If we vote for Brexit what happens

Conrad

As a point of interest, here is a link to ONS data on unemployment;


Looking at unemployment by how long people have been out of work and seeking work, for May to July 2016, there were:

• 956,000 people who had been unemployed for up to 6 months, 29,000 fewer compared with a year earlier
• 227,000 people who had been unemployed for between 6 and 12 months, 63,000 fewer than for a year earlier
• 449,000 people who had been unemployed for over 12 months, 98,000 fewer than for a year earlier

https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/bulletins/uklabourmarket/september2016#unemployment

Conrad

As immigration falls, wages rise, and this will attract some economically inactive 'on the sick' people back to work. People on sickness / disability related benefits has rocketed since 1970 not because people are suddenly more poorly of course...

cells

Conrad wrote: »

As a point of interest, here is a link to ONS data on unemployment;

• 956,000 people who had been unemployed for up to 6 months, 29,000 fewer compared with a year earlier

Thanks, Like I said most almost a million of the 'unemployed' are literally between jobs only unemployed for 1-6 months and iirc most of that is in the 1-3 month band not the 4-6 month band

The UK already has full employment and it will continue to have full employment in twenty years. That means migrants push locals up the bands they dont displace locals to unemployment

Grenage

If renting is cheaper than the mortgage, the landlord must be simple.

Saying that renting is better than buying because property prices might drop is a bit like putting all your money on 12 and spinning the wheel - you might get lucky, but you probably won't.

I once turned £10 in to £280 in one day on a forex account, but I'd have to be borderline !!!!!! to believe it was more than luck.

cells

CLAPTON wrote: »

There is neither theoretical justification nor pragmatic evidence to support this nonsense. You simply have a religious faith that higher population means higher incomes irrespective of any facts of figures.

The market will adjust to a real shortage of labour in many ways:
-Some jobs will increase in price
-some will disappear as not worthwhile (not profitable)
-some will be automated and so increase the overall level of goods and services produced i.e. making us permanently richer per capita
-some part time workers will become full time
-some people not working will decide to work where previously they those not to.

In the case of supporting people who need personal care, it is likely that demand will increase their wages and that a number of coffee shops will close.

In the case of picking strawberries we may need to invent a strawing picking machine, eat fewer strawberries, pick your own, grow your own or import more.

You are assuming a fixed amount of demand which is of course nonsense. Migrants do not only produce they also consume and roughly that will be 1:1 which is the reason they dont take jobs (well they do they disproportionately take the crap low skill low pay jobs pushing the locals up pay and bands)

All the other things you note would be true if there was a swell in local demand for some reason or another but that is irrespective of the immigration level.

And of course the huge costs of building new infrastructure and the deaths due to delays in the NHS etc will be avoided/mitigated.

Total nonsense the migrants due to their age profile and the displacement effect will be very large contributors to the public purse. Also many EU migrants not only do not take in the young years (education) but also do not take in the old years (healthcare, pensions). eg I have one tenant who is leaving early next year back to France who was here for about 5 years on a high wage he contributed a lot in taxes and took close to nothing out.

cells

Conrad wrote: »

As immigration falls, wages rise, and this will attract some economically inactive 'on the sick' people back to work. People on sickness / disability related benefits has rocketed since 1970 not because people are suddenly more poorly of course...

if the migrants leave, or dont come in the first place then neither does their demand so there is no additional work for these people you cite

The migrants more or less have a ratio of demand to needs of 1:1

Think of it this way, if a million people leave London to go to the rest of England does that mean wages in London sky rocket as there is less labor? no of course not, those million leaving means a lot less demand in London for everything from schooling to healthcare to everything so those million (of whom half are working the other half are children or pensioners) who leave take approximately half a million jobs with them.

Would London be more or less productive if a million people left? well the answer is surely less else the economic drive for urbanization wouldn't exist.

cells

cells wrote: »

Thanks, Like I said most almost a million of the 'unemployed' are literally between jobs only unemployed for 1-6 months and iirc most of that is in the 1-3 month band not the 4-6 month band

The UK already has full employment and it will continue to have full employment in twenty years. That means migrants push locals up the bands they dont displace locals to unemployment

I've said this before, I think the ONS the government and the Media should do a much much better job at communicating statistics data and information

Why tell the country unemployment is 5% and 1.5 million people if when you strip out those who are just temporarily looking for work (eg unemployed for 1 week to 3 months) the figures almost half?

Likewise GDP should be stated regionally not just nationally else you get a situation like the last 20 years where London was booming (but the national data didnt highlight it) while the rest of the country was lagging (but the national average data didnt highlight it) and only after twenty years people wake up and say !!!!!! happened how did London become so rich and the rest of the country left behind.

saverbuyer

Grenage wrote: »

If renting is cheaper than the mortgage, the landlord must be simple.

Saying that renting is better than buying because property prices might drop is a bit like putting all your money on 12 and spinning the wheel - you might get lucky, but you probably won't.

I once turned £10 in to £280 in one day on a forex account, but I'd have to be borderline !!!!!! to believe it was more than luck.

The landlord is probably stuck, bought when the general hype told him prices go up 10% every year and it's sustainable. Probably caught in negative equity and is "waiting it out".


Some are maybe happy to take a monthly loss, expecting to make it up with capital appreciation. To be honest I don't know, but where I live and the type of house I live in, it's usually cheaper to rent.


I once looked at the unsustainable property market in N.I.. looked at the massive annual rises compared to local wages and decided to "take my chances" and not buy. A blind dog could see there would be a crash. Saved 500k. Don't think it was luck but then maybe I'm a retard and the people next door with 285k negative equity are the smart ones.

Grenage

I think it was more likely to be luck; it's impossible to be certain of how the housing market will play out.

Some family friends bought in Ireland just before the crash, and they ended up in massive NE, just as you mentioned; I bought our last place just after the crash, so ended up with substantial equity after a couple of years.

Both of us just happened to buy at the right or wrong time.

saverbuyer

Grenage wrote: »

I think it was more likely to be luck; it's impossible to be certain of how the housing market will play out.

Some family friends bought in Ireland just before the crash, and they ended up in massive NE, just as you mentioned; I bought our last place just after the crash, so ended up with substantial equity after a couple of years.

Both of us just happened to buy at the right or wrong time.

So you don't think the ones buying in 2007 were a bit... thick? Maybe !!!!!!? 30% rise in 2006 told me there was a crash coming.


I'm in the North so no escape from the negative equity for a few decades yet, never mind a few years. No escape for anyone in Ireland outside of Dublin really.