If we vote for Brexit what happens

Conrad

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Yes...

Just those pesky 'Experts' telling you truths you don't want to hear.

Never mind then.

Idiots including myself kept pointing out pre-vote that the experts and the BOE boss were at pains NOT to factor in the tools at the BOEs disposal following a vote for leave shock, such as cutting interest rates, lol. They also deliberately used modelling that assumed no trade deals, and trade with EU inexplicably badly hurt.

Shoulda done to Brainsavers....dohhh

CLAPTON

cells wrote: »

Imagine just the UK no migrants in or out.
Imagine 10% of the population and workforce just die but by coincidence its the 10% of the lowest paid that all die.

What happens?
Well you need to get rid of 10% of the doctors 10% of the solicitors etc you no longer need them. But the economy still needs 90% of the lost shelf stackers and cleaners and taxi drivers and so on. So the poor doctor that just got fired needs to become the cleaner and the solicitor needs to become the taxi driver. (Or more likely multiple smaller steps down the path)

Lower skill migration is the opposite of this. If a million low skill migrants come and enter the bottom quarter of the workforce then 0.97 million locals from the bottom quarter get displaced to the quarter above. 0.94 million from that quarter get displaced up to the next quarter. 0.90 million from that quarter get displaced up to the top quarter. The opposite would also hold if a million migrants left the country and left the bottom quarter then we would see a cascading down of the locals into those positions.

Less migration means more working class local kids can pick the strawberries rather than be displaced up to better pay and conduction jobs.

presumably you fully accept this very harm is being done to Poland, Romania etc who are living proof of your hypothesis

Conrad

cells wrote: »

Imagine just the UK no migrants in or out.
Imagine 10% of the population and workforce just die but by coincidence its the 10% of the lowest paid that all die.

What happens?
Well you need to get rid of 10% of the doctors 10% of the solicitors etc you no longer need them. But the economy still needs 90% of the lost shelf stackers and cleaners and taxi drivers and so on. So the poor doctor that just got fired needs to become the cleaner and the solicitor needs to become the taxi driver. (Or more likely multiple smaller steps down the path)

Lower skill migration is the opposite of this. If a million low skill migrants come and enter the bottom quarter of the workforce then 0.97 million locals from the bottom quarter get displaced to the quarter above. 0.94 million from that quarter get displaced up to the next quarter. 0.90 million from that quarter get displaced up to the top quarter. The opposite would also hold if a million migrants left the country and left the bottom quarter then we would see a cascading down of the locals into those positions.

Less migration means more working class local kids can pick the strawberries rather than be displaced up to better pay and conduction jobs.

Cells with respect this is all very paint numbers theorising, things just won't pan out in the linear fashion you imagine.

Japan's problems are not due to lack of Human Beings, but more associated with a resistance to spending and propensity for saving. If the only answer is importing ever more Humans, one day it becomes unsustainable (and in the meantime has much downside) and then you are forced to confront more intelligent policy.

Mogley

Peter Lilly's proposals seem so spectacularly simple that I hope some of them come to fruition. As vivatifosi puts it, hopefully "cool heads and common sense will win through in the end".

michaels

Of course, for all those remainers disappointed with the result of the referendum you can look at it as a price worth paying to avoid PM Boris....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37439890

cells

CLAPTON wrote: »

presumably you fully accept this very harm is being done to Poland, Romania etc who are living proof of your hypothesis

The remittance sent back via the migrants allows the less developed nations to purchase labour multipliers so they benefit

However for comparable nations yes they are worse off economically. If a million young healthy Brits go to Germany we lose. If a million young healthy Germans come to the UK they lose.

CLAPTON

cells wrote: »

The remittance sent back via the migrants allows the less developed nations to purchase labour multipliers so they benefit

However for comparable nations yes they are worse off economically. If a million young healthy Brits go to Germany we lose. If a million young healthy Germans come to the UK they lose.

So for nations like Poland, Romania etc the free movement of labour is a real negative as its very unlikely that the emigrant send back substantial amounts of money.

So a lose lose situation whereby both Poland and the uK are both worse off albeit in different ways.

cells

Conrad wrote: »

Cells with respect this is all very paint numbers theorising, things just won't pan out in the linear fashion you imagine.

Japan's problems are not due to lack of Human Beings, but more associated with a resistance to spending and propensity for saving. If the only answer is importing ever more Humans, one day it becomes unsustainable (and in the meantime has much downside) and then you are forced to confront more intelligent policy.

Its fairly simple. Economically and financially the UK and its people benefit from young migrants. If the UK lost young locals we would be at a loss financially. I don't know why Clapton is trying so hard to deny this.

Imagine if every single person aged 20-40 left the UK clearly we would be screwed. Well the same applies if 5 million such people leave we would be at a loss. The reverse is also true if 5 million 20-40 year old arrive we are at a benefit.


Its not about life and death its about wealth. Even if everyone age 20-40 died in the UK we would survive. Of course we would be much much poorer. Likewise if the number of 20-40 year olds in the UK doubled we would be much much richer. And by that I don't mean just that we would have a !!!!!! number in the bank account. I mean we could afford to pay pensioners more. We could afford to cut taxes for the working age. We could afford more expensive and difficult NHS treatments.

The idea that the migrants will be a problem or a burden in the future also doesn't hold true. In the same way that if we lost all the local 20-40 year olds you couldn't say oh don't worry its just a problem for now it will be OK in 30 years. Of course it won't be. Likewise if we did have double the number of 20-40 year olds it would be much better not just for one generation but for multiple generations as the state could use the massive excess to save forugb assets for 30 years and then spend that dividend over 130 years

cells

CLAPTON wrote: »

So for nations like Poland, Romania etc the free movement of labour is a real negative as its very unlikely that the emigrant send back substantial amounts of money.

So a lose lose situation whereby both Poland and the uK are both worse off albeit in different ways.

You really do try your very hardest to lie and spin its getting annoying

For comparable nations the nation receiving the yong working migrants benefits and the one losing them loses.

For countries who are not on an equal footing eg the UK and Poland both benefit for multiple reasons. The primary one is that the migrants are more productive in the UK than in Poland. Another is remittance sent back allowing the polish to buy foreign machines that multiple labour.

So stop it when I say A you just go and say the opposite. Why?

CLAPTON

cells wrote: »

You really do try your very hardest to lie and spin its getting annoying

For comparable nations the nation receiving the yong working migrants benefits and the one losing them loses.

For countries who are not on an equal footing eg the UK and Poland both benefit for multiple reasons. The primary one is that the migrants are more productive in the UK than in Poland. Another is remittance sent back allowing the polish to buy foreign machines that multiple labour.

So stop it when I say A you just go and say the opposite. Why?

in what way is a polish waiter more 'productive' in the UK than in Poland?

what is the level of remittance to Poland?
presumably each pound sent back is a negative from the UK point of view.