If we vote for Brexit what happens

saverbuyer

MobileSaver wrote: »

So you eventually decided to buy instead of rent? Kinda proves my point doesn't it. ;-)



Well actually all the forecasts are that any negative equity will be wiped out within 15 years. However, even with the exceptional catastrophic crash in NI, they will still own their own property outright after 25 years while the HPC renter will still be paying out rent month after month paying off their landlord's mortgage...

I didn't decide anything unfortunately. The decision was made for me. All it proves is I'm a slave to the other half.


Last forecast on the news here was 25 years.


HPC?


In my case, the LL wouldn't even cover the interest after council tax.

saverbuyer

glasgowdan wrote: »

I don't have time to explain everything to hpc-ers that apparently struggle with simple facts. Get on Google...the answers are there. You're the one saying "bubble". Prove it.

If you don't have time to explain, then hold back on the throwaway comments. I have no idea what you're are talking about.

cells

CLAPTON wrote: »

If indeed, migrants both generate demand and consume in a 1:1 ratio, then they clearly add no value to the Uk and clearly fill no jobs: your logic says they simply create demand and then fill it.

yes its a 1:1 of course the demand they create and the labour they supply are not equal. If they are all working in coffee shops their only demand is not coffee they need healthcare police retail leisure and everything else.

They also create demand for infrastructure like housing and trains capacity and airport capacity etc. This is in the 1:1 of course this capacity is not necessarily more stuff it could just be more technology. For instance Ive read a paper which suggested train capacity could be increased massively by switching from the mostly analogue systems in use today to a digital system. So instead of laying down a new line which will take a lot of money and time it might be some smart local (or migrant) working on good software and small amounts of GDP/location technology to allow more trains per line per hour. Likewise airport capacity does not necessarily mean we need to build another airport if we have more people. IT could mean bigger aircraft or better management systems. Which is how heathrow went from 10 million passengers to close to 80 million without adding runways. This is the advantage you ignore totally. More people very often means less cost per person on infrastructure. Sometimes nil eg powerstations have been a nil cost as an increasing population/housing stock has not increased power/energy demand as that has been largely fufilled and solved by LED lightbuilds. So while your for father might have cried oh !!!! we will need to increase our power station capacity by 20% if the population goes up by 20% at great cost instead what happened is technology meant this cost was nil. Even if LED tech did not happen you would still have been wrong as we went from big (bulky) expensive coal plants to much smaller better cheaper CCGT plants. So we have two ways to solve infrastructure one is tech/software/digital the other is simply getting much better at making things.

and yes this is still 1:1 but the migrants allow everyone to be richer so we all are able to consume more products and services. Its no coincidence that the NHS started as a very basic service and is now an almost £150B a year massive sector. Its all we could afford back then but now we can afford much more. The migrants increase productivity in two ways. One is more people (especially density) tends to be more productive the urbanisation factor and the other is the age profile.

Obviously there is then nothing left over to pay for the increase in infrastructure not to mention the pain we all suffer during the infrastructure build period (5 to 10 years) of un-necessary deaths, inconvenience and poor housing.

absolute BS. see above

There is NOT one shred of evidence or theoretical analysis that immigrants cause locals to be pushed up pay levels. All analysis says they depress wages which is why virtually all the people in CBI are pro immigration

its simple mathematics. think of the locals. if we had zero migration do the locals who are born with language problems take the bottom or top quarter of skills/wage jobs? they are allocated the lower pay lower skill jobs due to their disability limiting what they can do. that they take the lower level jobs mean the higher level jobs are available for the rest. If you could click your fingers and cure them of this language problem then they would meld into the population at even levels. They tend to be the second gen immigrants. But the first gen take the crap jobs and push the locals onto higher pay and scale jobs.

AnotherJoe

MobileSaver wrote: »

They did have a choice; they can either rent or buy.

Someone who decides to rent will literally spend the rest of their working lives paying for their home.

Someone who decides to buy has an end game... a point at which their home becomes their's, fully paid up and despite whatever else might happen they will always have a roof, their roof, over their heads. It's not rocket science.

Not quite, someone who decides to rent will literally spend the rest of their [STRIKE]working[/STRIKE] lives paying for their home.

shortcrust

If a 25 year old bought a house today with a 25 year mortgage they would own the house outright at 50. No more mortgage, no more rent, and an asset to pay for care, release equity, pass to family etc in old age. Would a 50 year old who'd rented all their lives and with a lifetime of rent to pay ahead of them really be thinking how lucky they were that they'd dodged that ownership bullet?

-25 years of mortgage payments vs a lifetime of rent
-a valuable asset vs nothing

Oo what a quandary!

CLAPTON

cells wrote: »

yes its a 1:1 of course the demand they create and the labour they supply are not equal. If they are all working in coffee shops their only demand is not coffee they need healthcare police retail leisure and everything else.

your understanding of what 1:1 means is somewhat different that usually used in maths

They also create demand for infrastructure like housing and trains capacity and airport capacity etc.

indeed so we do have to spend a huge amoutn of money on increasing infrastrture, NHS, housing,et solely to meet the needs of immigrant.
In addition to the actual cost involved and the extra taxation required, these typically take years (5-10 years ) to become available, during which time people die due to NHS delays, suffer poor housing, suffer losses due to congestion etc

This is in the 1:1 of course this capacity is not necessarily more stuff it could just be more technology. For instance Ive read a paper which suggested train capacity could be increased massively by switching from the mostly analogue systems in use today to a digital system. So instead of laying down a new line which will take a lot of money and time it might be some smart local (or migrant) working on good software and small amounts of GDP/location technology to allow more trains per line per hour. Likewise airport capacity does not necessarily mean we need to build another airport if we have more people. IT could mean bigger aircraft or better management systems. Which is how heathrow went from 10 million passengers to close to 80 million without adding runways. This is the advantage you ignore totally. More people very often means less cost per person on infrastructure. Sometimes nil eg powerstations have been a nil cost as an increasing population/housing stock has not increased power/energy demand as that has been largely fufilled and solved by LED lightbuilds. So while your for father might have cried oh !!!! we will need to increase our power station capacity by 20% if the population goes up by 20% at great cost instead what happened is technology meant this cost was nil. Even if LED tech did not happen you would still have been wrong as we went from big (bulky) expensive coal plants to much smaller better cheaper CCGT plants. So we have two ways to solve infrastructure one is tech/software/digital the other is simply getting much better at making things.

very interesting but nothing at all to do with immigration : I fully believe that technolgoy can make us richer which of course is one of the reasons we don't need huge immigration with all the associated costs and disadvantages

and yes this is still 1:1 but the migrants allow everyone to be richer so we all are able to consume more products and services. Its no coincidence that the NHS started as a very basic service and is now an almost £150B a year massive sector. Its all we could afford back then but now we can afford much more. The migrants increase productivity in two ways. One is more people (especially density) tends to be more productive the urbanisation factor and the other is the age profile.

living in a shared 2 bed flat rather than a three bed house doesn't make us better off.
Waiting 18 months rather than 6 months for an operation doesn't makes us better off

Immigrants largely remove the need for increasing productivity as cheap labour is an adequate substitute in many applications.

its simple mathematics. think of the locals. if we had zero migration do the locals who are born with language problems take the bottom or top quarter of skills/wage jobs? they are allocated the lower pay lower skill jobs due to their disability limiting what they can do. that they take the lower level jobs mean the higher level jobs are available for the rest. If you could click your fingers and cure them of this language problem then they would meld into the population at even levels. They tend to be the second gen immigrants. But the first gen take the crap jobs and push the locals onto higher pay and scale jobs.

incomprehensible nonsense : no idea how immigration cures people with disabilities; is that something to do with your religious worship of the EU?


I have to say your patronising discription of jobs that often involving caring for the sick, old, young, disabled, injured as 'crap', is deeply offensive and is insulting to the people that do these vital jobs.
The people who do these jobs often enjoy doing them and feel they are making a significant contribution to the quality of life of the people of the UK.

glasgowdan

saverbuyer wrote: »

If you don't have time to explain, then hold back on the throwaway comments. I have no idea what you're are talking about.

In primary school English.. "house price trends have always gone upwards, not downyways."

setmefree2

Exports boost car manufacturing in August as industry awaits Brexit tariff deal

Foreign demand for British cars has helped push automotive manufacturing to its best August for 14 years as the industry reported a boom in exports following sterling’s post-Brexit plunge.
UK car plants produced 109,004 new cars last month, a 9.1pc increase from the previous year, with the majority of cars destined overseas. In the past 12 months, 1.13m vehicles have been made in the country, up 12pc from last year.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/09/21/exports-boost-car-manufacturing-in-august-as-industry-awaits-bre/

Thrugelmir

Why would the Germans want to hurt their own Companies by imposing tariffs on vehicles.

kabayiri

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Why would the Germans want to hurt their own Companies by imposing tariffs on vehicles.

How will the 27 EU states manage to keep their discussions over negotiating position under wraps?

The needs of Germany may centre on trade. The needs of Hungary and Poland may focus on exporting labour. The needs of the French will be based on, well, who knows...

They couldn't even agree easily on Cameron's limp set of pre-referendum reforms.