Exploitation, Exploitation, Exploitation

CLAPTON

HornetSaver wrote: »

There was more than a slight dose of tongue-in-cheek in my response. I went to great lengths to be as ridiculous-yet-rational as the comment I quoted, though I struggled to be as ridiculous.

Immigration is a problem insofar as we have not planned for it, and I'm not just talking about housing. New Labour failed to comprehend that population growth requires balanced improvements in infrastructure, of which housing is a part (they were fantastic at certain areas, most notably police and health and terrible at others, such as transportation, housing and the number, though not quality, of schools). The Tories, whilst acknowledging the need for a revolution in housebuilding and transport improvements, failed to get building off the ground soon enough, and planned poorly by failing to realise that a by-product of strong job growth is strong population growth ("immigration will be in the tens of thousands").

I'm on the fence on how to vote in the referendum. Short term and from a me first perspective, leaving is a no-brainer as my primary concern is the housing market (though I would have preferred the referendum were in 2017 as implied for the last five years or so, as I'd be much better positioned then). But I'm strongly of the view that remaining is the better long term economic option. Job and wage growth is respectable because we have both the ability to create jobs, the ability to fill them, and enough jobseekers and people looking to climb the ladder to backfill roles that become vacant. To vote to leave because we are unable to solve structural problems related to population growth we have known about for decades seems a bit extreme.

Unless one has a philosophical view that population growth is a good thing on some moral level, then I would only welcome it if it makes the people of the UK better off i.e gives them a better 'standard' of living (subject to your own view of what standard of living means).

Simply growth in jobs, is no benefit as there are more job seekers due to immigration.
Currently it seems to me that wage growth is very low and is being massively held back by immigration: housing, transport and infrastructure problems are directly caused by immigration.
Currently I take the view that in general we are now worse off due to immigration.
If we resolved the infrastructure problems, it would only be at a massive cost and rise in tax levels. Even on a narrow economic basis this would put the economic benefits of immigration firmly into the negative region.

Mistermeaner

Clapton you should add that to your signature, save you typing it in every thread. Just think of how much more productive that would make you.

cells

CLAPTON wrote: »

we have a situation where large scale immigration causes much harm to the people in london and the SE with no significant benefits
and in other parts of the country large scale immigration causes only a little harm and provides no significants benefits

So you have gone from immigration is bad, to immigrantion is bad only in London and somewhat in the SE and not all that bad elsewhere??

cells

Generali wrote: »

Apart from all those doctors of course. 26% of NHS doctors are foreign born apparently:

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jan/26/nhs-foreign-nationals-immigration-health-service

We could train our own doctors medicine is probably the most oversubscribed course and plenty of tripple A grade students get turned down. Would be a better use of the education budget than training lawyers who will be paralegals on apprentice wages claiming subsidence payments

cells

kinger101 wrote: »

That's quite a crude method of determining how much the house costs someone. Low interest rates typically correlate with low inflation, and you shouldn't underestimate the effect this has on a mortgage.

I don't know how many times you've been told that banks don't solely rely on income multiples in determining affordability either.

What do you suggest, one picks a metric to suit the data and the confirmation bias?

Homes in much of the country are cheaper relative to wages and mortgage payments are much cheaper relative to wages in about half the country. But a pessimist will find some way to be gloomy no matter the situation

CLAPTON

cells wrote: »

So you have gone from immigration is bad, to immigrantion is bad only in London and somewhat in the SE and not all that bad elsewhere??

Why would any one wish to do some little harm in some places , some more harm in other places and a lot of harm elsewhere with no benefits?

cells

CLAPTON wrote: »

the main reason that the UK (especial London and the SE) has a housing shortage isn't the native high birth rate but the number of immigrants over 8 million nationally and over 3 million in London alone

Im not sure thats a reasonable answer to why London is expensive

Becuase I could just as well counter, why dont people move out from expensive London to cheap as chips stoke (immigrants or locals)?

The reason is the jobs, the economy, its a lot better in London. London has boomed over the last 20 years so much so that had London continued to grow at only the same pace as the rest of the UK we would have an economy roughly £150,000,000,000 a year smaller than it is.

So its not the immigrants sustaining crazy prices, its the crazy economic boom in London over the last 20 years that are sustaining high prices.

It also explains why some towns like stoke, which too has immigrants many more than in the past, are cheaper in real terms than they were two decades ago

michaels

Being exploited for low wages is terrible, but perhaps the alternative, no longer being exploited, is worse?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-35841258

CLAPTON

Mistermeaner wrote: »

Clapton you should add that to your signature, save you typing it in every thread. Just think of how much more productive that would make you.

you are, of course, welcome to post what you like

but it would be more interesting if you actually made some sort of contribution : you could e.g. say why you think
-small pokey living conditions are a 'good thing'
-high rents are a good thing
-high house prices are a good thing
-zero real wages increases are a good thing
-low productivity is a good thing
-increased importation of essential goods like food, fuel, gas etc is a good thing
-huge backlog of very costly infrastructure is a good thing
-why increased tax rates to pay for the infrastructure is a good thing
-increased foreign ownership of UK businesses is a good thing
-increasing foreign debt is a good thing
-increased proportion of profits goes abroad is a good thing
-increase congestion is a good thing
.......
......

then we would have something of substance to discuss

kinger101

cells wrote: »

What do you suggest, one picks a metric to suit the data and the confirmation bias?

Homes in much of the country are cheaper relative to wages and mortgage payments are much cheaper relative to wages in about half the country. But a pessimist will find some way to be gloomy no matter the situation

I'm not being a pessimist. Relative to income is a better measure. But that fluctuates with interest rests and wage inflation. The averages have actually remained fairly constant over the last two decaces;



For FTB - the amounts are not as bad is the late 80's interest rate spike, or the 2007 peak, but even the 2013 data shows they're above what the were in the 90s.



Of course, how much money people have for mortgages also depends on other factors such as food costs, fuel costs. We don't need to spend 40% of our income on food anymore.

But I think you idea the houses are more affordable now doesn't stand up in the face of the recent decline in home ownership, and the amount of deposit on has to raise now.