Exploitation, Exploitation, Exploitation

CLAPTON

cells wrote: »

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

whether the economy would be smaller or not, people lives would be better, which to me, is the purpose of economy activity.
I believe that if there were 3,000,000 fewer immigrants in London then life for the people would be a lot better and there would still be loads of jobs
and indeed, its very likely that real wages would be higher and rising.

Mistermeaner

CLAPTON wrote: »

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

Bits of the uk are overpopulated but other bits are not. I personally would not want to live in london or se and therefore dont

Many of the problems you highlight are real concerns for me but i dont think they are either caused or fixed by leaving the eu and or stopping immigration.

I have more respect for immigrants who make the effort to get here to try to improve their lives than i do for much of the indigenous population and their sense of entitlement. The arbitrary location of an individuals birth has little meaning for me.

Alot of the issues you highlight could be resolved by euthenasing everyone over 70 and anyone who is unemployed.

Why do you lay the problem at the door of people who happen to be born elsewhere?

Why should someone who happens to be born in uk be entitled to 'stuff'?

cells

CLAPTON wrote: »

whether the economy would be smaller or not, people lives would be better, which to me, is the purpose of economy activity.
I believe that if there were 3,000,000 fewer immigrants in London then life for the people would be a lot better and there would still be loads of jobs
and indeed, its very likely that real wages would be higher and rising.

If there were 3 million less migrants in London its very very likely that there would be 3 million more natives in London. IF that were not true then the capital city of the nation would have a housing density (people per home) lower than the regions which Im sure you can agree is not realist

So then you boil down to, I believe that if there were 3 million fewer immigrants in London and in their place was 3 million more England folk, then life for the people would be a lot better. which is quite questionable.

Also if There was no immigration allowed in or out (if you close your doors and think its a good idea then other should do the same) we would probably be closer to 80 million in England. some 32 million australians and americans trace themselves back to England so we probably exported more people than we have imported

cells

kinger101 wrote: »

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.

I didnt say that, I said in more than half the towns and cities in the UK houses are more affordable now than a decade ago.

Here is one example.

Bradford average price now £96.7k, ten years ago £106.5k so it is 10% cheaper in nominal terms however wages are up 26.5% over the decade so in Bradford the average house is 29% cheaper relative to wages. Take into account that mortgage payments on a 25 year repayment mortgage are some 25% cheaper too.

You find that to buy the average house with a mortgage costs some 45% less relative to wages than it did 10 years ago

The same is true for about half the country. Prices buying with a mortgage relative to 10 years ago. For bradford the cost to buy with a mortgage are some 45% lower than a decade ago

CLAPTON

Mistermeaner wrote: »

Bits of the uk are overpopulated but other bits are not. I personally would not want to live in london or se and therefore dont

Many of the problems you highlight are real concerns for me but i dont think they are either caused or fixed by leaving the eu and or stopping immigration.

I have more respect for immigrants who make the effort to get here to try to improve their lives than i do for much of the indigenous population and their sense of entitlement. The arbitrary location of an individuals birth has little meaning for me.

Alot of the issues you highlight could be resolved by euthenasing everyone over 70 and anyone who is unemployed.

Why do you lay the problem at the door of people who happen to be born elsewhere?

Why should someone who happens to be born in uk be entitled to 'stuff'?

if, your view is that all people are equally entitled to equal income and wealth, then of course unrestricted immigration is logical.

out of interest do you practice what you preach: or are there special reasons why you theoretically think all should be equally poor but not just now?

CLAPTON

cells wrote: »

If there were 3 million less migrants in London its very very likely that there would be 3 million more natives in London. IF that were not true then the capital city of the nation would have a housing density (people per home) lower than the regions which Im sure you can agree is not realist

So then you boil down to, I believe that if there were 3 million fewer immigrants in London and in their place was 3 million more England folk, then life for the people would be a lot better. which is quite questionable.

Also if There was no immigration allowed in or out (if you close your doors and think its a good idea then other should do the same) we would probably be closer to 80 million in England. some 32 million australians and americans trace themselves back to England so we probably exported more people than we have imported

as I've posted before, its very likely that if there were 3 million fewer foreigners in London, then London would attract more UK people; the number would be sometime between 0 and 3 million: everyone in the UK would be better off ;
-better housing conditions in London
-more opportunity for UK people to come to London
-huge saving on infrastructure
-better access to NHS services
-faster travel times
etc etc

a win win for UK people although not necessarily for all your cousins

Mistermeaner

CLAPTON wrote: »

if, your view is that all people are equally entitled to equal income and wealth, then of course unrestricted immigration is logical.

out of interest do you practice what you preach: or are there special reasons why you theoretically think all should be equally poor but not just now?

I don't think I preached? Could you please point out what I was preaching and I will then tell you if I practice it.

Could you also please explain why you think I think that all should be equally poor but not just now as again I don't recall saying this and am at a loss as to why you think I think this.

Could you explain why you persist with debating in a style of either (a) off topiuc rants about immigration and/or (b) misinterpretting what someone has said and implying they have said something they haven't in the form of a strange binary question type question(s)?

Are you saying that by an aggressive interrogative style you will convince others of the correctness of your views?

Are you suggesting that we should euthenaise children who aren't lucky enough to be born here by letting them starve in warzones so that we can provide full time care to the elderly who would otherwise have died of natural causes many years ago just because their mother happened to give birth to them here?

CLAPTON

Mistermeaner wrote: »

I don't think I preached? Could you please point out what I was preaching and I will then tell you if I practice it.

Could you also please explain why you think I think that all should be equally poor but not just now as again I don't recall saying this and am at a loss as to why you think I think this.

Could you explain why you persist with debating in a style of either (a) off topiuc rants about immigration and/or (b) misinterpretting what someone has said and implying they have said something they haven't in the form of a strange binary question type question(s)?

Are you saying that by an aggressive interrogative style you will convince others of the correctness of your views?

Are you suggesting that we should euthenaise children who aren't lucky enough to be born here by letting them starve in warzones so that we can provide full time care to the elderly who would otherwise have died of natural causes many years ago just because their mother happened to give birth to them here?

no idea what you are saying

maybe , just maybe and i might be incorrect or putting words into your mouth and being too aggressive
but what are you suggesting we (the UK ) should do about people starving in war zone all over the world or indeed short of food anywhere or short of clean water or suffer FGM or to right the many wrongs of the world?

HornetSaver

CLAPTON wrote: »

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.

There are wider upsides and downsides. For instance jobs which the British working class have become increasingly accustomed to not doing, and would need to do in ever increasing proportions for the bottom of the payscale if an open doors policy ended. And at the other end of the spectrum, we compare favourably to nearly all other EU countries on pay for highly skilled workers and professionals.

But even if we accept all of your conclusions (none of which are unreasonable, some of which I tend to agree with, but most of which, even the ones I agree with, are open to debate), the other question is the alternative. This very week we have seen that even the seemingly measured and disciplined politicians are prone to putting political manouevring ahead of following the broad policy principles they originally set out to follow.

If they can do that on disability spending - despite disability allowances being the single strand of working age benefits where the Tories and Labour are in principle quite close together - for no reason other than to be seen to be cutting the benefits bill, they are most certainly capable of falling into the same trap on immigration. How long would it be before an obsession with immigration being below an arbitrary number resulted in large numbers of visas not being granted to people with skills that would clearly have outweighed the downsides of allowing them in?

CLAPTON

HornetSaver wrote: »

There are wider upsides and downsides. For instance jobs which the British working class have become increasingly accustomed to not doing, and would need to do in ever increasing proportions for the bottom of the payscale if an open doors policy ended. And at the other end of the spectrum, we compare favourably to nearly all other EU countries on pay for highly skilled workers and professionals.

But even if we accept all of your conclusions (none of which are unreasonable, some of which I tend to agree with, but most of which, even the ones I agree with, are open to debate), the other question is the alternative. This very week we have seen that even the seemingly measured and disciplined politicians are prone to putting political manouevring ahead of following the broad policy principles they originally set out to follow.

If they can do that on disability spending - despite disability allowances being the single strand of working age benefits where the Tories and Labour are in principle quite close together - for no reason other than to be seen to be cutting the benefits bill, they are most certainly capable of falling into the same trap on immigration. How long would it be before an obsession with immigration being below an arbitrary number resulted in large numbers of visas not being granted to people with skills that would clearly have outweighed the downsides of allowing them in?

Yes, but that the problem with democracy:
However, in general I am unconvinced that there are many skills we really need : most can be home grown if necessary.