Brexit, the economy and house prices (Part 3)

gfplux

Off topic.
The word immigrant is used in a negative way, while expat gives the opposite impression.
Brits who have emigrated like to describe themselves as expats to set themselves apart and above "the immigrants" who some of them think of as foreigners living in Britain.
As a sign that we are all humans we should not be using labels like this.
So wherever you come from if you live in another country you are an immigrant.
We live in the 21st Century not in Britains Colonial past.

Rusty_Shackleton

gfplux wrote: »

Off topic.
The word immigrant is used in a negative way, while expat gives the opposite impression.
Brits who have emigrated like to describe themselves as expats to set themselves apart and above "the immigrants" who some of them think of as foreigners living in Britain.
As a sign that we are all humans we should not be using labels like this.
So wherever you come from if you live in another country you are an immigrant.
We live in the 21st Century not in Britains Colonial past.

Indeed, the definitions of expat and immigrant given above are correct, but that doesn't match how the words are used in the popular vernacular. For example, the press and the public generally refer to British retirees in Spain as Expats. How exactly would most of those peoples' moves to Spain be considered temporary?!

kabayiri

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

The problem with this argument is that it has been proven false throughout all of history.
...

It clearly hasn't.

The container ship was one key enabler which supported the shifting of mass production centres half way around the world.

Yes, they increased production of items by lowering the price, but it is of no consolation when those jobs are thousands of miles away.

You imply that change is even, when it is not.

I understand your motivation well. You want humans to do work, because humans need houses and thats been your beef for years.

Rusty_Shackleton

simondm wrote: »

"Up to 9" but then "it" is referred to in the singular by Cable in the next paragraph, which could be countered by the singular report from the BOE that found it does suppress workers wages.

Would that be the BoE report that found wage suppression of 2% over 8 years?

That report was widely misreported, but not in a way that favours the anti-immigrant brigade:

https://fullfact.org/immigration/does-immigration-reduce-wages/

Rusty_Shackleton

kabayiri wrote: »

It clearly hasn't.

The container ship was one key enabler which supported the shifting of mass production centres half way around the world.

Yes, they increased production of items by lowering the price, but it is of no consolation when those jobs are thousands of miles away.

Hamishs claim was entirely correct. The idea that the overall number of jobs will decrease dramatically due to technical progression has been proven false time and time again.

In the 20th century this country lost millions of jobs in manufacturing, mining, containerisation displaced the majority of stevedore jobs. Yet here we are with record low unemployment in the UK. The number of jobs might dip temporarily, but it is always replaced.

The problem is the quality and pay associated with the replacement jobs, e.g. the 'boom' in employment in recent years is due to low level service sector work (retail, leisure, food service).

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

kabayiri wrote: »

It clearly hasn't.

We have record high employment in the UK today.

Everyone throughout history, without exception, who argued that automation would reduce the number of jobs in Britain has been categorically proven wrong.

I understand your motivation well. You want humans to do work, because humans need houses pay taxes and thats been your beef for years.

Fixed that for you...

A_Medium_Size_Jock

Moby wrote: »

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09/06/theresa-mays-brexit-plans-disarray-amber-rudd-damian-green-refuse/

Even the Torygraph is turning against her.

Because of one story about a supposedly leaked immigration police - which was no more than a draft in the first place?
Righty ho.
A touch of desperation there methinks.

kabayiri

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

We have record high employment in the UK today.

Everyone throughout history, without exception, who argued that automation would reduce the number of jobs in Britain has been categorically proven wrong.



Fixed that for you...

Hehe. Well, the taxes conundrum is indeed a good one.

I don't know anybody who has the answer to that yet.

It really depends if you see technological progress as a set of disruptors or not. I do.

kabayiri

Rusty_Shackleton wrote: »

...
The problem is the quality and pay associated with the replacement jobs, e.g. the 'boom' in employment in recent years is due to low level service sector work (retail, leisure, food service).

Some people thought that the Chinese would prove happy just doing the outsourced manufacturing work.

Having worked with some of the more entrepreneurial types there, this was never the case.

They just saw manufacturing as a lead in to the higher value add elements up the chain.

I do differentiate between the types of replacement jobs, and therefore make a qualitative assessment.

For example, a twenty fold increase in coffee shop workers in 18 years. At the risk of sounding snobbish, I do not see these as high value jobs replacing work done in the digital print industry for example.

On a pure numbers basis they do.

Anyway, I'm way OT here, but I was bored with the definition of 'expat'.

Rusty_Shackleton

kabayiri wrote: »

Hehe. Well, the taxes conundrum is indeed a good one.

I don't know anybody who has the answer to that yet.

It really depends if you see technological progress as a set of disruptors or not. I do.

I agree technological progress is disruptive... I would say it's so almost by definition, improved efficiency always produces winners and losers. I just think society should make a real effort to support the losers of progression though re-training and encouraging new jobs in the areas where old jobs have been lost. These are two areas which the UK has historically been rather poor at, I happen to think Thatcher was right in terms of getting rid of coal mining for example (especially, in retrospect, given the environmental situation), but to abandon the affected communities was gross negligence on the part of the government.

Disruption because of progress isn't a bad thing. it's just how we handle it.