If we vote for Brexit what happens

bugslet

Generali wrote: »

It was always going to be that the Great EU debate fell into a horrible morass about immigration and the [insert racial epithet of choice] taking our jobs, our homes and our wimmin

For some of us it's deeply relevant though and personal. Clapton may want to talk about trade tarriffs and the impact of the euro, but for most of us it's over our heads. I enjoy reading the informed input you and several other posters put on here, but I can't offer anything meaningful in return.

So that leaves me with Poland as a country being able to offer rates on the international market that I would lose on and drivers seeing their pay cut by £2.50 an hour because a Lithuanian will/can do the work for that. That's the bit I know about. And yes, I do realise it's the free market but that doesn't pay my bills and after 30 years I'm not going to be re-training as a brain surgeon.

cells

mwpt wrote: »

Note that I'm ostensibly on your side of the debate here but could you explain why immigration to London from Poland results in both London and Poland being better off, but the same thing doesn't apply to London and the north of England?

Poor countries need to build up their own infrastructure things like factories power stations trains etc. For that they need both capital and importantly almost always foreign machines and parts.

For instance think of a very poor country maybe Pakistan 20 years ago. If an immigrant from pakistan goes to say Germany and is able to send back 10,000Euro a year that gives Pakistan hard currency to buy foreign machines and parts. Now one individual person isnt going to save Pakistan but if their foreign population as a whole send back say 10 billion Euro a year that gives pakistan 10 billion a year with which to buy economic accelerators. Things like CCGT power stations. Things like the machines that make the manufactured goods. Things like lorries that are vital for logistics.
Maybe pakistan could in time make all those things for themselves but it might take 200 years whereas with capital flow inwards from foreign nationals it might take 1/10th a much time. Germany on the other hand benefits from +1 or +1 million to its population and avoids the pains and troubles of a declining population. It also gets to export 10 billion euro worth of machines and parts to pakistan.


Of course we could achieve the same sort of thing of economic development acceleration by giving proper development aid to poor countries and there is some of that already happening but imo we need more acceleration of development in poor nations

cells

CLAPTON wrote: »

so for other countries and cities of the world, an increasing population isn't necessary for economic growth : that is unique to the UK and Detroit.

It would be good to hear the precise circumstances where a falling population is good and where a failing population is bad.

It would be good to hear your views on the UK balance of trade and our growing inability to produce enough essential goods : does the capital outflow of the foreigners help of hinder or does balance of trade no longer matter.

no need to repeat the issue of the consequences of the immediate free movement of people, as you have agreed it would be totally impractical

A falling population in a poor country can easily be offset by increasing productivity. Developing countries can grow by upto 15% a year as they install the economic multipliers that are the machines. Developed countries can not grow that fast as we are limited much more by the slower steady improvement in technology (while a poor country could jump from having no telecommunication to smartphones over the course of 5 years something that took us closer to 105 years)

Also a lot of the poor countries have increasing populations so if Europe takes in a few million from Africa and the Middle east it does not result in population decline there.


With regards to places like Poland. You are correct they are probably screwed in the long term. The last 20 years has been a flat population there yet due to being quite poor 20 years ago and having things like their expats send capital home and development aid from Europe their wealth and well-being has increased. If however they continue to only have 1.3 chidren per woman they will enter a terrible population decline. They themselves will likely need to either encourage more children per women or to allow more migrants in (probably from outside of the EU). The fact that they lost some 10% of their population to other EU nations was not a negative as it helped them greatly accelerate the wealth and well-being of the other 90%


with regards to the balance of trade it balances out with a free floating currency. with regards to essentials aka food is what you are thinking of we produce a lot of food and can produce more its just cheaper to import it. also we have a fleet of trident nuclear weapons and one of the top 5 armies in the world who do you think is going to put a sea freight embargo and no fly zone onto the uk? seriously? drop the stupid arguments as it will put off people listening to your more reasonable points

kabayiri

cells wrote: »

Poor countries need to build up their own infrastructure things like factories power stations trains etc. For that they need both capital and importantly almost always foreign machines and parts.
...

If we take Poland for example, there has been hundreds of billions of Euros of investment from the EU.

It does not necessarily mean the money is well spent.

There are business parks there competing with each other just a few miles apart.

The Polish office I know and have dealt with struggle to retain staff, because the motivated ones want to come to UK!

It wasn't worth the hassle in the end, and more work has gone to the service being offered in India. (This is also not risk free)

CLAPTON

cells wrote: »

Poor countries need to build up their own infrastructure things like factories power stations trains etc. For that they need both capital and importantly almost always foreign machines and parts.

For instance think of a very poor country maybe Pakistan 20 years ago. If an immigrant from pakistan goes to say Germany and is able to send back 10,000Euro a year that gives Pakistan hard currency to buy foreign machines and parts. Now one individual person isnt going to save Pakistan but if their foreign population as a whole send back say 10 billion Euro a year that gives pakistan 10 billion a year with which to buy economic accelerators. Things like CCGT power stations. Things like the machines that make the manufactured goods. Things like lorries that are vital for logistics.
Maybe pakistan could in time make all those things for themselves but it might take 200 years whereas with capital flow inwards from foreign nationals it might take 1/10th a much time. Germany on the other hand benefits from +1 or +1 million to its population and avoids the pains and troubles of a declining population. It also gets to export 10 billion euro worth of machines and parts to pakistan.


Of course we could achieve the same sort of thing of economic development acceleration by giving proper development aid to poor countries and there is some of that already happening but imo we need more acceleration of development in poor nations

Of course the benefits could be achieved by trade with these underdeveloped countries : unfortunately the EU has erected both tariff and non tariff barriers so doing untold damage to these countries.
Trade is by far the best way of helping developing countries as it
encourages rational commercial decision making rather than simply accepting handouts from foreign governments (with lots of strings) which inevitable distort economic processes.

Unfortunately, nearly all the research shows that development aid goes into the the pockets of corrupt government ministers and is a hindrance to the ordinary people rather than a help.

Given the UK huge balance of trade deficit any currency sent out of the country by immigrants has to be funded by the UK increasing its foreign borrowing or selling off even more of its assets.

Trade and not aid is the best way of helping developing nations.
Encouraging the emigration of developing countries best brains that have been educated at great expense, is doing them no favours either.

Generali

bugslet wrote: »

For some of us it's deeply relevant though and personal. Clapton may want to talk about trade tarriffs and the impact of the euro, but for most of us it's over our heads. I enjoy reading the informed input you and several other posters put on here, but I can't offer anything meaningful in return.

So that leaves me with Poland as a country being able to offer rates on the international market that I would lose on and drivers seeing their pay cut by £2.50 an hour because a Lithuanian will/can do the work for that. That's the bit I know about. And yes, I do realise it's the free market but that doesn't pay my bills and after 30 years I'm not going to be re-training as a brain surgeon.

The free market does pay your bills it's just that it isn't obvious.

cells

bugslet wrote: »

For some of us it's deeply relevant though and personal. Clapton may want to talk about trade tarriffs and the impact of the euro, but for most of us it's over our heads. I enjoy reading the informed input you and several other posters put on here, but I can't offer anything meaningful in return.

So that leaves me with Poland as a country being able to offer rates on the international market that I would lose on and drivers seeing their pay cut by £2.50 an hour because a Lithuanian will/can do the work for that. That's the bit I know about. And yes, I do realise it's the free market but that doesn't pay my bills and after 30 years I'm not going to be re-training as a brain surgeon.

Yes sadly immigration has more of an impact on some labour sectors than others but then again so does technology. In time (I think likely within 15-20 years) most the driving jobs will go to vehicles that drive themselves for $1 per hour and send that back to the corporate overlords in silicon valley

cells

CLAPTON wrote: »

Trade and not aid is the best way of helping developing nations.
Encouraging the emigration of developing countries best brains that have been educated at great expense, is doing them no favours either.

what about the dumb ones that come here that you dont like so much

I know more than a few who now have PHDs and one who is a professor in a London university. Had they stayed in their poor countries they would likely be subsistence farmers and shepherds and the like.

Immigration for them vastly unskilled them and gave them opportunities not available in their native countries. Surely you can see the benefits to all of the human race in converting shepherds and rice growers into Actuaries Doctors Teachers and generally smarter and better people.

CLAPTON

cells wrote: »

Yes sadly immigration has more of an impact on some labour sectors than others but then again so does technology. In time (I think likely within 15-20 years) most the driving jobs will go to vehicles that drive themselves for $1 per hour and send that back to the corporate overlords in silicon valley

immigration keeps the wages down in all sectors : maybe some more than others but all are held down.

without the continuous supply of cheap labour, there would be real increases in wages and positive incentives for companies to improve productive and to innovate new processes, products and services.

CLAPTON

Generali wrote: »

The free market does pay your bills it's just that it isn't obvious.

a free market in labour moves wages toward the world average