The thread for pointless arguments about Brexit

cells

justme111 wrote: »

Now you are talking on a different topic. I pointed out how that public services is not an automatically adjustable system like tesco. No need to argue with me on utility of immigrants substituting one topic of discussion in which for another (mind , if you did not see fundamental difference between private business and government funded institutions I have little trust in your ability to calculate anything let alone such a complex issue.
Now , I do not have enough knowledge to calculate how useful each immigrant is.
I have enough sense though to see something does not add up in your calculations. If immigrants are so good why to have any limits? Abolish border control and visa systems. After all every immigrant is a net gain, right?
It would be about a billion of them , how much richer Britain would be !

my conclusion is not that all migrants are a net positive for finances its that the younger they are the better the economic contribution. That should be obviously clear to anyone

Somewhere around age 20 being the best and around age 70 being the worst. So a migration policy which discriminated not on skill but age would probably be more beneficial to the locals

I do however conclude that taking the average profile of ages and labour participation of EU migrants is a positive on the taxes and economic welfare of the locals.

It might be less so if the migrants are for example from countries where women dont work and if they continue that tradition their overall participation rates would be lower and the economic benefit lower (it might even be a net negative I haven't tried to figure it out for every nation out there although yes I suspect if from nations with low women participation in work its probably a net negative)


There will of course be some physical limit to how many can come I dont know what that limit is but I know Australia is growing at about 2% a year and they are a functioning and rich developed country so one can make the argument that 2% is sustainable figure. The UK recent migration is about half of that so well within proven sustainable levels.

cells

Joestock wrote: »

Exactly my point we do not have enough land mass.

Thats just a baseless claim, its not even that good as its just an empty statement as you need to complete the sentence.

Also why is your view more valid than mine. Here you go. We have enough land for everything we need or will ever need for a population substantially higher than what we have today.

prosaver

BobQ wrote: »

You mean apart from in huge letters on the side of a large bus?

Try this then

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36040060

we could dosent we are going too and wheres the bus pic??

he table is 2 year old ..why?

justme111

cells wrote: »

First I dont accept the premise that the NHS is broken or that we lack for schools or hospitals or any other infrastructure.

With GPs having 7 minutes per patient and one issue only to discuss? With many statistic indicators far lower than in other developed countries? With elderly not washed, fed and looked after? Or do you think mid Staffordshire was the only one? With three out of four hospitals failing by CQC standards? With quality of life being shafted for as NHS can not afford a lot of what is classed "not value for money" treatment, ie if something would offer improvement of let's say 50% to 30% of people it may be considered bot effective enough and not even mentioned anywhere because one can not acknowledge something can be good for one and not available on the NHS. (I do not know the actual numbers , they differ depending on conditions and severity but the principle applies).
Do not even start me on schools and police and so on.

You strike me as someone who have had minimal contact with immigrants , health service , schools and police :rotfl:

I by the way do not think it is due to immigrants that it happens so the above rant is irrelevant in the context of this discussion.

Joestock

OK let's have it your way and carry on killing ourselves with increased pollution and destroying the environment due to population growth. Just to be a little wealthier.

prosaver

i went into tescos today and seen a massive advert for food bank,i asked the tescos worker, what is that for? because we leaving the EU? he joked ..yes were stocking up ..lol

cells

justme111 wrote: »

With GPs having 7 minutes per patient and one issue only to discuss? With many statistic indicators far lower than in other developed countries? With elderly not washed, fed and looked after? Or do you think mid Staffordshire was the only one? With three out of four hospitals failing by CQC standards? With quality of life being shafted for as NHS can not afford a lot of what is classed "not value for money" treatment, ie if something would offer improvement of let's say 50% to 30% of people it may be considered bot effective enough and not even mentioned anywhere because one can not acknowledge something can be good for one and not available on the NHS. (I do not know the actual numbers , they differ depending on conditions and severity but the principle applies).
Do not even start me on schools and police and so on.

You strike me as someone who have had minimal contact with immigrants , health service , schools and police :rotfl:

I by the way do not think it is due to immigrants that it happens so the above rant is irrelevant in the context of this discussion.

well i have lived in London most my life and some of my closest friends are foreign

It is true I seldom use the NHS, the last time I went to the GP the Indian GP lady was lovely and dealt with me in a manner I was happy with. The last time I needed a minor operation I was happy with the time it took and the choices I had. I am sure when I am older and need the NHS more I too will complain its not good enough because healthcare is one of those things which can never be good enough. Thats not to say the NHS is perfect it has a million employees and many more millions in 'customers' so there are bound to be mistakes and bad doctors and bad hospitals but overall with a uk life expectancy of 81 years which is more or less the same as France/Germany and higher than most the rest of Europe I dont feel I dont feel we can class the NHS as a failure

cells

Joestock wrote: »

OK let's have it your way and carry on killing ourselves with increased pollution and destroying the environment due to population growth. Just to be a little wealthier.

our air is cleaner than its ever been in living memory
we use less energy than we did 30 years ago
and the environment and earth far from being destroyed by humans, will be saved by our species.

justme111

cells wrote: »

my conclusion is not that all migrants are a net positive for finances its that the younger they are the better the economic contribution. That should be obviously clear to anyone

Somewhere around age 20 being the best and around age 70 being the worst. So a migration policy which discriminated not on skill but age would probably be more beneficial to the locals

I do however conclude that taking the average profile of ages and labour participation of EU migrants is a positive on the taxes and economic welfare of the locals.

It might be less so if the migrants are for example from countries where women dont work and if they continue that tradition their overall participation rates would be lower and the economic benefit lower (it might even be a net negative I haven't tried to figure it out for every nation out there although yes I suspect if from nations with low women participation in work its probably a net negative)


There will of course be some physical limit to how many can come I dont know what that limit is but I know Australia is growing at about 2% a year and they are a functioning and rich developed country so one can make the argument that 2% is sustainable figure. The UK recent migration is about half of that so well within proven sustainable levels.

Of course not all migration is bad and extreme ( very little) is imho no good either. I objected to your blanket statement in earlier post about how good it was.
My grotesque suggestion of abolishing border control was precisely to elicit acknowledgement from you that there is a limit to what normally functioning society can assimilate.
I personally believe we are beyond that limit and public opinion shows it is the case , otherwise there would not be anti immigration feelings. I do not know what about Australia, may be they are more selective in immigration, may bebtheir government planned it better , may be we are not comparing like with like ( net migration in uk with total in Australia). The elephant in the room is it is not working here as it is, let alone that it would have had almost certainly became worse - imagine Turkey free movement.

justme111

cells wrote: »

well i have lived in London most my life and some of my closest friends are foreign

It is true I seldom use the NHS, the last time I went to the GP the Indian GP lady was lovely and dealt with me in a manner I was happy with. The last time I needed a minor operation I was happy with the time it took and the choices I had. I am sure when I am older and need the NHS more I too will complain its not good enough because healthcare is one of those things which can never be good enough. Thats not to say the NHS is perfect it has a million employees and many more millions in 'customers' so there are bound to be mistakes and bad doctors and bad hospitals but overall with a uk life expectancy of 81 years which is more or less the same as France/Germany and higher than most the rest of Europe I dont feel I dont feel we can class the NHS as a failure

Depends on expectations I suppose. People who live in North Korea do not think their regime is oppressive , it is normal for them.
Mind, I think NHS is very good for free at the point of delivery system. I suppose classing is as "broken" is a bit too wooly definition so difficult to argue for or against. In any case it is under enormous strain and less of it would be welcome.
Re friends immigrants - I thought you would have said so. It is very superficial and personal knowledge of it.
British must be very stubborn to survive for so long:D