If we vote for Brexit what happens

CLAPTON

cells wrote: »

We have an example of a shrinking population and that is London from 1951-1981

Was that a glorous period of no traffic and wealth and wellbeing with plnty of high paying jobs and rainbows and happiness? or was the talk in the 70s and 80s how to manage Londons decline?

The wealth and the welfare of the UK increased during those years.
There was very little talk of the decline in London : talk in the 70s was of strikes and wage freezes and in the 80s fo Thatcher reforms.
Ordinary Londoners could afford a modest family house too.

Anyway why not discuss the dis-economies of scale
and the difference between GDP and the welfare of the people
and whether all countries with a population of less than 55 million are all poor and getting poorer.

cells

CLAPTON wrote: »

The wealth and the welfare of the UK increased during those years.
There was very little talk of the decline in London : talk in the 70s was of strikes and wage freezes and in the 80s fo Thatcher reforms.
Ordinary Londoners could afford a modest family house too.

Anyway why not discuss the dis-economies of scale
and the difference between GDP and the welfare of the people
and whether all countries with a population of less than 55 million are all poor and getting poorer.

well no one said a country of below 55million would be poor I said would the UK be better off economically and socially if it grew by 10 million to 75 million or if it shrank by 10 million to 55 million

you try to sidestep a perfectly reasonable question of decline by pretending you didnt understand the question and put up a stupid....well are all countries under 55 million poor...

CLAPTON

cells wrote: »

well no one said a country of below 55million would be poor I said would the UK be better off economically and socially if it grew by 10 million to 75 million or if it shrank by 10 million to 55 million

you try to sidestep a perfectly reasonable question of decline by pretending you didnt understand the question and put up a stupid....well are all countries under 55 million poor...

The question is poorly defined as the reasons for the decline and the timescale would be critical for any decent analysis as well as the whole world context.

However, in general and making reasonable assumptions, the people of the UK would have a higher standard of life with the smaller population.

cells

CLAPTON wrote: »

The question is poorly defined as the reasons for the decline and the timescale would be critical for any decent analysis as well as the whole world context.

However, in general and making reasonable assumptions, the people of the UK would have a higher standard of life with the smaller population.

Say over a 20 year period, or that is to say 500,000 a year decline or 500,000 a year increase. You really have to be crazy to think the decline would leave the people of the UK with a higher standard of life.

You may think up arguments like, well house prices will be cheaper, but you miss the bigger picture which would be that 1: House building falls towards zero costing about £50B a year to the economy and some 1 million lost jobs in in the sector. Some areas especially the north and midlands truly crash in value with homes trading for next to nothing. You may think up arguments of, trains will be less packed, but you miss the fact that tickets and taxes would need to go up in price as the trains have fewer customers and almost the same running costs.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

CLAPTON wrote: »

in general and making reasonable assumptions, the people of the UK would have a higher standard of life with the smaller population.

I am old enough to remember life in the UK with a population of circa 55m.

The standard of living was much lower.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

CLAPTON wrote: »

I've no idea of the relevenace of Detroit

It's had decades of falling population.

And it's now a hell-hole compared to when it had far more people...

Houses are cheaper and traffic congestion is lower though, so I suppose the crumbling infrastructure, massive unemployment, and high crime rates are a small price to pay for that.

cells

would it be wise for the population outside of London to vote leave on the basis that any decline in economic output from the exit is likely to impact London more so than rUK. In the long term if the service export economy (aka London) shrinks then the non service economy should relative grow?

CLAPTON

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

I am old enough to remember life in the UK with a population of circa 55m.

The standard of living was much lower.

the standard of life in virtually every country in the world was lower then: are you absolutely sure that was because of the smaller UK population?

try to break away from your obsession about large populations being good and small one being bad

CLAPTON

cells wrote: »

Say over a 20 year period, or that is to say 500,000 a year decline or 500,000 a year increase. You really have to be crazy to think the decline would leave the people of the UK with a higher standard of life.

You may think up arguments like, well house prices will be cheaper, but you miss the bigger picture which would be that 1: House building falls towards zero costing about £50B a year to the economy and some 1 million lost jobs in in the sector. Some areas especially the north and midlands truly crash in value with homes trading for next to nothing. You may think up arguments of, trains will be less packed, but you miss the fact that tickets and taxes would need to go up in price as the trains have fewer customers and almost the same running costs.

oh my god, not another person that thinks the number of jobs in an economy are fixed
thanks goodness Hamish will see the nonsense here

cells

CLAPTON wrote: »

oh my god, not another person that thinks the number of jobs in an economy are fixed
thanks goodness Hamish will see the nonsense here

the number of jobs in an economy is not fixed yes but growing economies will have more jobs than stagnant or declining economies of the same size for obvious reasons.

there is also the simple fact that businesses are more efficient in growing nations because to mal-invest is harder while declining economies will need to make investments that they know will have a much more finite life

Take for instance ten car factories. In a growing economy all 10 will be busy and a 11th one can be built when the demand is more than the 10 can cope with. Compare that to falling economy. 10 car factories and one will have to close or all of the 10 will have to reduce output and productivity. Which car industry do you think you would like to work in the declining one or the growing one? one where they are firing 1,000 workers a year or one where they are hiring 1,000 workers a year?