If we vote for Brexit what happens

TrickyTree83

CLAPTON wrote: »

so all in all
we have adequate infrastructure, housing, transport, NHS resources, teachers etc but where they are some small issues the marginal cost of correction is trivial.

does this magic work in greece, spain, italy and other countries worldwide or is it unique to UK

We can't increase spending on these services and infrastructure without borrowing. There's no extra money otherwise we'd be paying down the deficit and then the national debt.

So if we can't increase spending there is already limited resource for these services and infrastructure projects the more people who come will decrease the ratio of available resources to those who use them. We're doing some and we're borrowing for that as we're still running a deficit.

As the population increases through migration into the country there won't be an increase in spending on services because of a larger tax take. You'd need a hell of a lot more migration for that to happen, enough so it wipes out the deficit using the additional tax take and we start paying down the debt. If that happens during the time it takes to pay down the debt and gradually increase spending our services will be catering for a much increased population. In some situations like the NHS the services themselves will get into debt to provide what is required. So even massive mass migration wouldn't solve the problem. We need to steady the ship and stick to a plan. And if we cannot control the amount of people so that it is sensible we're going to have problems.

cells

CLAPTON wrote: »

so all in all
we have adequate infrastructure, housing, transport, NHS resources, teachers etc but where they are some small issues the marginal cost of correction is trivial.

does this magic work in greece, spain, italy and other countries worldwide or is it unique to UK

well yes clearly it works everywhere or how can you get 3rd world china or Turkey becoming a first world country inside a single generation if building infrastructure was crippling or somehow impossible?

For the west it should be even easier as we already had infrastructure in place and technology allows higher utilization. So while Turkey and China need to and have built out thousands of miles of railways we in the UK could just digitize signalling and double capacity that way rather than doubling railway miles.

prowla

Vote Remain or the puppy gets it!

TrickyTree83

cells wrote: »

well yes clearly it works everywhere or how can you get 3rd world china or Turkey becoming a first world country inside a single generation if building infrastructure was crippling or somehow impossible?

For the west it should be even easier as we already had infrastructure in place and technology allows higher utilization. So while Turkey and China need to and have built out thousands of miles of railways we in the UK could just digitize signalling and double capacity that way rather than doubling railway miles.

They borrowed to do it. Every country on the planet borrows to do this.

We're in the undesirable position of running a budget deficit. It is a massively serious situation to be in and is a very nasty balancing act to try to get it under control. We would need to import many thousands of migrants, get them all jobs that actually pay direct tax (less than £11,000 pa and they don't) to nullify the deficit. The result of this influx of people would result in pressure on services with no additional funding.

TrickyTree83

I keep saying the same things and they just don't seem to be sinking in.

Am I on everyone's ignore list?

cells

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

We can't increase spending on these services and infrastructure without borrowing.

deficits are measured as a percentage of the economy if migrants expand the economy which they do then the deficits fall as a percentage of the economy (and so does the debt)

Also a lot of infrastructure does not require the same amount of investment for an additional unit of use. So for example using digital signaling on train lines might double capacity, that is a whole lot cheaper than doubling the number of train line miles. I have no idea how much cheaper but for arguments sake it may well be only 20% of the cost. So to set up a train system to deal with 50 million journeys might cost £10 billion but to upgrade it to deal with 100 million journeys might only be £2 billion. Thus you get 50 million journey capacity for only £2 billion or 1/5th the price

For other infrastructure much the same applies. For instance go back a generation and an increasing population would have meant more coal stations needed at quite a cost (coal stations are about 2-3x the price of a Gas-Fired-Station/GW. Fast forward to 'now' 2005-2015 and we saw electricity demand fall as more efficient lighting and appliances kicked in. The additional population required no additional expensive plants. And as far as I am aware the next 15 years has no large expected increase in electricity demand while the population may well be up 7 million

cells

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

They borrowed to do it. Every country on the planet borrows to do this.

We're in the undesirable position of running a budget deficit. It is a massively serious situation to be in and is a very nasty balancing act to try to get it under control. We would need to import many thousands of migrants, get them all jobs that actually pay direct tax (less than £11,000 pa and they don't) to nullify the deficit. The result of this influx of people would result in pressure on services with no additional funding.

I understand your argument but all the evidence points to it being wrong.

More migrants does not result in higher unemployment. Long term unemployment is about 1% now and in 10 years time its very likely to be about 1% still (to the nearest 1%). That means if 5 million migrants come about 3 million will get jobs (the rest being children or retired). They may get poor paying low skill jobs but they will displace other workers up the skills ladder and that displacement needs to be allocated to what the migrants bring for full accounting.

CLAPTON

cells wrote: »

well yes clearly it works everywhere or how can you get 3rd world china or Turkey becoming a first world country inside a single generation if building infrastructure was crippling or somehow impossible?

For the west it should be even easier as we already had infrastructure in place and technology allows higher utilization. So while Turkey and China need to and have built out thousands of miles of railways we in the UK could just digitize signalling and double capacity that way rather than doubling railway miles.

you go from a third world country to a first world country by a combination of investment (delaying comsumption so making the people somewhat poorer temporarially) or borrowing (making them poorer in the future) but hopefully more than compensated by future income) by mutually beneficial trade or by inward investment (getting outsiders to pay for new business by providing some sort of privileges in return and of course a lose of profit abroad)

none of these require an immigrant stream or indeed benefit from it.

the marginal costs of providing extra transport, housing, schools etc in London are a little more than the cost of digitising the rail signaling system

cells

CLAPTON wrote: »

the marginal costs of providing extra transport, housing, schools etc in London are a little more than the cost of digitising the rail signaling system

London is not the whole UK its only about 15% of the population of the country. Most the other 85% have no real housing issue in half the nation buying a house in the open market will cost less in mortgage payments than renting off the local council poor list

The marginal cost of transport and schools in London will be low because the marginal cost of improving is always cheaper than that of building more and with time most things lend themselves to improving. Have a look at homerton train station in hackney

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homerton_railway_station

Passenger numbers are up from 0.3 million to 5.24 million on the decade. Yes nearly 20 x as many people use the station in 2014/15 than 2004/5. The station did not expand in size 20 times. The station does not use 20 x as much electricity. The station does not cost 20 x as much to maintain. etc. Its an asset that is used much more productively at a very low marginal additional cost

michaels

cells wrote: »

London is not the whole UK its only about 15% of the population of the country. Most the other 85% have no real housing issue in half the nation buying a house in the open market will cost less in mortgage payments than renting off the local council poor list

The marginal cost of transport and schools in London will be low because the marginal cost of improving is always cheaper than that of building more and with time most things lend themselves to improving. Have a look at homerton train station in hackney

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homerton_railway_station

Passenger numbers are up from 0.3 million to 5.24 million on the decade. Yes nearly 20 x as many people use the station in 2014/15 than 2004/5. The station did not expand in size 20 times. The station does not use 20 x as much electricity. The station does not cost 20 x as much to maintain. etc. Its an asset that is used much more productively at a very low marginal additional cost

But at what cost in quality of experience for station users? I bet you now are much more likely to queue for the ticket machines and footbridge to change platforms and much less likely to have somewhere to sit when waiting for a train. Sure all small things but they all mount up.