The thread for pointless arguments about Brexit

cells

justme111 wrote: »

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.

Australia total population growth is about 2% while the uk total population growth is about 1%

Migration is working in the UK just that is a boring economic subject and you cant sit down 65 million people and explain it to them.

The UK currently has about 5% unemployment but the 'true' figure is closer to 1% which is those who are unemployed for more than 12 months. The 5% headline figure falls for each week so that by 26 weeks its about 2% and by 52 weeks its 1%

So we have full employment. The migrants dont displace the locals onto unemployment. The migrants displace locals up the skill and pay levels.


For arguments sake imagine a country with zero unemployment (we are close to this but just to keep it simple imagine zero). If there are 30 million workers, remember zero unemployment, and 3 million more workers come who mostly take the lower paid lower skill jobs, still zero unemployment, what happened. Well before the locals were taking out the trash and working the low paid retail jobs and doing cooking cleaning and waiting jobs. Now the migrants are doing the low paid low skilled work but since unemployment is still zero that means the locals have been pushed up a band or few. The pyramid of jobs has expanded and the migrants have taken the lowest rung leaving jobs all the way upto the top for locals. This displacement effect isnt know by most but its very real and very clear mathematics

cells

justme111 wrote: »

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

if you dont make it them v us, they and certainly their children are British in everything from language to culture just maybe not in how they look....and for the EU migrants most of them even how they look is often indistinguishable. My neighbours on one side are french the other side Italian and you would never know they were not English if they didn't have their accents and their kids dont even have that.

CLAPTON

cells wrote: »

Australia total population growth is about 2% while the uk total population growth is about 1%

Migration is working in the UK just that is a boring economic subject and you cant sit down 65 million people and explain it to them.

The UK currently has about 5% unemployment but the 'true' figure is closer to 1% which is those who are unemployed for more than 12 months. The 5% headline figure falls for each week so that by 26 weeks its about 2% and by 52 weeks its 1%

So we have full employment. The migrants dont displace the locals onto unemployment. The migrants displace locals up the skill and pay levels.


For arguments sake imagine a country with zero unemployment (we are close to this but just to keep it simple imagine zero). If there are 30 million workers, remember zero unemployment, and 3 million more workers come who mostly take the lower paid lower skill jobs, still zero unemployment, what happened. Well before the locals were taking out the trash and working the low paid retail jobs and doing cooking cleaning and waiting jobs. Now the migrants are doing the low paid low skilled work but since unemployment is still zero that means the locals have been pushed up a band or few. The pyramid of jobs has expanded and the migrants have taken the lowest rung leaving jobs all the way upto the top for locals. This displacement effect isnt know by most but its very real and very clear mathematics

lets for the sake of argument image a country where people had a decent chance of living in a family sized house, had a comfortable journey to work every day, where the journey was quite short, where access to health services were readily available, where the beachs, mountains were not too crowded, where people earned a decent wage because there wasn't a wall of people arriving each day, where businesses were incentivised to innovate and increase productivity, where we didn't have a massive balance of payment deficits, where are foreign borrowing wasn't rising each year, where we didn't need to sell off our businesses to pay for current consumption........................

justme111

cells wrote: »

Migration is working in the UK just that is a boring economic subject and you cant sit down 65 million people

We are talking about different things again. I never said "immigrants take our jobs" ( although in my field (healthcare) they do. Massive immigrant influx made it possible for government to keep the service while driving earnings about 30% down. Because immigrants work for far less .)
You may well be right that from economical pov they are good (although calculations could be much more complicated ,I am not sure I agree with your interpretation of unemployment numbers for example)
I said "it was not working" from society perspective. Clearly many people are not happy about it and dismissing them as wrong does not change the fact they are not happy. I am not going to start listing all negatives from immigration here now , it is done extensively and widely in people talking and media.

Your neighbours may be the loveliest people. I do not make it "them and us". I am an immigrant myself!
It does not change that immigration is more than country could deal with.

Re Australia - population growth - does in include people born in the country? Because if so then it has nothing to do with immigration. Even if not - imagine 2 million of uk residents leave every single year and 2 300 000 immigrants come. Population growth 300 000. In Australia lets say nobody leaves and 600 000 come. Population growth twice more than in the UK , but UK has 3.5 times more immigrants to cope with than Australia.
It is just an example why could it be that Australia is coping and we not. In any case it does not matter that Australia is coping because we are not . Must be our population is far more bigoted and stupid.

mwpt

justme111 wrote: »

We are talking about different things again. I never said "immigrants take our jobs" ( although in my field (healthcare) they do. Massive immigrant influx made it possible for government to keep the service while driving earnings about 30% down. Because immigrants work for far less .)

Does that mean that without immigrants we would have to pay higher salaries in the NHS meaning higher government spending, higher borrowing and higher taxes? So your wages increase but immediately get taken away from you.

mwpt

justme111 wrote: »

It does not change that immigration is more than country could deal with.

This is not true. You should not make statements of facts when they are just opinions.

CLAPTON

mwpt wrote: »

Does that mean that without immigrants we would have to pay higher salaries in the NHS meaning higher government spending, higher borrowing and higher taxes? So your wages increase but immediately get taken away from you.

wages overall would indeed be higher and so would the incentive to make services more productive rather than simply relying on cheap labour
we would also have a better quality of life

Joestock

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.

OK so it's fine for us to build a new average size city every year for the next god knows how many years and use up increasing amounts of green space. Medical studies have shown that our lungs have been damaged by increased traffic pollution. This is evident by increased cases of asthma, hay fever and cancer due to weakened immune systems. Today's pollution is not as visible as it once was but its still there. When I was a school child there may have been one or two persons in the whole school of a thousand who suffered with asthma or hay fever. These days its a significant proportion!

Joestock

lets for the sake of argument image a country where people had a decent chance of living in a family sized house, had a comfortable journey to work every day, where the journey was quite short, where access to health services were readily available, where the beachs, mountains were not too crowded, where people earned a decent wage because there wasn't a wall of people arriving each day, where businesses were incentivised to innovate and increase productivity, where we didn't have a massive balance of payment deficits, where are foreign borrowing wasn't rising each year, where we didn't need to sell off our businesses to pay for current consumption........................

My exact sentiment I think we are on the same wavelength!

rlc22

Joestock wrote: »

OK so it's fine for us to build a new average size city every year for the next god knows how many years and use up increasing amounts of green space. Medical studies have shown that our lungs have been damaged by increased traffic pollution. This is evident by increased cases of asthma, hay fever and cancer due to weakened immune systems. Today's pollution is not as visible as it once was but its still there. When I was a school child there may have been one or two persons in the whole school of a thousand who suffered with asthma or hay fever. These days its a significant proportion!

Is there any data showing the data for other countries and the increase in hay fever, asthma, cancer etc? Correlation doesn't necessarily equal causation...

In turn, is there any evidence that increase in population has lead to the increased traffic pollution? Nowadays it's so much cheaper to buy and run cars so I would have thought that would have a massive impact on pollution levels.