If we vote for Brexit what happens

Crashy_Time

_CC_ wrote: »

Crashy_Time wrote: »

If that's the definition, then what is the difference between someone who rents and someone who decides to purchase via a mortgage?

Both are debt (they owe money) - one to a bank, the other to the Landlord of the property they're currently renting. Ironically, in this case it is usually the mortgage holder that is saving, in the form of equity in their property.

The mentality of someone who rents cheaply, and saves and invests regularly, as well as living at or below their means tends to be different to the mentality of someone who borrows to the hilt to "get on the ladder" because someone at work or on the telly told them it was the right thing to do, IME anyway.

cells

mrginge wrote: »

No. What you aim to do is put those people in positions in proportion to the size of relevant layer.
So if the bottom unskilled segment relates to 30% of the workforce then you aim to target 30% of your immigrants to that segment. If the top segment relates to the top CEOs and is 0.2% then you aim for the same percentage.

That is your base target.
Then you adjust that in relation to factors like -
1. Is the current segment too big or two small.
2. What is the transition of people between segments.
3. How many will exit and where from.

So for example, if we have too many unskilled people we reduce the base target to rebalance that segment.
If we want to increase the segment containing doctors and we have capacity in the segment below to upskill, then again we may reduce the target for doctors.
If we decide that there is a chronic shortage of engineers but it takes 5 years to full train one, then we may temporarily increase the target for that segment, while supporting it with training strategies.

That is what a managed, skills based immigration policy is.

Trying to fill from the bottom is just as stupid an idea as trying to fill at the top. And both are nearly as stupid as being able to draw up your pyramid but then not being able to decide who comes in and where they slot in.



...or alternatively, we just have a lot more unskilled workers.

i find it difficult to believe you can mico manage to the extent that you can accurately measure and predict demand for hundreds/thousands of jobs and industries. nor is it reasonable to assume human capital is so fixed it cant retrain or skill up to do something else

migration should primarily discriminate for age as its simple as easy to implement and see that the benefit of a young fit 20 year old working for 45 years is higher than a 55 year old person with health problems who might work for 10 years before requiring pensions and medical care.

I dont think we could actually take in only lower skilled migrants I dont think it would be politically possible. Taking in only high skilled migrants might be possible but you would be shooting the natives in the foot as the high skilled migrants take on the better paid and skilled jobs leaving the dish washing and shelf stacking to the locals rather than the other way around

cells

Conrad wrote: »

The housing crisis

There is no housing crisis in the uk

CLAPTON

cells wrote: »

There is no housing crisis in the uk

of course there isn't

if every family of four shared their 3 be semi with 2 other families there would be masses of spare homes
and of course the housing stock would be used more efficiently
and we could then easily house another 50 million without building a single property.

everyone would enjoy the benefits of closer friendships and the 'buss' of the city

cells

CLAPTON wrote: »

I agree there are significant issues about how the NHS is managed but I think that a reasonable person would take a few that 9 million foreign born people currently in the UK has some impact of infrastructure including NHS usage.
I full agree that some of the foreign born people work in the NHS at all levels.

I would expect a modest view (say 5 p extra in the pound of income tax) as you seem so certain about the things that don't cause the need for extra infrastructure.

Your views are total nonsense.

If you got rid of say 5 million people of which 3.2 million are workers, that is 10% of the workforce. You will get a ~10% fall in tax receipts. How are you going to cover the £70 billion shortfall especially if the majority of this 5 million that disappears is the 20-50 age group who dont take much in the way of state spending.

You will probably find that although the country has seen a 7.7% fall in population the demand on the NHS has fallen by perhaps just 1/3rd that amount. So you set yourself up in a situation where your tax receipts are down 10% while your NHS demand is down perhaps only 2.5%. What would happen to the NHS if its budget and workforce was cut by 10% while the demand from the sick and the old only fell 2.5%?


adding to the 20-50 age group via migration must be a huge net contribution especially when you consider they will be pushing others up the skill/pay/tax grades

Crashy_Time

_CC_ wrote: »

Crashy_Time wrote: »

Sorry, missed this before I posted.

That's a definition I think we can all agree on. Question is - how many people fall into this category? I think it's less than you think.

Allegedly a third of people in the UK, or something like that, are one pay check away from financial disaster? Some posters like to read that as meaning the other two thirds must be well flush so there is no problem at all in UK economy land :rotfl: I choose to read it as many Brits are living beyond their means to show an outward appearance of affluence when in fact the banker who cashes their cheques is actually the affluent one.

Mortgagefreeman

mayonnaise wrote: »

But you can stop campaigning now, apparently your side 'won'.

And you can stop complaining now, because your side 'lost'.

mrginge

cells wrote: »

i find it difficult to believe you can mico manage to the extent that you can accurately measure and predict demand for hundreds/thousands of jobs and industries. nor is it reasonable to assume human capital is so fixed it cant retrain or skill up to do something else

I also find it difficult to believe that it is possible to micro manage immigration.
Nobody is suggesting that.
Nobody has suggested that human capacity can't retrain or upskill.

Clearly though it is possible for macro-strategies to exist that are used to manage the overall mix of skills to industries to locations etc.

migration should primarily discriminate for age as its simple as easy to implement and see that the benefit of a young fit 20 year old working for 45 years is higher than a 55 year old person with health problems who might work for 10 years before requiring pensions and medical care.

There is some merit in this and it should be an adjusting factor, however it sounds like you actually want to discriminate by health rather than age, since that would not only get rid of all those near-dead 55 year olds, but also the 20 year old disabled people that you seem to not like due to their higher cost to society.

whatmichaelsays

CLAPTON wrote: »

anyway do your personally believe a 1/3 GPs will leave by 2020

I certainly believe that we're on a trendline towards that. Whether or not it transpires to actually be one third I don't know (I've not asked all of them) but when you consider that,

• The average age of GPs is rising,
• That more GPs are retiring earlier (the average retirement age of GPs is 59),
• That workload is increasing, due to an aging population - which will affect work-life balance,
• That we aren't recruiting enough young GPs,
• That a not-insiginificant (and rising) number of the GPs that we do recruit either leave the profession early or emigrate,
• That the cost of training is increasing,
• The fact that we aren't training / recruiting enough GPs is likely to increase pressure on existing GPs,

I'd be inclined to think that we're on a trajectory for a significant shortfall of GPs without some form of intervention. Like I say, I'm not sure what figure that will ultimately be, and I don't dispute that the BMA may well be presenting a 'worst case scenario', but as I mentioned earlier, there hasn't to my knowledge been any meaningful counter-argument to that claim.

mrginge

Mortgagefreeman wrote: »

And you can stop complaining now, because your side 'lost'.

That is never going to happen