Straw poll: Do you want to retain FOM?

kabayiri

Doshwaster wrote: »

...
Yes, from the Polish people (and other EU nationalities) I meet and work with most seem to be only interested in working in the UK for a few years to get experience they couldn't gain at home, build up some savings and to improve their English to full professional proficiency before returning home where they can get a good job, buy a house and start a family.

This is entirely rational from their perspective.

But equally, we are told we need these people here to "pay for future pensions" in Hamish's words. People who head back to Poland won't be doing that.

There is a contradiction though. The Polish people I speak to who work in the Polish office don't seem too keen on cheaper migrant labour going there; people traditionally from the East. They cite religious and cultural differences, but it's still protectionism.

Doshwaster

kabayiri wrote: »

This is entirely rational from their perspective.

But equally, we are told we need these people here to "pay for future pensions" in Hamish's words. People who head back to Poland won't be doing that..

No, but they will be replaced by another cohort of in 3-4 years when they "go home". The vast majority coming here are young, working and healthy so they don't consume many public services but they are paying taxes and I doubt that in 40 years time they will bother to claim the UK pension that they paid into.

The UK has an ageing population so the constant stream of young people who are willing to come here for a few years in their 20s is very good for the economy.

Leaving the EU and stopping FOM won't do anything about the need for employers in both the public and private sector for workers. It just means that there will be an extra layer of cost and bureaucracy to the hiring process. Anyone who hopes or expects immigration to significantly fall is going to be very disappointed. The government won't want to see the economy suffer or jobs move abroad so I can see the work visas being available to just about anyone who wants one.

coffeehound

antrobus wrote: »

The claim is that the Central and Eastern European Countries have somehow 'suffered' from FOM, and by implication we'd be doing them a favour by not letting their citizens come here to work. I'd like to see some actual economics behind that argument.

Skills shortages in Eastern European countries as a result of mass emigration was widely reported in the years following 2004. Just from a google this quote is from a 2015 EU publication:

"Every third employer in Poland reports a skills shortage. Reported skills shortages are highest in
the manufacturing, industrial, mining, construction, and transport sectors."

[Here's your link]

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

kabayiri wrote: »

we are told we need these people here to "pay for future pensions" in Hamish's words. People who head back to Poland won't be doing that.

Not a problem so long as they are replaced by others in the future.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Carl31 wrote: »

The table shows EU funding as a % of GDP, Bulgaria is listed at 2.95%, and Poland 4%, which is very similar to the numbers you quoted - so if EU funding equates to their growth, what is coming from their economy? not much by the looks of it

Just... wow.

OK - simple lesson in [STRIKE]economics [/STRIKE] basic maths.

If you have 98 and the EU gives you 2 you now have 100.

If the next year you have 98 and the EU gives you 2 you still only have 100.

If the year after you have 98 and the EU gives you 2 then once again you still only have 100 - there has been no economic growth.

So if your GDP grew by 2% then it wasn't from the EU - what actually happened is you had 98 and the EU gave you 2 and you had 2% growth on top so now you have 102.

If your economic growth is 2 Euros every year and that's only as a result of EU funding then they'd need to be giving you 2 Euros more every year.

So 98 +2 in year one - 98 + 4 in year two, 98 + 6 in year three, 98 + 8 in year four, 98 + 10 in year five, etc...

What has actually happened is that EU contributions to countries like Poland have been falling - Poland will soon become a net contributor - because the seed money of EU funding was invested in modernising infrastructure and that led to a multiplier effect of economic growth which means they need less funding and can now buy more stuff from the other EU countries that initially helped them out....

Exactly what is supposed to happen.

And it's working.

mwpt

kabayiri wrote: »

I gave you some very clear examples as to why FOM is basically a "crock".

I didn't agree with those arguments though. Maybe partly, but not fully.

There are very practical reasons why a family in numerous regional towns can not up sticks and move to Cambridge or Oxford or London for work. Logistics and money will always come in to it.

Perhaps I'm being dim but how are you using this as an argument *against* FOM? The fact that some people won't do it? I don't get it.

Here's a simple question. Why is the EU pumping hundreds of billions of Euros into a place like Poland when all the aspirational Polish people are moving to places like Germany and UK for work?

These are conflicting patterns.

Could it be that they see the UK as a stopgap measure, until Poland has caught up, by which time they would all move back to a prosperous Poland?

I don't see it as conflicting in the same way as I'm happy for my tax money (net contributor by far) to be used to enrich other regions in the UK. If people want to move from Sunderland to London to work, why not? If people want to move from Poland to the UK to work, why not?

mwpt

coffeehound wrote: »

Skills shortages in Eastern European countries as a result of mass emigration was widely reported in the years following 2004. Just from a google this quote is from a 2015 EU publication:

"Every third employer in Poland reports a skills shortage. Reported skills shortages are highest in
the manufacturing, industrial, mining, construction, and transport sectors."

[Here's your link]

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=skills+shortage+in+the+uk

mwpt

CLAPTON wrote: »

its a very logical way to look at it, but the only logical conclusion is that you should support unlimitied and uncontrolled movement of people to and from all countries.
Apart from the inevitable wars and 100's of millions killed, it would not improve the welfare of the people of the UK : however that is not your objective.

But we've actually talked about this before and as you know, like you, I am pragmatic and don't believe it is possible at this point to manage complete freedom of movement globally. I think that is pretty obvious.

However, I do believe EU FOM is manageable and even though the UK has seen short term high immigration, I feel that this would not have continued at current rate and things would have stabilised and worked out for all involved. Going back to my example above, we don't see all 65 million people of the UK living in London. You and I obviously know why this is, and I think the same logistics apply to FOM in towns, in regions, in the UK and ultimately across Europe because we are not all that different culturally and economically.

Do you think the people in London are worse off because people from Sunderland can move here? Overall, I don't think so. And my feeling on this extends to FOM in the EU.

Obviously your next question is, why not the rest of the world. My answer is that I fully expect borders to start to become permeable across the globe in the future. It will take a long time but it will happen. There will always be conservative people but, just like many ideas we now consider silly or horrible (women could not vote, slavery, being gay was illegal), people will slowly come round to the idea of a more open world.

kabayiri

mwpt wrote: »

I didn't agree with those arguments though. Maybe partly, but not fully.
...

Your choice. That's fine. Everyone can have a different perspective.

It doesn't bother me.

Right now, there is a problem people have with FOM. It's cited as one of the main reasons they voted to Leave.

I respect their view as well. In fact, it might work to my advantage.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

kabayiri wrote: »

In fact, it might work to my advantage.

How very mercenary of you....;)