase in demand, can't then be true, as you now claim the immgrant increase the supply of goods against their consumption.
they must have increased unemployment.

cells

CLAPTON wrote: »

we have 9 million immigrants in the UK.

We have 65 million immigrants (or their children) in the UK.

whilst your white christian eurocentric view is noted, I don't share your racism.

Where did you get that from? Is this one of the Clapton dance tactics just call someone racist in the hope that casual readers mark that person as such?

so your well argued point that immigrants increased employment amoungst the native due to the increase in demand, can't then be true, as you now claim the immgrant increase the supply of goods against their consumption.
they must have increased unemployment.

If your aim is to alienate people by repeatedly lying and intentionally muddying the waters its working. The end result will simply be that people stop engaging with you. Maybe that is you 'game plan' if so it's stupid as all this sub forum is is a handful of people debating topics.

Anyway for the 100th time. I didn't say the above nor is there a reasonable chance someone could infer the above from what I've posted. What I said was that low skill migrants push the locals up the pay and skill bands. They don't create extra jobs nor do they destroy them. With or without the migrants I think the UK would be running at about 1% (long term) unemployment. With the migrants (or more accurately first gen migrants) the locals are pushed up the bands as a lot of the migrants displace the locals from the lowest paid worst condition jobs. Without the migrants the British would have to do those jobs by climbing down a few pegs on the skill and pay tables.